Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-28 CPC Packetr . Water T H E B I N T H P LACE OF MINNESOTA 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 October 28", 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of September 23rd, 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 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. 2020-47: Consideration of a Variance related to the construction of an addition onto an existing detached garage on the property located at 902 61h Street South, in the RB District. Sean and Clodagh McAfee, property owner. 3. Case No. 2020-48: Consideration of Variances to the side yard setbacks for an existing 4- unit townhome on the property located at 1167 Parkwood Lane, in the TH district. Long Lake Villa Limited Partnership, property owner. 4. Case No. 2020-49: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback for a garage addition at the property located at 225 Hazel Street West, in the RA district. Andy Michels of Michels Homes, the applicant; and Cary Lund, property owner. 5. Case No. 2020-50: Consideration of Variances associated with the construction of an attached garage and porch on the property located at 805 3rd Street South, in the RB district. Charles and Amy Hartz, property owner. — TABLED TO 11/19/2020 MEETING 6. Case No. 2020-52: Consideration of a Final Planned Unit Development for Central Commons to be located at 5651, 5757 and 5775 Manning Avenue North in the HMU district. Mark Lambert, representative. Central Commons LLC, Property Owner. 7. Case No. 2020-53: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage for a shed to be located at 516 2TTd Street North in the RB district. Brad and Tiffany Vick, property owners. 8. Case No. 2020-54: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for White Pine Ridge, a proposed subdivision to be located at 12950 75th Street North. Jon and Ann Whitcomb, property owners. — TABLED TO 11/19/2020 MEETING 9. Case No. 2020-55: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated variances for a patio remodel, bathroom addition and trash enclosure building to be located at 127/131 Main Street South in the CBD district. Buettner Real Estate, property owner. 10. Case No. 2020-56: Consideration of a Variance for a garage addition at 416 Grove Street South in the RA district. Tim Jozelow of St. Croix Carpentry, applicant. Jeff Wright, property owner. VI. FYI — STAFF UPDATES — (NO PACKET MATERIALS) VII. ADJOURNMENT ��? - r .,..,.. YmnRbebl inz umeen iPh..e mertumeen imiuemw 0 0 11 �Vvater THE 7INTNYLA CE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 23, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Kocon Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of August 26, 2020 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Dybvig abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2020-14: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variances related to building a garage with living space above it, on the property located at 816 William St N, in the RB District. Brent from Image Contracting, applicant and Sarah McFarland, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the application. Sarah McFarland is planning to construct a 20' X 40' detached garage in the northwest portion of her lot, which will be accessed from Elm Street West. 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 existing 340 square foot attached garage has not been proposed to be altered. A 200 square foot shed is proposed to be removed. This case was denied by the Planning Commission in April 2020 because the accessory dwelling was proposed to be in the front yard, beyond the front line of the house. This would have been in contrast to the character of the existing neighborhood. Additionally, it was hard to prove a hardship since there was another, more compatible location. This more compatible location is now the general location that is being proposed. The applicant is requesting: 1) a Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a new garage; 2) a 192 square foot variance to allow for the total ground coverage of the accessory buildings (1140 square foot) to exceed the ground coverage of the principal building (948 square foot); 3) a 3 foot variance to allow the height of the accessory dwelling unit (22') to exceed that of the primary residence (approx. 19'); 4) a 10' variance to allow the garage to be set back 20' from the exterior side yard lot line and 8' behind the exterior side line of the house, whereas the required setback is 30' from the property line or at least 10' behind the house; and 5) a 140 square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all Planning Commission September 23, 2020 accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1140 square foot) to be greater than 1,000 square feet. Staff recommends approval with eight conditions. Commissioner Dybvig acknowledged he lives within the notification area for this application. He offered to recuse himself if the applicants would like. Sarah and Jim McFarland, applicants, said they are comfortable with Commissioner Dybvig participating in the discussion and vote. Commissioner Dybvig noted in the staff report it states the application was denied in April. However it was actually tabled for further review. Councilmember Collins agreed and expressed appreciation for the applicants revising the plans. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2020-14, Conditional Use Permit and Variances related to building a garage with living space above it, on the property located at 816 William St N with the eight conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2020-38: Consideration of a Variance to maximum accessory structure size on the property located at 6 River Heights Dr, in the RA district. William Samuelson, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Bill Samuelson is proposing to build a 11' X 18' (198 square foot) shed in the southwest corner of his property. Two variances were previously granted for a pool and a two - car garage addition but these were never constructed. Mr. Samuelson is favorable to the Commission rescinding those two variances as part of this application. He is requesting a 78 square foot variance to exceed the maximum size allowed. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked why the 200 square foot allowance in the building code is different than in zoning code. Ms. Wittman explained that until staff started seeing requests, there wasn't a need to change code. Looking at code amendments regarding accessory structures is rising toward the top of the Planning Department's large to-do list. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to approve Case No. 2020-38, Variance to maximum accessory structure size on the property located at 6 River Heights Dr, with four staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #5 rescinding the prior variances for the pool and garage addition. All in favor. Case No. 2020-39: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and associated Variances for an Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to a new garage on the property located at 1124 5th Street South, in the RB district. Miles Winslow, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Miles Winslow would like to construct a 504 square foot garage with an attached 294 square foot, lower level Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). He is requesting a Special Use Permit to convert the existing garage's first level into an Accessory Dwelling Unit, requiring a 110 square foot variance for the accessory structure footprint to exceed the primary residence's footprint area. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Chairman Lauer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission September 23, 2020 Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2020-39, Special Use Permit and associated Variances for an Accessory Dwelling Unit with associated Variances attached to a new garage on the property located at 1124 5th Street South, with the five staff - recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2020-41: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback for a new covered front entry stoop on the property located at 301 Willow Street East, in the RA district. John and Katie Schoenecker, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. In July 2020, John and Katie Schoenecker received a building permit to reconstruct an existing front stoop and add a 3' overhang to the front of their home. When demolition of the stoop commenced, the property owners discovered footings/foundation for a stoop that was 9.5' wide and 6' deep. They now wish to construct a new front stoop with roof overhang of those dimensions and are requesting a 17' variance to the 20' Front Yard setback for the construction of a concrete stoop and overhang. Staff recommends approval of the variance with four conditions. John Schoenecker, applicant, said the variance would permit more security and safety in the front of their home. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. John Colburn, 224 Willow Street E, voiced support for the application. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2020-41, Variance to the front yard setback for a new covered front entry stoop on the property located at 301 Willow Street East with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2020-42: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum allowed structural coverage on the property located at 820 Maple Street West, in the RB district. Sarah Imhoff, applicant; and John Holdorph, property owner. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. John Holdorph is proposing to add a 63 square foot addition to the first floor of his house, exceeding the 25% maximum structural coverage by 21 square feet to 25.4%. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. John Holdorph, property owner, said the addition will give him more space on the ground level making the house more functional. Sarah Imhoff, applicant, 514 St. Croix Avenue West, said she did the drawings for Mr. Holdorph. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2020-42, Variance to the maximum allowed structural coverage on the property located at 820 Maple Street West, with the five staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2020-43: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum lot coverage to build a four -season porch on the property located at 1410 Surrey Lane, in the RA district. Jennifer Quinn, property owner; and Noel Malloygpplicant. Councilmember Collins said he was noticed on this application due to the location and he is willing to recuse himself if anyone would like him to do so. No one requested this. Ms. Wittman explained that Jennifer and John Quinn would like to add a 300 square foot four - season porch to the rear of the structure to replace an existing, deteriorating deck. The result is an Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission September 23, 2020 increase in 50 square feet of total lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for 33.8% maximum lot coverage opposed to the 30% maximum allowed. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Jennifer Quinn, applicant, explained the need for the deck. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dybvig said the request is reasonable. He noted that the Commission has previously discussed whether to consider decks as pervious surface knowing that they often get upgraded to be four season porches. He suggested the Commission start counting decks as impervious surface. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2020-43, Variance to the maximum lot coverage to build a four -season on the property located at 1410 Surrey Lane with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2020-44: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum accessory structure size on the property located at 8325 Marylane Ave N, in the RB district. Joel Lieffring_property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that Joel Lieffring would like to construct a 168 square foot shed, however the maximum allowed accessory structure size (once there is already a garage) is 120 square feet. He is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum size by 48 square feet. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to approve Case No. 2020-44, Variance to the maximum accessory structure size on the property located at 8325 Marylane Ave N with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 4 of 4 TO: REPORT DATE: 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission October 1, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-47 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 APPLICANT: Sean and Clodagh McAfee LANDOWNER: Sean and Clodagh McAfee REQUEST: Variance to the rear yard and exterior side yard setbacks. LOCATION: 902 6th Street South ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Mr. and Mrs. McAfee own the property at 902 6th Street South, which is a corner lot with a single family home, built in 1890. There is currently a 440sf detached garage in the exterior side yard of the property, which is accessed from Churchill St W. The property owners are proposing to add a 16' X 24' addition onto the south side of the existing detached garage. The addition itself is conforming to City Code, however the existing building, to which it is being added onto, is legal nonconforming because it lies within the property line setbacks. Section 31-216 of City Code allows for the repair, maintennce and replacement of nonconfrming legal structures. However, once this legal nonconfomrming structure is being expanded in size, it necesitates a variance. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: A variance to City Code Section 31-308 (b). (1). to allow a detached garage to be 28 feet from the exterior sideyard setback, whereas the required exterior side yard setback is 30'. A variance to City Code Section 31-308 (b). (1). to allow a detached garage to be less than a foot from the rear yard setback, whereas the required exterior side yard setback is 3'. CPC Case 2020-47 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; expanding the detached garage, to a size of 824sf, is permitted in this 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? Exterior Side Yard Setback The purpose of the Exterior Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create and maintain "front" yards, and to encourage storm water infiltration around the home. Rear Yard Setback The purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development and to prevent structures from being built too close to the neighboring property for aesthetic, drainage, and safety related issues. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Exterior Side Yard Setback The variance being requested for the exterior sideyard is only a two foot variance, to legitimize the existing nonconforming garage. Approving a variance to the exterior side yard would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. Rear Yard Setback The addition being proposed is outside of the rear yard setback. A variance is being required to legitimize the existing nonconforming garage. Approving a variance to the rear yard setback, in this circumstance, would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. 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. The comprehensive Plan calls out the importance of preserving historic houses, and in lieu of altering the house, the applicant has decided to add onto the garage. 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? CPC Case 2020-47 Page 3 of 4 A 11,200 sf property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by expanding their existing 440sf detached garage by an additional 384sf. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is unique to the property because the garage was built within the setbacks. Also this property is a corner lot, so while the garage is fully located in the rear yard, it is still within the exterior yard setback. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property owner did not create these circumstances. The house with the existing garage was built in 1890, and the property was purchased with these conditions existing for over a century. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? This would not alter the locality of the neighborhood because it will be in the rear yard, tucked behind the existing garage. The expansion will not be overly visible from the street because its view is partially blocked by both the house from 6th Street and the existing garage when looking from Churchill Street. Additionally, City staff feels that this expansion of the garage is a good alternative to further expanding the historical house on this property. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variances is for the enjoyment of their property, and in no overt way is dependent of economic considerations. 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- 47, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 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. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. 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. CPC Case 2020-47 Page 4 of 4 C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed garage addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. The existing garage is legal nonconforming, and adding an addition which is in compliance with City Code, does not conflict with the intentions of the Zoning Code for this district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-47 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Sketch of Distances between Structures cc: Sean and Clodagh McAfee water 97b2r9' t4i 305i 313 W _ 712,W li The Birthplace of Minnesota 714 y 715 „< - x " N LL 715 �" 72,& i� . n, N 720 it �I ` }' W E 719 9 - 722 �, .� 722 " _ S 725 r 802 726 1-7 w" 81 ,. 805 731 ' (14 f �-$�1 q Site Location 81 813; 912 j 817 81 902 Sixth Street South 817 r "i 816 i �,81 . 502 T �#1 y �y 9 424 ` 416 1 rr 404 0C, _ �,'I 2 ,31 310 24r —,R 820 LL 23 M`,at 82 6 �` i 823 _ 1—^------- _ I _ ._ 545 V J 421 J":413 902 _.« ' 904 W 7 L 1 ^ 49 iI 3134 09 ,•::,C 0 105 210 420eet �— 910 - :.. 911. M =- . 908 �� �508 -'9 qw 909 General Site Location r. Aww13 911 912 912� 0 91'3 _ , ,�915 �.. O 913 a LL _17- I9f6 922� '921 Ali. 1` -- 919 f- _ 920 � R,� 921 jj� ! 1 f, w. It 4924- E -1002 , -- '1 64 , 23 ; v- - 92 1042' 1003 10�6 oimi�i�I I I40 1010 19g �•� Ira, , — t 1013 1-4 1i0 10110 I :_.' ,1013 1 J r 1C16. >... 1015 10 6 �Iti ' TF'iceOEM 1022 0 $ «�� 021 1020 4 1� 10 am' 902 6th Street S Stillwater MN55082 Sept 23rd 2020 Stillwater Planning Department 216 4ch Street North Stillwater MN55082 To whom it may concern, We are asking the planning department to consider our application for a variance to build an office/gym on our property attached to our current garage. Our new building construction plans have been drawn up by our architect to be in full compliance with all zoning requirements, including setbacks. However, we have subsequently learnt that our current garage is under variance and that this therefore requires the new construction attachment to have a variance. This has caused us practical difficulties in moving forward. 1. We are proposing to use our land in a reasonable manner and within the requirements of zoning approval but the established garage is under variance. 2. The established garage was built by a previous homeowner within the setbacks of the property. 3. We are planning to build the new construction in a manner which is in character with our home, with aligned aesthetics and design. We believe it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. We very much appreciate your consideration for approval of a variance for our application. Thank you, Sean McAfee / KEY S 3 �r��, nc��►-Fw� �s w; N re�U�re {;fe Tub tobs eat- a,. ex, 10 l� l/�1f�a�ce r`l�a Lt{C L L 3� I�ro�o�r� Gcfrc+ clda�h�� R 27ft 10ft Neighbor Garage 40ft Proposed Addition My Garage 6ft , 3ft 15ft Neighbor Garage 15ft Neighbor Garage Neighbor House 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-48 REPORT DATE: October 20, 2020 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 APPLICANT: Long Lake Villa L.P. LANDOWNER: Long Lake Villa L.P. REQUEST: Variance to the side yard setbacks to allow for the placement of a three unit townhouse building. LOCATION: 1167 Parkwood Lane ZONING: TH, Townhouse Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Long Lake Villa L.P. own the property at 1167 Parkwood Lane, which is a townhouse complex divided among three separate buildings. This property got approval for a Special Use Permit (Case No. 2017-69) to locate a seven unit (two building) townhouse complex on this lot. Two of these buildings were already located in Oak Park Heights, but the property owner got permission from City Council to move these structures into the City of Stillwater. During the building moving process the northerly 3-unit buildings was placed down backward from what was approved. The project managers did not realize that the building was rotated 180' from the approved plan until the City pointed it out and the building was fully occupied. The direction the building was placed, puts the front (northern) corners a few feet into each interior side lot. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: ➢ A variance to City Code Section 31-310. (b). (1). to allow a townhouse to be setback 20' from the from the interior side yard property line on the northeast corner of the property, whereas 25' feet is required. ' The applicant's narrative states it is the 4-unit building, but that was done in error. The variance is for the 3-unit building. CPC Case 2020-48 Page 2 of 4 ➢ A variance to City Code Section 31-310. (b). (1). to allow a townhouse to be setback 22' from the from the interior side yard property line on the northwest corner of the property, whereas 25' feet 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 is permitted in this 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? Side yard setback The specific purpose of a side yard setback for structures is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, as well as to prevent development too close to the adjacent property. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Side yard setback If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. On the eastern side of this property where the larger setback encroachment exists, there is proposed to be a trail easement, so being five feet into the setback is not detrimental. Similarly, on the west side, the encroachment is in a setback that runs along the neighbors long and narrow driveway, so aesthetically speaking there are no contradictions to the Zoning Code. However, there is some concern for the stormwater runoff that sheds from the western side of this property to the western neighbor's property. 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. The TH Zoning District is consistent with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Future Land Use map classification as identified in 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? The property is zoned TH (Townhouse Residential), and townhouses are permitted by Special Use Permit, in which this property has already obtained. The property's use is CPC Case 2020-48 Page 3 of 4 not being changed, the only change is the 180' rotation of the building when it was placed. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is somewhat due to circumstances unique to the property. The fashion in which the buildings were moved here is unique in Stillwater, as most structures are built ground up. Moving these large buildings and placing them onto this pie -shaped lot is no easy feat. The proposed plans were already a tight fit as is, and one mistake has resulted in this nonconformity. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were created by the landowner. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? These two small encroachments into the side yard setbacks do not have any negative effects on the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variances does not reflect economic considerations. The applicant would simply like make their error become legal nonconforming. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date this report was written, comments had been received from the following: Art Junker,1164 Parkwood Lane, is in opposition to the variance being granted. He put forth that with all the modern technologies the builder should have been able to do this correctly. And now that it is not done correct, he believes that an after -the -fact variance is unacceptable and the applicant should have to remove the buildings. Michael Hughes and Martha Morse,1172 Parkwood Lane, are somewhat in support for the Variance. However when the case (CPC-2017-69) was first brought to the City, Mr. Hughes indicated his concerns about drainage on his, lower lying, property. And since the buildings have been installed his ominous predictions have come into fruition, and they believe that these issues have further been exacerbated by this error which requires a variance. These neighboring property owners would like to see proper stormwater runoff diversion/retention, so that the run off from this property seizes to shed across their property, causing property damage and high turbidity in Bruer's Pond. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: CPC Case 2020-48 Page 4 of 4 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 48, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 3. A stormwater management plan must be submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department within 15 days. This plan must address the runoff from the western portion of the property that sheds onto the neighboring property, by either diverting the runoff or drastically slowing the water down allowing for maximum infiltration. This approved plan must be fully executed by March 1st 2020. 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. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. 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. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. While, staff does not support using variances to legitimize mistakes made during construction, this circumstance is different. Because the project included the moving of a large building, and during the replacement phase it was inverted 180°, it was a mistake that resulted in an encroachment. In these circumstances, staff feel a variance would be warranted, but would strongly advise addressing the runoff issues that have been further exacerbated by this mistake. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-47 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Originally Approved Site Plan As -built Site Plan Sketch of Error GIS Overlay Maps (two pgs) Public Comments (two pgs) cc: Long Lake Villa LT R 1013 �< '- k .. 1008 11015 26100 '1 2500- 1.k. WEST ORLE) 1133 1144 z 6490 1148 z 2601, 1165 0 ,'» 1151 1156 t, O 1163 �Q j 1662 f Q� .; �- i 1675 7� 1161 1150 - 1650 1179 OJ 11 1674 1167 �X;� Xt it . 1732 S 2720 g• I_ LANE 1754 ;2 c O 2845 1725< Y , z m z < m 2725- • m X 1255 -�< p 1 1260 CI) RIVE i, RV -- ---- /` � lop --ic 2825 -QREg fps ' - �'S` i �' . �. 1 �P +{ 35 I; "ll92. Iwo f i 2800 'I i 6001 2080 =., iW I I r # 11 iIr 2021 p 2361 2349 2365 �O 2377 t� 2353 2317 oJ" 2813 1401 v w r 24K i 1465 -- CURVECREST (Water _I The Birthplace of Minnesota N WE S Site Location 1167 Parkwood Lane 0 220 440 880 Feet General Site Location V P.O. 119 Stillwater, MN 55082-0119 612-991-9459 LONG LAKE VH-..LA LMITD PARTNERSHIP City of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 N. Fourth Street Stillwater, MN, 55082 Variance Application 1167 Parkwood Lane Dear Commission Members: Please allow this letter as a request for a variance on our parcel of property. It is currently a 4-unit townhome building and is occupied. Apparently during the relocation and staking of the property, our building was constructed over the setback line. My understanding is we need to address the "practical difficulty" in order to have a valid claim. 1. Our intended use of the property has not changed from the original granting of the Zoning request. The land still will be used in a "reasonable manner" consistent with the earlier approval. 2. We were just informed about this occurrence by Staff. We did not intentionally place the building over the set -back line. 3. If this variance is granted, it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Sincerely, Tim Nolde Long Lake Villa Limited Partnership 0 . 4 . 0 0 . . 0 . 9 0 0 0 6 0 0 . 9 0 0 0 . . . 0 . . / at CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING NOTES a. laalell lemporary erosion control measures prior to beginning any excavation or me doIRion work at the site. b, Begin grading of site and oonslmclion of ponds, utilities, and relaining wall Infiltration basins to be temporarily graded to 2' above finished bottom elevation, a ftin WAStfuWa n of building foundations. After all f iundatons are complete, / CMIPur:0o n a0d MOW ion of the buildings will occur simullodnously. d. Finalize grades and stabilize all areas disturbed by grading and construction. a.. Site is fully stabilized with established vegetation I f. Final gnm ing, slaodwalion, and planting of fi dlr.dion basins. FinalgrodMg of infiltration \ } - at this point in he consliuclion sequence will include excavation to in -situ soils with \ design infiltralion rates and backfilling with amended soil media. g. INlkrietion areas to be marked and silt fence to be installed around the upland edge of \ \ 022, TC• B8C7 I nfillralion basin. \ a21 ct.• . ! 92t.64 5 4 921,7 Gf. . \i a22.i5TC' '� 1 822.E TC Ile li2t 6 627.08 GL L /' _ F- i11�i O t� D \ \ I 922 02150.D ice° � 1 r / { 922 Sa c Ij I !f / 0 \ o 1 ! r r � ycc r f � — / PROPOSFD 1NFjLTRATION BASIh� p) f / 80T-9ria'8--� f i 100-Y 9T8, 02 r� � � � , dr � t r ,• { / / r 1 BEL(P4T�Da fFFS goy J f f/ LEX it f 918: / - — —— ' — K r C t r.. ° P22.17~ T~ �i f21.87 Gil- 0;529G OE —_0^S��L� I 05096 i0 fa M —" --„ `_ 0f4.e3 TE. SADDLE COURT GLI , ....-. 7 Bll- C31 Grading,dwg 018.& TC il• l / / / r ) , I / ! I / r � f �m a r z r [ O I , I �v I 7 � 1NFRTRATdD WA(t (2P) 1 I o ! Y - 912,84 LEGEND Ir. Remove all temporary erosion and sediment control measures after site and basins are fully stabif¢edand-alFti6hstruelionin-the is complain. 950 PROPOSED CONTOURS - MAJOR INTERVAL 949 PROPOSED CONTOURS - MINOR INTERVAL -____—_....,—._-,--___— GRADE BREAK LINE <2— GRADE SLOPE SPOT ABBREVIATIONS; 950.00 TC TC - TOP OF CURB _orc—I' GL- GUTTER LINE B - BITUMUNOUS C- CONCRETE EO - EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TW - TOP OF WALL BW - BOTTOM OF WALL (FIG) (-) - EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED GRADING NOTES 1. Tree prolection consisting of snow fence or safely fence installed at the drip line shall be in place prior to beginning any grading or demolition work at the site. 2. All elevations with an asterisk (') shall be field verified. If elevations vary significantly, notify the Engineer for further instructions, 3. Grades shown in paved areas represent finish elevation. 4 Restare all disturbed areas with 6" of good quality topsoil and sod. 5. All construction shall be performed in accordance with stale and local standard specifications for construction, 6. All slopes that are in excess of 3 1 (N V) and areas of concentrated flow (such as swales) shag be secured with North American Green DS150 for short term erosion control (Category 3), 7. Al the completion of the project and prior to turf establishment and seeding, the Contractor shall de -compact the soils in areas that were disturbed no a result or construction #d%ibles. Dr-ou mpaciion &halt consist of ripping, eutiivafing or scadfylrrg Ihn tap 12^ In attempt to improve the Infihmllan 041racterisec5 of tha Will& The Conlen afar shall use lowirVocl eorih moving equlpmeM la pravaot oornpaTllon at lha underlying &ois, far tiefi toRlppfery arrd Tinol grodlfkg and smaoihIng of the Iopso4l prof to ""ding, Payrrmnl for de-wrepaction shall to for the price qu>fad in rho construcflon confracl. ` - -- EROSION CONTROL NOTES Erosion control notes can be found on sheet CB 0 NORTH 0 10 20 40 Z OW2 O O0� : W m Z _O //<� LL W a ` iz a` I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota. Matt, P. E. Data. '10.20,17 Reg. No.; 41685 Rea. Dare 0 euipreo re.74,r7 ylhWrfrd suhn�61 1 t.o9.17 VAeeerENl tN6rrrmtl r1,28.E7 Y4trrined8ummrrN Project(. 12176066000 Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Dale: 1Q21117 Sheet Tills: GRADING PLAN C3,0 Sheet: }l f CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING NOTES ;1 Fmd„•al... •msa� wm•°ueamma¢.°,m=x�.x,•, F. IFaaq w:,rmmn� ` 1 � qww ael�.a e.xp.. ,nb wn...w.wo la�amrtm w ro, m...xn xntea.ano •erm.aun ,y,�n�d� 1 � ` rl ` � mnlueuoneun aam.,e.aanemrrenco,00=FcanaaorwrN ��' I' \ .-. em..r � n r � i .y'� •�y ___.. � r e a«.w=w.•w�a.�[••r«eia.. _ I • 1` ' ti� / I I ,n r ' r =r 1 / r ! r .�•r 1 1 1 I ` r. R �LpspTso a -FL[+ tiYol T- _ A� GOUR i I^ LEGEND 8aa M. n pnTvgre\ J W LI ^�" ee-eluurow ow • �xFrvc a~1wF m �eF�arlkL wuLlFro� PI- EM�sTlwu Ta e. yEpIFIEo i i; GRADING NOTES Y w1 ine m rmea�o ar xmaw°. : rm=I=eam...,m,n..l.n..t•i.muarm.enn.a i new w � ry nadArmN. =aAh n. roam=oc nor mnxer �rawno..1eVi � c..x.,xe»n,m.a.aa am.a �e°,.ern rmnx deny., • nRmro>o exean=e arceerar s�mg.m q.mh mrmi aim aoe w 5 ainidvagn.lf w�lome%°n�uin�ai�ssenmlee n.n ske enamW s e.a:unm°1Ym61owmrmna°Ilr�wry Al nn `e s° o=eostw U ` •Ir.+•Ww�na laN w�wr vyuwtiw � L waewlr[.Y�ay llaerr[,•y..a.r:y� n o O Q EROSION CONTROL NOTES m Z 3 . �.... �....._y. d 5 O Q en=a a z ~ Q Thpx.l , A4BUILT NORTH GKA[ NG PLAN rv-� C3.0 \ PROPOSED? MAIL, BOXES \ r: / t,t ' .r r J -A /+ f• I rr 1 1 i cc al�'v I\ ' j C frzr��i �X J 1 NAv'�ri' r1 Cy �t pcsffC4't�ia ilsV" S[!S�lO I •�--'b , \ � �.�`,y��=NJ7�'r16NSie>`YIGSW'r�lilf,Lli'iS"�' � �I �•t f w � rl C,5 PROPOSED I RAIL r S \ EASEMENT I \ \ w 1 d, 1 TfAYpLE1L i ! OF 5* y ,! 1 4 ! \ PROPOSED RAILING/ r.lcvalCrnV•rq{�xta�1'� fi008A •rH oy •_-....:'�::�.1C �n 11{�iwng��nfaf 7e0ee.r.?p.ryq.dny � ^. '�`�—�_L r _> - PROPOSED RAILING '-NO PARILINW =NS (a EA), IND;ALL ON EACH SIbE OF I IAMMERHEAO TURNAROUND nI r SYMBOL LEGEND NEW " BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER NEW 6 AGGREGATE BASE SEE DCTAIL I/C5 PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL SEE DETAIL 2/C5 PA"BITUMI LANE RESTORATION 1.5" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, 2 5" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE OVER 9' AGGREGATE BASE NEW G"CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVER NEW 5" AGGREGATE BASE 0 (NORTH I L.J 0 10 20 40 � � v O N �m = C $ �a�vo?§ c� • W W T O ��fpp M �tl w Z VJ � O 2Z: a Opp < Y ZI-- _ OQ0~ F— U u ` a` I he' .by certify that This plan specilicalions or report vras prepared by me o; under my dirncl supervision and Thal I am a duly licensed Pmfesslon.I EnOincer under the I.- ollhe slate of Minnesota Mall, RF, Nate 1020E Reg No 41G05 I lDmtt W.MNtd`u✓-W t1-C9.1r Wm 6'4d&.&Mw 1120.12 vhfr.lr�e d.,pirayl Plnj-tk 12, T60BG000 Drawn By: "" Checked By: A1,r/J sale Dale: 1020,1( Sheet Tile: PAVING PLAN C2mO 1148 r 1151 1156 i 1153 / 1163 1155 / / / 1157 � 1165 1159 1171 1164 1161 1173 � 4 / 1179 1181 1172 2828 I*P111 1150 ?Q 1798 1732 i i CR F RT ROV"l �- 1674 1650 (Water The Birthplace of Minnesota N WE S 0 60 120 240 Feet , Au- 1163 t �� i Off' 1155 �. fV 1157 -1165 ' v1159 y 1171 / e1i / ' 173 r: i u. r- 196'1- / -'" yy�' 1150 i ape 1179 i d s i INA 11 Al 1732 �. 2828' � � a -,,�. �% Text i �20 1 54 �Y o. �� \ © o � l h 2775-�- � 0°�3 -47 it 1255 1 n 17 i (Water The Birthplace of Minnesota J N W+E S 0 60 120 240 Feet Graham Tait From: Art Junker <artjunker@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:03 PM To: Planning Dept; gpait@ci.stillwater.mn.us Subject: Case No: CPC 2020-48 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I'm writing with concern regarding the request of a property setback at this location because the units put in place were well known for their size and physical requirements. With the modern survey equipment available there should not be any question to the location of any large building such at the ones at this location. One of the primary inspections should be that the location is correct. My neighbor was concerned when the units were first moved in that they were too close to the property line and brought this to the attention of the builder and the city. The can was kicked down the road to lead us to this outcome. The action by the builder to ignore the issue and just plan on requesting a variance to fix the problem should not be a solution. Now we are asked to grant a variance to avoid the cost of moving the buildings. Unacceptable, this should be fixed to code. Respectfully submitted by: Art Junker 1164 Parkwood Ln. Stillwater, MN i Graham Tait From: martymorse@aol.com Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 10:24 AM To: Graham Tait Subject: CPC 2020-48 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Graham, We, the homeowners at 1172 Parkwood Lane, share our eastern property line with the western property line of 1167 Parkwood Lane. We could agree to the variance upon certain conditions. First, the serious and substantial outflow of water from the 3-building development (particularly over the tediously slow development and landscaping) onto our property has caused the loss of our lawn and topsoil for almost the entire southern side of our property (between our building and the townhomes to the south of us). This has caused a substantial economic harm to us and will continue to cause substantial economic harm until the water management of the entire 3-building development of Long Lake Villa development (which 1167 Parkwood Lane is part of and was placed on the empty lots to our east), and so long as the developer is forced to integrate a new water management plan with vastly more effective water management than what has been engineered or completed to date, then we can imagine one of our two conditions being satisfied for the variance to be granted. (We do not know how much of the damage was caused due to the engineering or the execution over the very slowly progressing multi -year implementation.) The second condition we would want, is that should we ever want to split the eastern part of our property (which in total is about 1 '/2 acres), that we not be required to have an additional set -back to be imposed in order to be set back anything more than the standard 25 feet from our current property line, even though that would put our split lot and possible building closer to the developer's (Nolde) encroaching building to the setback. That is, normally, with two buildings on adjacent properties each having a 25 foot setback, there would be a total of 50 feet between buildings. In our situation, assuming that Nolde's building is encroaching 5 feet into his required 25 foot setback, we would want our measured setback to just be from our property line, and not calculated from where Nolde's closest building would be. Michael Hughes and Martha Morse TO: REPORT DATE: (Si water T 11 7:67 ft i ;11P;:L;:A;:C�E �FM SN E S 0 i A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission October 18, 2020 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 APPLICANT: Andy Michels, Michel Homes CASE NO.: 2020-49 LANDOWNER: Cary and Tracey Lund REQUEST: Variance to the front yard setback to allow for the addition of an attached garage. LOCATION: 225 Hazel Street West ZONING: RA, One -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION The Lunds own the property at 225 Hazel Street West, which is a single family house built in 1987. This is a unique property on the very northern edge of the City that shares a driveway with the neighboring property and is "landlocked' between this property and very steep slopes; giving the property a very secluded and private feel. Mr. Lund is proposing to build an attached garage with a small exercise room in the rear. However, the proposed location of the garage is intruding 22' into the required 30' front yard setback. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1). to allow an attached garage to be setback 8' (eight feet) from the front property line, whereas 30 feet 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. CPC Case 2020-49 Page 2 of 4 The property is zoned RA, One -Family Residential; an attached garage is permitted in this 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? Front yard setback The specific purpose of the front yard setback is to have uniform patterned development in the front 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? Front yard setback If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code, because the unique location of this property does not allow for patterned development in this neighborhood. Also, this garage addition will not impact water infiltration on this huge 1.45 acre property, as the topography slopes away from the only nearby neighbors. 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 62,988 sf property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a tuck under garage attached onto their existing house. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Due to the house being surrounded by steep slopes to the west and south, the only possible option for an expansion to the house would be towards the front and north side yard setbacks. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? As put forth above, the house is severely restricted by steep slopes and the location of the shared driveway. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? The garage would have no impact to the neighborhood at all. The house is very isolated, sitting on the edge of the City, and cannot be seen from the road. The only property this would have an impact to would be the immediate neighboring property CPC Case 2020-49 Page 3 of 4 that shares the driveway with this property. And, the City doesn't believe this addition would have a negative impact to the immediate neighbor. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations. The applicant would like to expand the house and this is the only feasible option, due to the steep slopes surrounding the house. 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- 49, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. Runoff from addition must be retained on said property. 4. No part of the attached garage shall be used for human habitation. 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 variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. 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. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-49 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Proposed Location Photo Floor Plans cc: Cary and Tracy Lund Andy Michels CPC Case 2020-49 Page 4 of 4 is _ �. nc.. '°!t • ' 4. � 4 �.. �.K�. "y" . ` J .ems ;•, .�,t.. - �.. � - -, yam-`, � . _� -_ :� r _ _ - - - �''�- T" �- Fri-. __� �_ � � _ � � �r^'�:y?„�"p..sf' - - � �� '�. �, � 1 ram' � a'+. _ ,: � 1 �+ � # a � � CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY --for-- MICHELS CONSTRUCTION --of-- 225 HAZEL STREET W. STILLWATER, MN 55082 1 842.8 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, BROWN'S CREEK HEIGHTS, Washington County, Minnesota. SITE DETAIL x 826.8 x 826.5 x 827.7 0& P 0 828.2 x sv.l 828.1 N \ • GP �28.2 - 828.2 '. \ 829.1 - `- PINE20 \J 0 833.5 \ - �O 829.2 �. 830.6 1 828.4 828 ........ 833.2 32.•� I O ry x828.2 .• TOE xTOE �� � 3.00. Ij 828.7 828.6 x828.4 1.9 829q 8 833.7 RETBLDR 833.2 } -i FFp'W (jF D x828.1 / RETBLDR I•, i _ ` q F / '•.............$34.5 �•.� --829.68? •0 `829.6, yO 833.4 PING 831.9 Z 834.6 RETBLDR "TOE -� O 829.8 TOE IV 835.7 8? x 825.4 6` x 826.8 i i RETBLDR x828.3 828.0 It 10 0?P T'., ,831.4 Q� M� R� fBLDR x x 82 .2 0 S Q 8,33.6 - �O Q , 4J T w �� RETBLDR 832.7 834.2 k T . - . QO �C� 830.4 F�OWO RETBLDR - O -. 829.9 833.5 I Q� RETBLDR \ 82.9•0 828828.3 835.1 . 833.9 34.3 TOE --=I ------------- -- - � 40.9 = !" azas 8 ,I 830.7830.3 OE gi 830.2'. 19290 RETBL 829 290 ' Fkls L' -- ' 17.4I _- --- 831.1: 829.1 x828.9 Trl`lG'7 Ig 829.0 OU.4E 10.0. r - U0 828.9 b� •Q33.9 •� ....I 828.6 828.4 M 829.7 835.6 x 832.4 8'. ,yam j3 828.4x PIN81 ... 0� 828.2 828.5 Q830. CBDT t. 830.6 QO 828.2 -___0.: P CBDT 828.6 ' O 828.5 x 928.7 828. RCN 28.7 82 h g I 833.E Q ..';8 1.8 �6 �N 828.5 d NN7 828.5 x 8 828.5 ^ 836.8 M w O I 828.3 828.1 i 835.7 popR O O 835.5 835.2 cy I 828.5 O O I ~ . 828.4 r�r^ 837.4 v1 O /�I ��$•. 827.9 828.2 830'1 4 829.0 828. CBDT828.2 / � I 828.4 828.4 828.3 828.2 { 831.5 I. I 828.5 WELL -CAPPED 828.1 828.2 838.1 Z '. LU w Ln a w I x 828.2 H 835.8 839.4 ~ Z M Q I M 838.0 (D IO I M 00 Q 0) z �0 I x 829.2 Q I / I x835.7 I 840.0 x831.4 N RTES 10 1 / J / / - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 9/10/2020. - Bearings shown are on Washington County datum. - Parcel ID Number: 21-030-20-24-0002. - Total parcel area = 62,886 sq. ft. (1.44 acres) - This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of a current title commitment or an attorney's title opinion. LEGEND • DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED RLS# 13774 DENOTES FOUND T-POST X 952.36 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION ................................. ' •... ...... DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS DENOTES RETAINING WALL DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE I I T DENOTES GRAVEL SURFACE I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. JASON Date: 10/9/2020 License No. 41578 1�1 °j ,o oti o - I z° U 0 ul 101 Gi Im g o_ O � '+ N l o � 00 a o U 827.5 x 827.6 BOUNDARY EXHIBIT PROPOSED GARAGE AND EXERCISE ROOM \ 1 x 826.2 / / CQg / O a 00 00 / CQ / O / / o3 1,-,1 ZED STR � / / / NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 5 10 20 1 INCH = 10 FEET NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 1 INCH = 5 0 FEET BENCHMARK EST.1911 Professional Land Surveyors www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 o`<50agP a F1 MNDOT STATION: TBM 1 VCOPAS ELEVATION: 857.65 (NAVD 88) DRAWN BY: BAB JOB NO: 201052BT DATE: 9/18/2020 CHECK BY: JER FIELD CREW: DT/CT 1 9/24/20 ADD PROPOSED ADDITION BAB 2 9/25/20 CLIENTS COMMENTS BCD 3 10/9/20 ADD CANTILEVER TO ADDITION BAB NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY C:\USERS\BBYER.EGRUD\DESKTOP\REMOTE JOBS\201052 MICHELS\201052BT - (NEW HO( 20.105213T PLAN 09-25-20).DWG �71��© w? < . . , . 20'-0" 0 cn m e CA CA 0 N J NEW EXERCISE 14 UP 0 8" PRECAST W/ CONCRETE TOPPING cv 3m FLOOR: ® 836.0 30 SPIRAL STAIR t RAILING SINK LINE OF LOWER LEVEL — — — — STORAGE BELOW ------------------ — ----------- NEW A9CLLG p z CONCRETE FLOOR: 0836.0 a U So X 80 O.H. DOOR *COVERED STEPS 6 tr I I I RETAINING I i WALL AS REQ'D I I I I LJ 20'-0" 10'-3" 3® 3® (oil 6" 01 6" 8" PRECAST W/ 10 CONCRETE TOPPING NEW (oil (oil LQUER STORAGE CONCRETE FLOOR: e 828.0 6" W -W 211 E �If I I I I I I I I I I I I I T FETAINING WALL AS / IiEQ'D ���LLL I I I I L J UNDER -PIN GARAGE FOOTING I EXIST. HOUSE NOTE - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSION, CONDITIONS, BEARING, AND UTILITY LOCATIONS. KEY: EXIST. WALL NEW WALL DEMO WALL C GAR44GE LEVEL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" EXIST. Houm 160 EXIST O.H. DOOR (-OPTIONAL FULL LENGTH SPORT COURT, ENTIRE LENGTH OF a GARAGE) NOTE - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY UNEXCAV,4TED 2" FILL TO SLAB 6" ALL DIMENSION, CONDITIONS, BEARING, AND UTILITY LOCATIONS. v KEY: ' cYl EXIST. WALL NEW WALL DEMO WALL C I COPYRIGHT 2020, ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP, INC. LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" -1'-0" B cn cn NEW ROOF TO MATCH PITCH NEW ROOF MATCH PITCH cn 0 T NEW 8' HT GARAGE DOOR TO MATCH EXIST. _i O'► 836.0 *LOG SIDING AND STONE TO MATCH EXIST. 0 NOTE - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSION, CONDITIONS, BEARING, AND UTILITY LOCATIONS. RET. WALL s� �AS REQ'D 8280 I I ADDITION i I EXIST. � I i FRONT E L E VAT I ON SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" 50NUS ROOT" I PLAN SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" DODO DODO WAYZATA, MN 55391 Phone: 952.473.8777 FAX: 952.473.8222 L Wr " cp z 0- W � W LL i-- LLl N LLl } LLl w Lu U z Lu j-: ,U V / Lu ju LLI f In N N � lU i wa ter T H E B I R T H P L A C E Q F M I H N E S@ i A PLANNING REPORT (All changes from 10/23/20 report in red) DATE: October 26, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-52 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Mark Lambert, Central Commons, LLC LAND OWNER: Central Commons, LLC REQUEST: Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Phase I of Central Commons LOCATION: 5757, 5775 and 5651 Manning Avenue CURRENT ZONING: AP, Agricultural Preservation [Rezoning to HMU, Highway Mixed Use pending Met Council approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment] COMP PLAN: HMU, Highway Mixed Use AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Kori Land, City Attorney Shawn Sanders, City Engineer Washington County Public Works Minnesota Department of Transportation BACKGROUND Central Commons, LLC is the owner of the 35.3-acre property at the southeast quadrant of Manning Avenue and State Highway 36. They plan to develop the property as a mixed use project over several phases. The first phase will be synchronized with the construction of the new grade separated interchange at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. Site grading for this phase is planned to begin early next year. Within this phase the following building construction is planned: 1. A Hy-Vee store of approximately 95,000 square feet (sf) on Lot 3, Block 2; 2. A Hy-Vee convenience store of about 4,000 square feet with fuel sales and drive - through coffee shop on Lot 1, Block 1; and 3. A market rate apartment facility with 200 units on Lot 4, Block 2. The timing of subsequent phases of development is not yet known, but will include the two retail lots north of Hy-Vee and Outlots A and B. The exact uses on the outlots are yet to be determined. Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST The developer has submitted the following specific requests: 1. Approval of Final Plat and Development Agreement (CPC Case 2020-40) for Phase 1 of Central Commons; and 2. Approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) (CPC Case 2020-52) for Phase 1 of Central Commons. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing only Case 2020-52, which is the Final PUD for this first phase. Specifically, that consists of reviewing the conditions attached to the Concept PUD to determine if they will be met by the Final PUD plans. The conditions of Concept PUD approval are shown below, with staff review comments in italics. 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: • Preferred Preliminary Plat Plan Sheet PP02 • Preferred Site Plan Plan Sheet SP01 • Preferred Grading Plan Plan Sheet GD01 • Wetland Fill/Buffer Plan Plan Sheet C401 • Phase 1 Erosion Control Plan Plan Sheet C402 • Post Construction Groundcover Plan Sheet L100 • Preferred Overall Landscape Plan Plan Sheet L101 • Apartment elevation by Doran • C-Store exterior elevations • Food store exterior elevations • Apartment floor plans date 7/13/20 date 7/13/20 date 7/13/20 date 4/15/20 date 4/15/20 date 4/15/20 date 7/13/20 date 2/27/20 Plan Sheet A6.0 Plan Sheets A6.0 & A6.01 date 4/15/20 The Final PUD plans for Phase 1 are in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary/concept plans. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat, conceptual Planned Unit Development, rezoning to HMU and Conditional Use Permits are all conditioned upon approval from the Metropolitan Council of the requisite Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Metropolitan Council has scheduled consideration of the amendment for its November 18tn Council meeting. The Final PUD approval for this phase cannot become effective until after that. So, a version of this condition will continue to be attached to the final PUD approval. 3. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to commencement of any earth work. This will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 3 4. Prior to submission of final plat and final plans, design of the access point to the apartment complex must be agreed upon by the City, County and developer. This has been resolved and the layout is as shown below. 8 [Mi M MT- 1 idl ---• -- Atn]INA SllnHlE 8 YONMMQIT 9GN 1 MIA n U I M 1 Y OVR.Q7 i ♦ f V iLUJ 1 / I V 1 } 8 +• I 1 AP4RTAEHf MONMIrtNi 9R, I � I � wnnu,r irr srAnoN I w' �c,uxo au�sde - I - '' '--- I A I IJi , s'r,wran PA. M�rtAnn mse�Waun.oro ti �r ♦ ♦� _ ++d Audlld4i EASEI[NT Ad¢ muefY✓ 1 f ip ROAFUM �nstaer�r i.ua vYo I wu.v� ros_w� ru*urar aoAnwArwvreorrMvna � L f swI WMANNING f11 ill AW. I�lfli fElAINING MALLS GQ LOT BLOCK � 4 5. Prior to submission of final plat and final plans, design of the eastern access point from the County Road must be agreed upon by the City, County and developer. This has been resolved and is shown in the layout to the right. Except that the County will not approve the left turn on to west bound CR 15. This change will have to be incorporated in the final design of the roadway. 6. 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. The Development Agreement is currently in its second iteration. It is scheduled to be ready for consideration together with the Final Plat by the City Council. So, this condition will need to continue to be attached to the Final PUD approval. @M9W=TNXW -- ------ 7. 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 u r Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 4 benefiting properties, including Central Commons. Central Commons 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. This condition is included in the draft of the Development Agreement. It will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. 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. Central Commons 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. This condition still applies and is included in the draft Development Agreement. It will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. 9. Any utility easements 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. This condition is included in the draft of the Development Agreement. It will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. 10. 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, unless waived in part or whole by the City Council. This condition is included in the draft of the Development Agreement. It will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. 11. All required permits from MnDOT must be issued, and copies submitted to the City, prior to commencing any earth work. In addition, the final plat for Central Commons Addition must be consistent with the right-of-way platting for the planned Hwy 36 interchange. This will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. 12. All required permits from Washington County must be issued, and copies submitted to the City, prior to commencing any road work. This will continue to be a condition attached to the Final PUD approval. 13. The HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District ordinance must be adopted by the City Council with substantially similar content to that attached to this planning report, or the preliminary plat, concept Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permits may have to be reviewed again by the City Council. Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 5 This condition has been satisfied. 14. 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. The City Council found no EAW mitigation measures necessary to be included in the final PUD. 15. An administrative law judge for the Municipal Board must approve the annexation petition before the preliminary plat, conceptual Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit approvals become effective. This condition has been satisfied. 16. 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 should be given to identifying many of these parking stalls as employee only parking and included in the Final Plat application materials for Phase 1. These spaces are all in the Hy-Vee Grocery parking lot. And, Hy-Vee wants to keep them as they are. 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. The concern with light spillover beyond the edge of street shoulders and perimeter property lines still exists. The areas of concern with the preliminary plat and the final plat are shown to the right. This must be corrected before the first building permit is issued for the project. 18. Light fixture cut sheets and details for all exterior lighting fixtures must be submitted and found satisfactory by the City Council at the time of Final Plat and Final PUD plan review for Phase 1. The fixture cut sheets have not been submitted yet. They will be required before the City Council approves the Final PUD or Final Plat. Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 6 19. Mechanical plans must be submitted and found satisfactory by the City Council at the time of Final Plat and Final PUD plan review for Phase 1. The mechanical plans have not been submitted yet. The developer has requested that these be allowed to be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of the building permits. 20. The Conditional Use Permits shall not become effective until the Final Plat and Final PUD plans are approved by City Council for Phase 1. This condition refers to Hy-Vee and the Hy-Vee Convenience Store. It will continue to apply. 21. The Planning Commission must review the sign plan together with the Final PUD and make a recommendation to the City Council prior to a City Council decision on signs. [This section of the 10/23/20 Planning Report said that an analysis would be provided prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The text is red is that analysis.] At the Planning Commission public hearing for the Concept PUD, the Commission recommended that sign permits and any required variance requests should be submitted prior to sign installation. The developer wanted to have this resolved with the PUD, so the Council referred the details back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Attached is a spreadsheet that gives details for each of the proposed monument, identification and wall signs. It includes the original staff recommendation to the City Council, the developer's desired revision, and staffs reconsidered recommendation. In general: • When installed next to County right-of-way (ROW), the standard 15' setback is a bit excessive since the County has required considerably more ROW width than normally experienced. So, staff concedes that 10' is a reasonable setback along the County Road. • Maximum monument sign height is typically 20' along Highway 36. But, given speed and elevation challenges along this stretch of Highway 36, 35' seems reasonable. • Identification sign height is normally 6'. But, in order to make room for enhanced landscaping under these signs, staff finds a 10' height reasonable. However, the enhances landscaping will be a requirement for these taller identification signs and the sign panels will not be larger than standard. • Staff agrees that extra wall signage makes sense for the Hy-Vee grocery store, since it is a goodly distance from Hwy 36, and the building is massive. But, on other buildings, wall signage should meet BP-C standards of 1 square foot/1 lineal foot of building front. 22. Prior to final plat and final plan submission, the developer must work with the city engineers for Stillwater and Lake Elmo, as well as with Washington County, to come to an acceptable design for the intersection of Linden Avenue with Manning Avenue. The developer must also give additional design consideration to widening the right of Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 7 way south of the entrance to the apartment complex, or identify a possible alternate public road access to the two parcels south of Central Commons. This has been resolved. Though, the agreed upon layout is different than that shown in the attached site plan. Miscellaneous Washington County has not designated funding for the construction of 58th Street between Manning Avenue and St Croix Boulevard. And though the County has identified this road segment as a high priority, it is not listed in their five-year capital plan yet. Consequently, either the County will need to revise their capital plan and build the road, or the developer will need to build a temporary road to give access to the project. Details of its construction and financing responsibilities will be included in the Development Agreement that the City Council will review in November. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds that the Final PUD for Phase 1 will satisfy the Concept PUD conditions, it could recommend that the City Council approve it with at least 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: • Preferred Preliminary Plat Plan Sheet PP02 date 7/13/20 • Civil Site Plan Plan Sheet C300 date 9/29/20 • Grading Plan Plan Sheet C400 date 9/29/20 • Wetland Fill/Buffer Plan Plan Sheet C401 date 9/29/20 • Phase 1 Erosion Control Plan Plan Sheet C402 date 9/29/20 • Storm Sewer Plan Plan Sheet C500 date 9/29/20 • San Sewer & Watermain Plan Plan Sheet C501 date 9/29/20 • Public Easement Plan Plan Sheet C502 date 9/29/20 • Post Construction Groundcover Plan Sheet L100 date 9/29/20 • Overall Landscape Plan Plan Sheet L101 date 9/29/20 • Apartment elevation by Doran date 2/27/20 • C-Store exterior elevations Plan Sheet A6.0 • Food store exterior elevations Plan Sheets A6.0 & A6.01 • Apartment floor plans date 4/15/20 2. The Final PUD for Phase 1 will not become effective, nor may the Final Plat be released from City offices for recording with Washington County, until the Metropolitan Council approves the requisite Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 3. All civil engineering plans must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction prior to commencement of any earth work. 4. The left turn onto west bound CR 15 from the eastern most access point will not be allowed. This change must be incorporated in the final design of the roadway. 5. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Council, City Attorney and City Engineer must be fully executed prior to release of the Final Plat. Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 8 6. 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 Commons 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. 7. 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. Central Commons 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. 8. Any utility easements 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. 9. 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, unless waived or otherwise specified in the Development Agreement. 10. All required permits from MnDOT must be issued, and copies submitted to the City, prior to commencing any earth work. In addition, the final plat for Central Commons Addition must be consistent with the right-of-way platting for the planned Hwy 36 interchange. 11. All required permits from Washington County must be issued, and copies submitted to the City, prior to commencing any road work. 12. Photometric plan revisions must be made and found satisfactory to the City of Stillwater's Community Development Director prior to release of any building permits for the project. 13. Light fixture cut sheets and details for all exterior lighting fixtures must be submitted and found satisfactory by the City Council at the time of Final Plat and Final PUD plan review for Phase 1. 14. Mechanical plans must be submitted and found satisfactory by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permits in the project. 15. The Conditional Use Permits shall not become effective until the Final Plat and Final PUD plans are approved by City Council for Phase 1. 16. All signs must be designed and installed in compliance with the revised staff recommendations included in the attached table entitled "Revised Central Commons Signage Review - October 26, 2020". 17. If Washington County does not build the segment of 58th Street traversing the project prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for any of the proposed buildings, then the developer will be obligated to build a temporary road for access purposes. Details of its construction and financing responsibilities will be included in the Development Agreement for this phase of the PUD. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds the development materials to be incomplete, it could table the review for additional information. Central Commons Addition October 26, 2020 Page 9 C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the development to be inconsistent with Concept PUD conditions of approval, it could recommend that the City Council deny the request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Final PUD for Phase 1 with the seventeen conditions above. Attachments: Final Plat Final PUD Plans Sign plans Revised Signage Review Table Review schedule cc: Mark Lambert, Central Commons LLC Ken Roberts, Community Development Director, City of Lake Elmo Nate Arnold, Engineer, Washington County Public Works CENTRAL COMMONS ADDITION 11 JI A An A/A //A /!\ IVI/-1I V / V // v V A I /r-A I I I r- _ - NORTHWEST CORNER OF /-I V L_ / V V L_ /� SEC. 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 A Ivvl\,h Q I -1 -T-1 Ir- n 11A1 -1 �l F 7 L- / v V V I I In Ir nr Tur AIn0TW1A/FCT ni IARTFR OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 SO 1 ° 15' 12 T ................ ................ \ /{'r-E)A/ /Ir-A 1 /Tr--) ']A//'l AI\I\ITI/lAl I\ L_ 1\ I V v L_ l V l L_ l\ � I vLJ /-ILJLJI / 1l/I V I V V V - EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 R=17748.45 I t U- = N 4D m O� Ln W W WET LAND a' °p I a Co �o \z ^ z W� W rn O un U co Ln W/ N Nco Qo z' ��° �0 3 I �z , 1 / �Q �l �) �UW �'o °'� so IW. ��� a err d� �❑ oa �' v i?UO O cm wQL I �� v1 xx ll � � \��� �, 0' 80' 160' 240' z N 1 WET LAND rn 0 0 I \ O O I /\ 3 WET LAND rnv v)Lai z / \ 1 ` 1z ? ^41 ' ^ o N0715816°w \� \ n \� OUTLOT C The West line of the Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter o W M - ''- I ` / A\ ` / o of Sec. 6, Twp. 29, Rge. 20 is assumed to bear N 00°25'42" W Ln _ z co o -- \ r _/ `� 11 J , Denotes set 1/2 inch x 14 inch iron rebar marked with plastic cap i- "'' u Z I \ \� `� i " V inscribed LS 45873, which has been set or will be set in accordance o z° ❑° i 1 ,� 1 <� e with MS 505.027, Subd. 10. unless otherwise noted on survey. 4 N 11 0 FOUND MONUMENT (SEE LABEL) \` < rn N \ NOT TANGENT SOO ° 14'26 "E I �\ 50.00 J WET LAND � o � 1Ag.53 „\nl O Q c Z z J � m� \ z N > N ZFE N ZO YZ W W _ e C QO e o ❑ �o z z°� zo U. o� ?Uq J z ~ J � W W U ❑ z O� \ \ WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 )/11 \/�^ ^ A A 1/\TI I n )\/ l/\ —i I/ V v I lJ/-I I\ / / WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SEC 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 - /-Anv�1 7056„WI i I / / I / / N00°250'42"W I I SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST - QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 969.67 — -. \ \ \ - - - WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC 6, TWP. 29, RGE. 20 PM Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets © 2020 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Call 48 Hours before digging: 811 or caII811.com Common Ground Alliance 60TH STREET NORTH Site Legend EASING PROPOSED REVISION DAY BY 09/29/20 Final PUD Submittal SITE SIGNAGE SIGN SETBACK [FT.] HEIGHT [FT.] AREA** [SF] 1* 10 35 200 2 10 10 100 3* 10 20 100 4**** 10 10 100 5**** 10 10 100 6 10 10 100 7* 10 35 150*** 8 10 10 100 9 10 10 100 WASHINGTOl' & _ ON -RAMP f I I FULL ACCES! SIG ALIZED I INTE SECTIOP OFF -RAMP MULTI- TENANT MONUME14T SIGN I I I I I U I I SANITARY LIFT STATION t- 50' WETLAND BUFFER I I WETLAND EDGE W,OUTLOT D \��\ ADDITIONAL EASEMENT FOR COUNTY DNR PWI #82-316W 10' ROADWAY EASEMENT FOR LAKE ELMO POSSIBLE FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -A MAINTAIN EXISTING GRAVEL ROADWAY SOUTH OF MANNING AVE. IMPROVEMENTS RETAINING WALLS ON APARTMENT SITE BY DEVELOPER * SEE MONUMENT SIGN DETAIL (OTHER MONUMENT SIGNS TBD) / ** BOTH SIDES OF SIGN *** SINGLE -SIDED **** TO BE BUILT WITH LOT / MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 36 MULTI -TENANT PYLON/MONUMENT SIGN CSAH 15 AS SHOWN IS FUTURE -ULTIMATE LAYOUT. EXISTING SHED (TO REMAIN) � OX• g33.0 0. FFE' J I / EXISTING WETLAND 20 20' WETLAND BUFFER - MULTI -TENANT MONUMENT SIGN ■ 10' I TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT in N N ra Parki uirements • CONVENIENCE STORES: • APARTMENTS: • RETAIL: ROW & PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE CURB AND GUTTER POND NORMAL WATER LEVEL RETAINING WALL W/ FENCE FENCE CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STANDARD DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS TRANSFORMER SITE LIGHTING TRAFFIC SIGN POWER POLE BOLLARD / POST SITE SIGNAGE - SEE SITE SIGNAGE REQUEST TABLE 5 STALLS / 1,000 SF OF GFA 1.5 STALLS / UNIT + 1 STALL / 3 UNITS FOR GUESTS 1 STALL / 200 SF GFA BUILDING SIGNAGE LOT USE TYPE SIGNAGE AREA [SF] 1, BLOCK 1 C-STORE WALL FAST & FRESH 320 (FOUR SIDES) WALL COFFEE 60 (TWO SIDES) CANOPY PUMP SIGNS 19 (ON N/S SIDES) NOT PROPOSED- 1.5 SF SIGNAGE FOR 1, BLOCK 2 RETAIL (WEST) WALL DEVELOPMENT EVERY ONE LINEAL FOOT CONSISTENT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE NOT PROPOSED- 1.5 SF SIGNAGE FOR 2, BLOCK 2 RETAIL (EAST) WALL DEVELOPMENT EVERY ONE LINEAL FOOT CONSISTENT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE 3, BLOCK 2 FOOD STORE WALL WALL SIGNS 626 DEVELOPMENT 1.5 SF SIGNAGE FOR 4, BLOCK 2 APARTMENT WALL CONSISTENT* EVERY ONE LINEAL FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE NOT PROPOSED- 1.5 SF SIGNAGE FOR OUTLOT A TBD-FUTURE WALL DEVELOPMENT EVERY ONE LINEAL FOOT CONSISTENT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE NOT PROPOSED- 1.5 SF SIGNAGE FOR OUTLOT B TBD-FUTURE WALL DEVELOPMENT EVERY ONE LINEAL FOOT CONSISTENT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE ** CONSIDERED APPROVED WITH PUD SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY LOT AREA [SF] AREA [AC.] USE IMPERVIOUS % BLDG. AREA/ UNITS REQUIRED Q STALLS PROVIDED STALLS 1, BLOCK 1 82,683 1.90 C-STORE 57.2 4,100 SF 21 37 1, BLOCK 2 27,819 0.64 RETAIL/REST. -- -- -- -- 2, BLOCK 2 36,898 0.85 RETAIL/REST. -- -- -- -- 3, BLOCK 2 385,011 8.84 FOOD STORE 90.2 95,716 SF 479 481 4, BLOCK 2 224,320 5.15 APARTMENT 65.3 200 367 353** OUTLOT A 142,330 3.27 TBD-FUTURE -- -- -- -- OUTLOT B 137,143 3.15 TBD-FUTURE -- -- -- -- OUTLOT C 267,364 6.14 POND 2.8 -- -- -- OUTLOT D 16,480 0.48 TBD 5.0 -- -- -- OUTLOT E 109,803 2.520 STREET/ROW -- -- -- -- OUTLOT F 107,889 2.48 STREET/ROW -- -- -- -- TOTAL 1,537,742 35.30 -- 56.0* -- 867 885 * STREET/ROW EXCLUDED FROM IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS ** 186 I INSIDE, 167 OUTSIDE General Site Notes 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL I SERVICES. WETLAND EDGE 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/ CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF EXITS, RAMPS, AND TRUCK DOCKS. 6. ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 3.0 FEET (TO FACE OF CURB) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. ALL CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 9. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SECTIONS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FULL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 11. SITE LIGHTING SHOWN ON PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO LIGHTING PLAN PREPARED BY OTHERS FOR SITE LIGHTING DETAILS AND PHOTOMETRICS. 12. PARKING LOT STRIPING TO BE TWO COATS OF 4" WHITE PAINT WITH EPDXY AND SILICA SAND. 0 o co 6 U) M L Q M L � LO E 3' V =Y0 C_" o IV L co O N N to o a 0 o a Z G U) U) Z Z 03: �p O 0 z U Lu J < Jw J 0 00 < 3: (/i Z m q to z J 2iw °> w �� Z / O ` J J � U W� �w Z o o U� W - C) (.0 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Daniel hL Parki Date 09/29/20 Ucenee No. 18919 CIVIL SITE PLAN DRAWN: DATE: TDM 09/29/20 SCALE: REVISION DATE: 1"=60' 09/29/20 SHEET. C300 0013062SP01.dwg GROCERY 95,716 SF a S I c. • • g: M/NNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 36 Common Ground Alliance Ln— Ol —a— STORMWATER FILTRATION POND i .► : BOTTOM = 957.50 f ~ EOF=962.00 « I I _-------------------------------------------------------------------, HWL=961.36 ~ ..► ------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------- �► ® LOT 1 BLOCK 1 ♦�� - -��� '� .•► j AREA: 2.06 ACRES A i i ► ► ,9 i : ► .r o _ A I ♦ — — — — C 4,100 SF C-STORE ,---------�— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 37 PARKING STALLS `• '� C LOT 2 BLOCK 2 :► t t / 18-OC`- ES I AREA: 0.80 ACRES o 6o PCR A A - - - - - - - - - - _ A A A- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � � A APO MENT i POH POH Poi POH i PO OH P H OH POH NA POH _ — �t _--- i I A 3 BL 2 I / a 8.8 S -1 /-\ I- "' rA - �1� R1 0 P H POH POH POH POH P H I P H POH POH POH — POH POH H I I ru 011 POH POH 'OH` 1111 OT A POH I \ AREA: 3.18 ACRES I _ OH POH POH POH - POH .H Q - �- I - ------FM---r = -- FM ------FM----- FM -l4 POH ° jar A C , -t------------------ d ��— 45 / I : I I I � OUTLOT B I V I 4 D AREA: 3.10 ACRES I = A 4— ._I I� I A I I — POH POH - — POH POH -POH POH Landscape Requirements STREET TREES: FRONT YARDS (NON—RESIDENTIAL): SCREENING: BUILDING EXPANSION AREAS: PARKING LOT ISLAND PLANTING: Landscape Legend • OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS TREE • ORNAMENTAL TREES CONIFEROUS TREES oQ+ SHRUBS / VINES - Q PERENNIALS Pollinator -Friendly Plantings Note TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ALONG ALL STREETS. STREET TREES SHALL BE SET BACK A DISTANCE OF TEN FEET FROM THE STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY. DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 40 FEET ON CENTER, AND CONIFEROUS STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 30 FEET ON CENTER. THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD ON DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LOTS SHALL BE COVERED WITH SOD AND MAINTAINED IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. PARKING AREAS CONTAINING FOUR OR MORE SPACES WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SHALL BE SCREENED TO A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST FOUR FEET BY SHRUBBERY, WOOD OR MASONRY MATERIALS. PORTIONS OF LOTS INTENDED TO BE UTILIZED FOR EXPANSION OF STRUCTURES MAY BE SEEDED WITH GRASS SEED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR INSTEAD OF BEING SODDED. PLANTING ISLANDS IN PARKING LOTS SHALL BE PLANTED WITH AT LEAST ONE DECIDUOUS TREE AND AT LEAST TWO SHRUBS AND SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES OF ROCK, WOOD CHIPS OR SIMILAR MATERIAL. ALL PLANTING ISLANDS SHALL BE TREATED WITH A MECHANICAL WEED INHIBITER. ONE TUBE FOR FEEDING AND WATERING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EACH PLANTING ISLAND. CONTRACTOR TO SELECT PLANTINGS THAT ARE POLLINATOR—FREINDLY BE EXCLUDING THE USE OF NEONICTINOID—APPLID PLANTS AND PRODUCTS. Landscape Provided Per Lot 4 LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LOT 3, BLOCK 2 OUTLOT B OVERSTORY TREES 19 OVERSTORY TREES 18 OVERSTORY TREES 1 ORNAMENTAL TREES -- ORNAMENTAL TREES 12 ORNAMENTAL TREES 2 CONIFEROUS TREES -- CONIFEROUS TREES 19 CONIFEROUS TREES 5 _ SHRUBS 6 SHRUBS 129 SHRUBS 30 PERENNIALS 60 PERENNIALS 750 PERENNIALS -- LOT 4, BLOCK 2 OUTLOT C OVERSTORY TREES 32 OVERSTORY TREES 26 ORNAMENTAL TREES 3 ORNAMENTAL TREES 15 CONIFEROUS TREES 2 CONIFEROUS TREES 1 SHRUBS 89 SHRUBS -- PERENNIALS 400 PERENNIALS -- OUTLOT D OVERSTORY TREES -- ORNAMENTAL TREES 2 CONIFEROUS TREES -- SHRUBS 5 PERENNIALS -- Plant Schedule (Total) Landscape Keynotes O A SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) B EDGER (TYP.) C SOD (TYP.) D SEED (SEE POST CONSTRUCTION GROUND COVER PLAN) Groundcover Schedule W W Mesic Prairie General MnDOT Mix 35-241 Cover crop of Spring/Summer Cover 21-111 over entire seeded area. W W Located on 3:1 Slopes with Erosion Control Blanket Q Wet Meadow South and West MnDOT Mix 34-271 Q Q Q Cover crop of Spring/Summer Cover Located 21-111 over entire seeded area. as shown on plan. Seeds to be planted per Season of Planting Table provided in the Seeding Manual 2014 Edition per type of seed mix. Seeding rates for each seed mix to follow recommended rates in Seeding Manual 2014 Edition per type of seed mix. Origin of seed to be within 200 miles of project site. Method 2 Seed installation method: All seed to be installed with a drop seeder that will accurately meter the types of seed to be planted, keep all seeds uniformly mixed during the seeding and contain drop seed tubes for seed placement(Brillion—Type). Landscape Architect to approve alternate methods if requested. See erosion control plan for soil stabilization methods. Spring/Summer Cover Crops to be planted over all seeded areas per MNDOT's suggested rate. Spring seeding of the site to be followed by a Fall reseeding of thin or eroded areas. Weeding of the site to occur in the summer and fall for the first two years after planting. Contractor to Warranty seeded areas for two years during plant establishment. Client to Approve seeding areas after two years. CODE OVERSTORY QTY. COMMON/BOTANICAL NAME 96 SIZE SPACING O.C. SGM -- Sienna Glen Maple / Acer x freemanii 'Sienna' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN NWM -- Northwood Maple / Acer rubrum 'Northwood' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN IMH -- Imperial Honeylocust / Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Impcole' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN SKH -- Skyline Honeylocust / Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Skycole' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN BOL -- Boulevard Linden / Tilia americana 'Boulevard' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN GSL -- Greenspire Linden / Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN PRE -- Princeton Elm / Ulmus americana 'Princeton' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN ACE -- Accolade Elm / Ulmus japonica x wilsoniana 'Morton' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN AGG -- Autumn Gold Ginko / Ginko biloba 'Autumn Gold' 2.5" BB AS SHOWN REO -- Red Oak / Quercus rubra 2.5" BB AS SHOWN SWO -- Swamp White Oak / Quercus bicolor 2.5" BB AS SHOWN RIB -- River Birch / Betula nigra 2.5" BB AS SHOWN ORNAMENTAL 34 SSC -- Spring Snow Crab / Malus 'Spring Snow' 1.5" BB AS SHOWN RSC -- Red Splendor Crab / Malus 'Red Splendor' 1.5" BB AS SHOWN JTL -- Japanese Tree Lilac / Syringa reticulata 6' HT., BB CLUMP AS SHOWN ALS -- Allegheny Serviceberry / Amelanchier laevis 6' HT., BB CLUMP AS SHOWN QUA -- Quaking Aspen / Populus tremuloides 1.5" BB AS SHOWN TCH -- Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn / Crataegus crusgalli 'Inermis' 1.5" BB AS SHOWN CONIFEROUS 27 BHS -- Black Hills Spruce / Picea glauca densata 6' HT., BB AS SHOWN CGS -- Colorado Green Spruce / Picea pungens 6' HT., BB AS SHOWN AUP -- Austrian Pine / Pinus nigra 6' HT., BB AS SHOWN NOP -- Norway Pine / Pinus resinosa 6' HT., BB AS SHOWN WHP -- White Pine / Pinus strobus 6' HT., BB AS SHOWN SHRUB 259 FLS -- Fire Light Spirea / Spiraea 'Fire Light' 18" HT., POT 2'-0" O.C. AWS -- Anthony Waterer Spirea / Spiraea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' 24" HT., POT 3'-0" O.C. LPS -- Little Princess Spirea / Spiraea japonica 'Little Princess' 18" HT., POT 3'-0" O.C. DWE -- Dwarf Winged Euonymus / Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' 24" HT., POT 3'-0" O.C. / DBH Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle / Diervilla lonicera 24" HT., POT 3'-0" O.C. == 'Compacta' CAV Compact American Cranberrybush Viburnum / Viburnum trilobum 24" HT., POT 4'-0" O.C. ANH == Annabelle Hydrangea / Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' 24" HT., POT 4'-0" O.C. / GRID Gray Dogwood / Cornus racemosa 36" HT., POT 5'-0" O.C. / CAD == Cardinal Dogwood / Cornus sericea 'Cardinal' 36" HT., POT 5'-0" O.C. MJJ Mint Julep Juniper / Juniperus chinensis 'Monlep' 24" SPRD., POT 4'-0" O.C. / MUP Mugo Pine / Pinus mugo pumilio 24" SPRD., POT 4'-0" O.C. TAY == Taunton Yew / Taxus medii 'Taunton' 24" SPRD., POT 4'-0" O.C. / TEA -- Techny Arborvitae / Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' 4' BB 4'-0" O.C. �\ PERENNIALS 1210 \ PMD Pardon Me Daylily / Hemerocallis 'Pardon Me' NO. 1 CONT. 12" O.C. JSD == Joan Senior Daylily / Hemerocallis 'Joan Senior' NO. 1 CONT. 12" O.C. SDO Stella de Oro Daylily / Hemerocallis 'Stella de Oro' NO. 1 CONT. 12" O.C. BES -- Black Eyed Susan / Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' QUART POT 16" O.C. WBA -- Woods Blue Aster / Aster 'Woods Blue' QUART POT 12" O.C. VRA -- Visions in Red Astilbe / Astilbe chinensis 'Visions' QUART POT 12" O.C. KOG -- Kobold Gayfeather / Liatris spicata 'Kobold' QUART POT 12" O.C. STL -- Stargazer Lily / Lilium 'Stargazer' QUART POT 12" O.C. PUC Purple Coneflower / Echinacea purpurea 'Magna' QUART POT 18" O.C. BCB == Blue Clips Bellflower / Campanula carpatica 'Blue Clips' QUART POT 12" O.C. MOY -- Moonshine Yarrow / Achillea 'Moonshine' QUART POT 18" O.C. MOC -- Moonbeam Coeopsis / Coreopsis 'Moonbeam' QUART POT 18" O.C. RUS -- Russian Sage / Perovskia atriplicfolia QUART POT 18" O.C. BLB -- Blaze Little Bluestem Grass / Schizachyrium scoparium 'Blaze' QUART POT 18" O.C. KFG -- Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass / Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' QUART POT 24" O.C. RSG -- Red Switch Grass / Panicum virgatum 'Shenandoah' QUART POT 24" O.C. NOTE: QUANTITIES ON PLAN SUPERSEDE LIST QUANTITIES IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. 0' 60' 120' 180' REVISION DAY BY 09/29/20 Final PUD Submittal 0 o co +6.+ U) ai M L Q M L � E 32 N t s -o « °o O o c 4 c n � a) O y o U M O � N N V o a � 0 o a Z n .. U) U) Z Z 03: �p G L 2 � O Z O Z U Lu J < Jw J 0 00 < 3: U) Z m C:) to Z � J �w °� w Z ZCDI O _J J J Q — ~ - — Q v W� w zoo J o CUU) W C)�U)U) I— I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of Minnesota. lk k�i(� OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN DRAWN. DATE: EAC 09/29/20 SCALE: REVISION DATE. 1"=60' 09/29/20 SHEET. L 10 1 0013062PL01.dwg Revised Central Commons Signage Review October 26, 2020 Legal Address Proposed Type Proposed Signage Proposed Proposed Proposed Area Permitted Signage Analysis Staff recommendations - original in black Improvement Setback Height Developer's requested amendments in red Revised staff recommendation in blue Block 1, Lot 1 C-Store Multi -Tenant Sign 1: Multi- 10, 60' 200 sf Height: 25' Most comparable (Marketplace of 70 35' tall, 200 sf panel, 15' setback Master Tenant Area: 120 sf (each side) acres); Target/Cub has 35' tall, 300 sf per Pylon Pylon/Monument Setback: 15' side. Developer requested no change 35' tall, 200 sf panel, 15' setback (No change) Free-standing Sign 2: Monument 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' The applicant recognizes these site 6' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Sign Area: 100 sf panel identification signs should be as tall. To Setback: 15' maintain consistency within the City, 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County signage should be similar to what is ROW. [The taller sign allows enhanced allowed along Stillwater Blvd. landscaping below it. The 10' setback reflects the additional exceedingly wide ROW easement required by the County.] 10' tall (enhanced landscaping required below sign), 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County ROW. Wall Fast & Fresh 320 sf (all sides) 265 sf total Applicant proposing (approximately) 1.5 square feet of signage for every one Reduce to 265 sf of total wall signage Wall Coffee 60 (two sides) linear foot of building frontage. This is Permit 320 sf or 1.5 square feet of signage for inconsistent with any allowed signage in every one linear foot of building frontage the City. throughout the H M U development to permit greater visibility as motorists pass the development as greater speeds. Reduce to 265 sf of total wall signage (which is all that is allowed anywhere else on the 36 Corridor in Stillwater) Canopy Pump Signs 19 sf per N/S 50% Gross Surface Area Conforms to City Code. OK. side Developer OK OK Block 2, Lot 1 Retail (West) Free-standing Sign 5: Monument 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' The applicant recognizes these site 6' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Sign Area: 100 sf identification signs should be smaller. To Setback: 15' maintain consistency within the City, 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County signage should be similar to what is ROW. [The taller sign allows enhanced allowed along Stillwater Blvd. landscaping below it. The 10' setback reflects the additional exceedingly wide ROW easement required by the County.] 10' tall (enhanced landscaping required below sign), 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County ROW. Page 1 of 4 Revised Central Commons Signage Review October 26, 2020 Wall Not Proposed — Should follow City Code at time of buildout but should be development Permit 1.5 square feet of signage for every one consistent linear foot of building frontage throughout the HMU development. Follow City Code at time of buildout. That is 1 sf of signage/lineal foot of building frontage. Block 2, Lot 2 Retail (East) Multi -Tenant Sign 3: Multi- 10 20 100 sf Height: 20' Additional multi -tenant signs in the One, 20' tall (up to) 100 sf panel, 10'4-5� Master Sign Tenant Area: 100 sf development is reasonable; the City setback orn �uumy MUV\,. Monument Sign Setback: 15' permitted this for Liberty Village. One, 20' tall (up to) 100 sf panel, 10' setback. [The 10' setback reflects the additional exceedingly wide ROW easement required by the County.] One, 20' tall (up to) 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County ROW. Free-standing Sign 4: Monument 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' The applicant recognizes these site 6' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Sign Area: 100 sf identification signs should not be as tall. Setback: 15' To maintain consistency within the City, 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County signage should be similar to what is ROW. [The taller sign allows enhanced allowed along Stillwater Blvd. landscaping below it. The 10' setback reflects the additional exceedingly wide ROW easement required by the County.] 10' tall (enhanced landscaping required below sign), 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County ROW. Wall Not Proposed — Should follow City Code at time of buildout but should be development Permit 1.5 square feet of signage for every one consistent linear foot of building frontage throughout the HMU development. Follow City Code at time of buildout. That is 1 sf of signage/lineal foot of building frontage. Block 2, Lot 3 Hy-Vee Free-standing Sign 6: Monument 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' The applicant recognizes these site 6' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Sign Area: 100 sf (per side) identification signs should not be as tall. Setback: 15' To maintain consistency within the City, 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County signage should be similar to what is ROW. [The taller sign allows enhanced allowed along Stillwater Blvd. landscaping below it. The 10' setback reflects the additional exceedingly wide ROW easement required by the County.] 10' tall (enhanced landscaping required below sign), 100 sf panel, 10' setback from County ROW. Page 2 of 4 Revised Central Commons Signage Review October 26, 2020 Wall Signs = 626 sf 380 sf Argument could be made for multiple Four wall signs on front and 1-2 on sides is signs on building faces as this is common okay but not to exceed ratio of 1.5 sf for every throughout the City on larger retail one foot of building frontage total. buildings. However, signage in excess of one square foot for every one linear foot Developer requested no change. of building frontage is not consistent. That said, the building is set back from Four wall signs on front and 1-2 on sides is HWY 36; 1.5 sf of signage for every one okay but not to exceed ratio of 1.5 sf for every linear foot of frontage may be necessary one foot of building frontage total. [No for visibility. change] Outlot A Future (North) Multi -Tenant Sign 7: Multi- 10 35 150 sf Height: 20' Additional multi -tenant signs in the 20' tall, 100 sf panel sign, 15' setback. Master Sign Tenant Area: 100 sf per side development is reasonable; the City Monument Sign Setback: 15' permitted this for Liberty Village. 35' tall, 150 sf single sided sign, 15' setback. [The additional height is needed to get above To maintain consistency within the City, the 10-15' retaining wall / grade separation in signage should be similar to what is the NW corner of Outlot A.] allowed along Stillwater Blvd. 35' tall, 150 sf single -sided panel, 15' setback. Wall Not Proposed — Should follow City Code at time of buildout but should be development Permit 1.5 square feet of signage for every one consistent linear foot of building frontage throughout the HMU development. Follow City Code at time of buildout. That is 1 sf of signage/lineal foot of building frontage. Free-standing Sign 8 (Alternate): 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' The applicant recognizes these site 6' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Monument Sign Area: 100 sf (per side) identification signs should not be as tall. Setback: 15' To maintain consistency within the City, 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback; sign to be signage should be similar to what is shared between Hy-Vee and the owner of allowed along Stillwater Blvd. Outlot A or B. [The taller sign allows enhanced landscaping below it.] 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback [Sign not on County Road, therefore standard setback should be observed] Outlot B Future (South) Free-standing Sign 8 (Alternate): 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' The applicant recognizes these site 6' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Monument Sign Area: 100 sf (per side) identification signs should not be as tall. Setback: 15' To maintain consistency within the City, 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback; sign to be signage should be similar to what is shared between Hy-Vee and the owner of allowed along Stillwater Blvd. Outlot A or B. [The taller sign allows enhanced landscaping below it.] 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback [Sign not on County Road, therefore standard setback should be observed] Page 3 of 4 Revised Central Commons Signage Review October 26, 2020 Wall Not Proposed — 1-1.5 sf of signage per every one linear foot of but should be building frontage development consistent Permit 1.5 square feet of signage for every one linear foot of building frontage throughout the HMU development. Follow City Code at time of buildout. That is 1 sf of signage/lineal foot of building frontage. Block 2, Lot 4 Apartment Free-standing Sign 9: Apartment 10 10 100 sf Height: 6' When requested, the City has allowed for 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback Monument Sign Area: 100 sf (per side) residential development signs to be in Setback: 15' excess of the maximum 6'. 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 10' setback 10' tall, 100 sf panel, 15' setback [Sign not on County Road, therefore standard setback should be observed] Wall Not specifically Permit 1.5 square feet of signage for every one drawn — but linear foot of building frontage throughout the should be HMU development. development consistent and Follow City Code at time of buildout. That is 1 considered sf of signage/lineal foot of building frontage. approved with PUD Page 4 of 4 Central Commons Review Timeline Revised Oct 14, 2020 March 11 City submits hearing notice to Gazette for HMU Zoning District Ordinance. March 12 Technical review meeting on Central Commons March 23 City submits EAW to EQB staff for publication in the EQB Monitor. City distributes EAW to reviewing agencies and publishes in a local newspaper that the EAW is available for review and comment. March 30 EQB Monitor including Central Commons EAW published by EQB. April 1 City submits Central Commons public hearing notice to Gazette. April 3 City mails certified notices of annexation hearing. City mail notices of public hearing for Central Commons. April 22 Planning Commission holds public hearing for Case 2020-09 (HMU Zoning District Ordinance). Planning Commission holds public hearing on Central Commons. Note: Planning Commission recommendations to the Council will be conditioned upon a negative declaration for the EAW and final approval of annexation ordinance by chief administrative law judge. April 27 Park Commission reviews Central Commons. April 29 End of EAW review and comment period. April 30 Developer tabled case to re -submit EAW addressing greenhouse gasses more thoroughly June 1 City submits new EAW Abstract to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and Press Release/Public Notice to local newspaper June 8 EQB Monitor published — 30 day EAW comment period begins June 24 Planning Commission review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment June 30 Distribution of Comp Plan Amendment to surrounding jurisdictions for 60-day review July 7 City Council holds hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Note: Final action on the Comp Plan Amendment can not be made until: 1) after the 2nd EAW comment period ends and a negative declaration is made or an EIS is completed; and 2 after the 60 day jurisdictional review is completed. July 8 2nd EAW comment period ends July 13-24 2nd EAW comments reviewed and addressed by city and developer July 21 City Council work session re: Infrastructure cost -sharing (Not yet confirmed by Council — confirmation expected at the June 16 Council meeting.) Aug 4 City Council decision on EAW. City Council decides on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if jurisdicational review is complete). City Council holds public hearing/V reading of HMU Zoning District Ordinance. City Council holds public hearing on adoption of annexation ordinance. City Council holds public hearing on Central Commons preliminary plat. Note 1: City Council cannot take action on the Central Commons preliminary plat until either they find that an EIS is not necessary, or an EIS is completed. Note 2: Since the annexation is not final until the chief administrative law judge signs off on the annexation ordinance, all Council actions for Central Commons will be conditioned upon final approval of the annexation ordinance by the administrative law judge. Note 3: City Council can only make a final decision on Comp Plan Amendment if the jurisdictional review is completed early. If it takes its full 60 day course, then the decision on Aug 4 must be conditioned upon Council review of comments at its Sept VY meeting. Aug 18 City Council holds 2nd reading of HMU Zoning District Ordinance. City Council holds 2nd reading of rezoning for Central Commons City Council holds 2nd reading of Annexation Ordinance Aug 19 City submits annexation petition to the Municipal Board Aug 30 End of 60-day jurisdictional review for Comp Plan Amendment Aug 28 Developer submits final Plat application to City (Final PUD to be submitted later) Sept 1 If any jurisdictional review comments of substance are submitted, City Council will consider them September 1st. The Comp Plan Amendment Resolution of approval includes the condition that any substantive comments must be addressed by Council, so if there are none, no further Council action is necessary. Sept 2 Submission of Comp Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council Note: Annexation must be approved by administrative law judge prior to submittal of Comp Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Sept 28 Developer submits final PUD application to City Oct 28 Planning Commission holds public hearing for Phase I Final PUD and Final Plat (Final Plat does not require a public hearing, but the Final PUD does.) City cannot give final approval of the plat or PUD until Met Council approves the Comp Plan Amendment. So, a condition of approval will have to be that neither is effective until the CPA is approved by Met Council. Nov 2 Met Council's Community Development Committee reviews Comp Plan Amendment Nov 17 City Council reviews Final Plat, Final PUD for Phase 1, Development Agreement and concept Tax Abatement Agreement. City cannot give final approval until Met Council approves the Comp Plan Amendment. So, a condition of approval will have to be that approval is not effective until the CPA is approved by Met Council. The plat cannot be released from City offices until CPA occurs. Nov 18 Met Council review of Comp Plan Amendment Dec 1 Consent adoption by City Council of resolutions approving the Final Plat, Final PUD for Phase 1, and Development Agreement. Approval of Tax Abatement Agreement by City Council. TO: REPORT DATE: 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission October 8, 2020 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 APPLICANT: Brad and Tiffany Vick LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: INTRODUCTION CASE NO.: 2020-53 Brad and Tiffany Vick Variance to the maximum allowed structural surface coverage. 516 Second Street North RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner Mr. and Mr. Vick own the property at 516 Second Street North, which is a single family house built in 1880. They are proposing to build a 12' X 8' (96 sf) shed in the southwest corner of this property. A 96sf shed in this location is allowed by code, however this property is already 482sf over the maximum allowed structural lot coverage. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: A variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow the lot's structural coverage to be 29.8%, whereas the maximum allowed structural coverage is 25%. CPC Case 2020-53 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; a shed in the rear of the property is permitted in this 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? Maximum Structural Lot 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. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Maximum Structural Lot Coverage If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code, because while the structural coverage is slightly over the required amount, the existing impervious coverage is far below the maximum amount allowed. Currently, the lot has a total coverage (structural and impervious) of 33.1%, which is far below the 50% combined maximum. Lastly, adding a small 96sf shed in the rear corner of a large 12,819sf, would have minimal impacts in almost any situation. 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 12,819 sf property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding a 96 sf shed to the rear of their property. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The property currently has a 720 sf garage, which is relatively small for today's standards. Consequently, to add some extra outdoor storage, the Vick's have opted to add a CPC Case 2020-53 Page 3 of 4 small shed. Also, the house was built in 1880 and was built as to take up a large footprint, so the landowner did not create an abundance of structural coverage. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? As mentioned above, these circumstance were mostly created in 1880 and slightly compounded in 1980 with the addition of a garage. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? The small shed will be tucked back into the rear corner of this large property, and will have no negative impact to the appearance of this property from the street. This proposed shed will no effect on the neighborhood as a whole. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations. 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- 53, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. Runoff from the shed must be retained on said property. 4. The existing shed in the rear (noted in Exhibit A) shall be removed. 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 variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. 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. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. There will be no adverse aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood, nor will stormwater infiltration be impacted. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-53 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. CPC Case 2020-53 Page 4 of 4 Attachments: Site Location Map Site Plan Aerial Map cc: Brad and Tiffany Vic } i 650 650 6506 Of 903, Me 650 650 650 1 a _ r r ]iJ► 650 r 650 650 1� v -uih Ni ii 1- ; 650 404 805 I ;gomou:m oiimnr i 4 t LU 718 610 . � 610 610 � - 610 610 714 =3 z 116 �- wi�, Po Q + q° 2 C 10 � = Q ' 621 G SCR<� I r 822 . 1 118 , VR`� 307 r ; .. � 613 �� �" .,. � �J� � � 520 � Z � ��� 575 6`18 m� 2 = LU 610 Q 106 ` -5o 512 O 4 505` �[��16: Texi-) 501 it 107 Yc ". 501 50 �. 518 50 m ' 450 5011 j 51'114 n r l 5 y 110 O c } 501 ", ,' ` 501 0 n o W 2 - 110 510 118 NE �P.cJ Co 423 ,113 CPS 419 416 Zi 424 415 - 121 117 114 402 350 , 408 401 350 \ F 350 p a PS 350 350 2 333 122 2-0`G 115 350 350 , . k - 323 320 350 350 350 i 319 316 350 Cn� 1 821 105 11-7 312 �.� %A __a V, - �VO C I jjWa ter The Birthplace of Minnesota .+ N WE S Site Location 516 Second Street North 0 135 270 540 Feet General Site Location V IN o i:5 " svQd �[N 1 rKISK I) s G.-e,& -6 t,�-z vob,ro-,e-d u l mlo � �t u /56 jill a., e r T H E B I F1 T H P C A C F O F M I N N E S 0 1 A Planning Report MEMO DATE: October 20, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-55 MEETING DATES: Planning Commission October 28, 2020 LANDOWNER: Buettner Real Estate LLC APPLICANT: Cory Buettner REQUEST: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated variances LOCATION: 127/131 Main Street South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD, Central Business District Flood Fringe Overlay REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION The owners of Leo's Grill and Malt Shop (127 Main Street South) would like to redevelop their patio dining area off of the corner of Water Street South and Chestnut Street East. The proposed design includes the addition of an accessory trash enclosure, an exterior restroom addition, awning/overhang to accommodate for elevated patio dining, and separation of walk-up and dine - in services. While it appears additional patio dining is proposed to be located onsite, the elevated patio is designed to accommodate for the dining tables located in the future walk-up service area. The improvements, physically attached to the property at 131 Main Street South, are located in the Central Business District and the Flood Fringe Overlay District. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1. Conditional Use Permit for a restroom addition and accessory structure located in the Flood Fringe Overlay District; and 2. Variance to the Central Business District's 20' Rear Yard setback for the construction of a trash enclosure and elevated dining area. ANALYSIS Flood Fringe Conditional Use Permit CPC 2020-55 PC 10/28/2020 Page 2 of 4 The Floodplain Overlay District allows for the CBD's permitted uses so long as the structures, including accessory structures, are elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. Neither the exterior restroom addition nor the trash enclosure building are proposed to conform to this standard. Thus, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Flood fringe Conditional Use Permitting allows improvements if the base or floor of a proposed enclosed area is: 1) above the protected high water elevation on at least one side of the structure; 2) it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; or 3) it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The above -noted conditions are subject to the following additional standards: The structure's design and as -built condition must be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the State Building Code and, specifically, that all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding. • Above -grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate a minimum area of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a floodproofing technique. • Storage of materials and equipment that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. While the floor of the restroom and the trash enclosure are not proposed to be elevated, all plumbing and mechanical equipment will be elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The restroom will have flood holes designed to allow water to penetrate into the addition and recede as the water does. The trach enclosure area will have a roll -up garage door where, too, water can enter and recede. Storage of two, 55-gallon, lockable grease containers will be secured to the interior wall. They, as well as trash containers, will be removed by the property owner/business prior to flooding events. The primary challenge with the redevelopment of the patio will be compliance with the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization's (WMO) rules regarding redevelopment sites. While the most of the existing patio is covered with impervious surface, removal of the current surfacing and putting in new impervious surfacing triggers the requirement to treat stormwater onsite. Based on the addition of 1,822 square feet of new impervious surface area, 84 cubic feet of retention area will be required. The property owner will need to work with the City's Engineering Department to assure compliance with the WMO's standards. Setback Variance The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. CPC 2020-55 PC 10/28/2020 Page 3 of 4 • 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 CBD and in the Flood Fringe Overlay. Structural additions, accessory structures and at -grade and elevated patios are allowed by Special/Conditional Use Permit. • 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? Front yard setback The specific purpose of the rear yard setback is to allow for onsite parking in the Central Business. However, that district's setback from the front and side are zero. Thus, it is staff's belief the intention for a rear yard setback, when fronting a street, should also be zero. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Front yard setback If granted, the improvements proposed to be located on the rear property line would be in line with other improvements along the Water Street side. 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. 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? Above -grade dining and a trash enclosure are reasonable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The property at 131 Main Street South fronts three streets. This is unique. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property already contains these improvements. While the owner would like to upgrade them with permanent alterations, the owner did not create the property's uniqueness. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? On October 21, 2020, the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the proposed design. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations but, rather, to clean up the rear portion of the property. CPC 2020-55 PC 10/28/2020 Page 4 of 4 POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested flood fringe Conditional Use Permit and setback variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially compliant with those on file with the Community Development Department's case file 2020-55 except as modified herein. 2. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this section. Floodproofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. 3. Plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Fire and Building Inspections departments prior to project commencement. 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. Deny the request. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. 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. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMEDATION The redevelopment of the patio to include permanent restroom and trash enclosure facilities is reasonable. Constructing these improvements in a fashion that will not increase the flood stage nor will result in increased damages is being proposed. Constructing these in areas where they comply with the intention of the code is preferred. Thus, staff finds that — with certain conditions — the project conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of variances. Staff recommends conditional approval with those conditions outlined in alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Certificate of Survey Narrative Request Site Plan Restroom Plan Trash Enclosure Rendering Cc: Cory Buettner Jeri Noden, Seven Edges Design _ " � 4-�' f � ` � .'"fix — - � - . 9 � ; ! �y`_ +�' .. , _ u n .. ,��m ter' �� - `- - - �.� �1 CERTIFICATE OF T r. r Survey Made For: Mr. Cory Buettner Buettner Real Estate, LLC 437 Broadway Street Stillwater, MN 55082 FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION = 693.00 ORIGINATING BENCHMARK VERTICAL DATUM: MN/DOT NAME: PBM 12 SCALE COUNTY• WASHINGTON MN LAKE AND LAND SURVEYING, INC. 0 1200 Centre Pointe Curve, Suite 275 clo Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 0 --A Phone: 651— 776— 6211 �m S NOTE: 692.05 �z DUE TO WINTER CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC, SOME \NG, FFF o O INVERT ELEVATIONS FROM CITY RECORD DRAWINGS i (ASBUILTS) FIELD VERIFY ' 20,+� s PR p z �250 5 F N 120 00 NE\G c 69 X49 S T o 125' gU\VD\�G wp00 OF \/O-\ �j l Q E�\G 3 6g0 55 690.41 O lZ ELEVATION=692.07 FEET NAVD88 1 inch = 20 ft. o \ EX\S�\G 125 SNP �\\E ^Z?os 6g0� G p� G� o �✓ 2016, REFERENCE 00000879 g�\\DEN 5\06 NOR \ON� ', O �Z \ �", 69G.94 SOD N?' MP U! 00 g9,g1 W v a �\ '00 y90?5,- O R\vs6SA.2D 0 T E S ; ti FFE SG IV 690.78 690.94 t WPCERRGP-SjM R\vg6a4'�9 Denotes PK Nail set with ° ��, �\GHj' poifo e O °'5 --- gG\VD\hG NIX\S�\NG 2� N���\� g \N� \ ` 2��0 690.63 � Gg\ S9 4D washer stamped RLS 16464. 2 G S R\M- 4.42 Denotes Iron Monument found N o ` i o e�\\_��N 'I. 0 6, 5 8 \NZ S 0 Nv 0 DON size, type, & R.L.S. as noted. SS o M �� 32gQ� N 691.Q8 . X.690.89 SOD S Sn�A R\M 34.0, Ew --X 863.23 6CQ \. Q 2G �PS �, 0 d C% 12 E \, , jOP \Nv� 68D 55 863--- Denotes Existing Contour �� 2 69'90 �� 69E.42 N�ZSODG /i' S�ZSO2 W OO MPP'i„voc�sA 6903 5\cN D El CB Denotes Catch Basin �� 0 g0 „� j,122°'00� SOD. ,6 6g060 'Rcp © O 20 D O G N�\GG 691.64 690. 42 Denotes Utility PedistalN�25 cJ`�,, gD\vD\� \Sj\N -50'8 XFF E © TA Denotes Gas Service v o O gU\�S�N�j Sj 6;,SjM wv oaf 6906 GV w-..'692.23 F� ��� --'- O Q+ G\'` vwv 69 G8� Denotes Gas Valve 0 � p o FEN ESQ 41 -- G\3 M ZZ3 ❑E Denotes Electric Meter %� G� A rn Sw \S�\NG "P� FFE6g\ 69 3a• 7 + Q" 1v `BENCHMARK MANHOLE COVER: O O EX �3 nZ 69A.45 E GQ L RIM=690.60 SP Denotes Signal Pole \ o�\� N- O\NG 50 FFE 24 v x G�Re� S�2 GPS� O 5 gV\\ S. . _' 2� • G RGP ESE 3" N V=682.19 H H Denotes Hand H o e �z s 692.05 M P\N NE\GNj' 42 - cO� cR x Denotes Metal Fence \� � o SS N FFE gU\�D\NG e slo 4, NE OF E� G 6 0\P Denotes Wood Fence yZA 9\39 6g NOR0N �� S�R� SjM << 's, SP'�--3/4 \\ArPEc r - G�\ESly w 0 Denotes Light Pole N T Denotes Underground Telecommunication Line RCP �� o �03 ssi.> \Ro 69Apa \ �1 a�p"w G00 G Denotes Underground Gas 5 w 691.68� y� �� .L50GRGSS\wP 1250 2 w E Denotes Underground Electric 691.27 ® DMH Sw\jcN� O Denotes Hydrant RDenotes Water Valve w Denotes Water Line sTM Denotes Storm Sewer Line ss Denotes Sanitary Sewer Line OE Denotes Electric Manhole OD Denotes Storm Sewer Manhole Os Denotes Sanitary Sewer Manhole OHw Denotes Overhead Utility wires 0 Denotes Concrete Surface SITE ADDRESS: 131 Main Street S. Stillwater, MN 55082 AREA: 4979 SO. FT. OR 0.11 ACRES BASIS OF BEARINGS: Assumed LAKE & LAND SURVEYING JOB NO. 2020.026 RP RIM-691.27 INV=683.463.46 w � w \� 1 Psi �\V � C C \ _ FI R\GNP � OF wv w �PS 691.87 (60 R� 691.41 w I certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me w or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered / Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. o cn, g'D\P -O February 25, 2020 DUE TO WINTER CONDITIONS, AT THE TIME THE SURVEY WORK WAS PERFORMED, SOME FEATURES SHOWN ON THE GRAPHICS MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE FOUND IN THE FIELD. Jonathan L. Farad Registered Land Surveyor & Registered Engineer Minnesota Registration No. 16464 SHEET 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT C GLORIA'S TO GO DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES - 2" DENOTES ROOF LINE TRASH I ENCLOSURE I I 11 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I L -- [ WATER BOTTLE FILLER -IRRIGATION CONTROLS -ELECTRICAL -WATER SPIGOT • .. ,.-1RAIGATE[3PL7�N=------------- BED WITH TRELLIS AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING IRRIGATED PLANTER WALL LOW PLANTER BED CURB I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REMOVABLE HOSTESS QUEUE STATION DIVIDER CHESTNUT STREET DENOTES ROOF LINE 55 GALLON STEEL DRUMS WITH LOCKABLE LID FOR GREASE STORAGE / RECYCLING. SECURED TO WALL WITH FLEXIBLE BANDS. METAL RAILING - IRRIGATED POLE FOR OUTDOOR STRING LIGHTS AND HANGING PLANTER WATER STREET METAL RAILING IRRIGATED/ ELECTRICAL POLE FOR OUTDOOR STRING LIGHTS AND HANGING PLANTERS 501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216 PROJECT: D A T E 10-I-2020 STILLWATER, MN 55082 L E 0' S G R I L L S E V E N E D G E S JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN.COM 1 3 1 MAIN STREETS SITE PLAN WITH GREASE COMMERCIAL, HOSPITALITY RECYCLING LOCATION INTERIOR DESIGN 6 1 2. 7 5 9 1 9 3 6 S T I L L W A T E R, M N SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" EXHIBIT A ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM SOUTH INTERIOR ELEVATION WALL MOUNT FIXTURES WITH CONNECTIONS 1' ABOVE 100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION FEMA COMPLIANT FLOOD VENTS ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM WEST INTERIOR ELEVATION ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM NORTH INTERIOR ELEVATION EAST INTERIOR ELEVATION 501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216 PROJECT: D A T E 10-I-2020 STILLWATER, MN 55082 L E 0' S G R I L L S H E E T S E V E N E D G E S JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN.COM 1 3 1 MAIN STREETS ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM COMMERCIAL♦ HOSPITALITY ELEVATIONS INTERIOR DESIGN 6 1 2. 7 5 9 1 9 3 6 S T I L L W A T E R, M N Scale 1/8" = 1'-0" ONO! Ei MIN MIN mom TO: REPORT DATE: 1 Water T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M 1 N N E S 0! A PLANNING REPORT Planning Commission October 15, 2020 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020 APPLICANT: Tim Jozeflow, St Croix Carpentry CASE NO.: 2020-56 LANDOWNER: Jeff Wright REQUEST: Variance to the side yard setback to allow for the addition of an attached garage. LOCATION: 416 Grove Street South ZONING: RA, One -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Jeff and Diane Wright own the property at 416 Grove Street South, which is a single family house with a side -loaded single -stall tuck -under garage, which was built in 1954. Mr. and Mrs. Wright are seeking to expand the existing one stall garage (which is un "usable" due to the turning radius to enter/exit) into a two stall garage, and also to add more living space to their house. They are proposing to add a 20' x 25' addition to the south end of their house, which will feature a front loaded tuck -under garage on the lower level and a new kitchen / great room on the upper level. This addition will not raise the height of the structure, however the horizontal expansion will encroach into the sideyard setback by three feet. SPECIFIC REOUEST The applicant is requesting: A variance to City Code Section 31-305. (b). (1). to allow an attached garage to be setback seven feet from the side property line, whereas ten feet is required. CPC Case 2020-56 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 RA, One -Family Residential; an attached garage is permitted in this 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? Side yard setback The specific purpose of a side yard setback for garages is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits, as well as to prevent development too close to the adjacent property. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Side yard setback If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. In the RA Zoning District, an attached garage only needs a five-foot setback from a side lot line.' The proposed attached garage would have a seven -foot setback. However, there will be living space above the garage. And the living space is required to have a ten -foot setback. The living space could be built with the full ten -foot setback, but would look odd. The variance is only requesting the living space to be three feet closer to the property line and surface coverage will not be increased because the addition is going over existing driveway. 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? In the RA Zoning District, a property with single family residence would be proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner by adding an attached two stall garage onto their existing house with a front loaded two stall tuck -under garage with living space above it. And it is not unreasonable to have the exterior side wall of the attached garage and the living space above to be flush. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? 1 City Code Sec 31-305(3) iii CPC Case 2020-56 Page 3 of 4 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The house was built so that it was in the center of the two side yard lines, which left very little room to expand in width, and only room to add in the rear. However, the largest issue for the Wright's is that the angle of their garage relative to the driveway is an extraordinary tight turn making this smaller than desire garage "unusable". So in conclusion, to fix this issue the expansion must extend towards the side property line. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. The shift from a side loaded garage to a front loaded garage will favorably change the property's circumstances, to allow for much better access to the garage for now and into the essential character of the locality? The addition of a 2 stall tuck under garage with living space above it, would have no impact to the neighborhood surrounding. A significant number of houses in this area have front loaded garages (refer to image below). Also on this block you will notice most structures are very close to or within the side yard setbacks (refer to image on the right), so this addition will not stand out as incompatible with the surrounding Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations. The applicant would like to make their garage more accessible and larger CPC Case 2020-56 Page 4 of 4 effort to address their issues with the garage they are adding needed living space as well. 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- 56, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. Runoff from the addition must be redirected or retained, so it will not discharge storm water runoff onto the southern adjacent property. 4. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 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. 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. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties, such as the extremely poor garage accessibility, have been established. In which, the difficulties are solely due to circumstances unique to the property, such as the house's location on the lot. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-56 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Preliminary Design Sketch cc: Jeff and Diane Wright 1402 1k6 c1322 0_' 103 1216 WEST �RAMSEY 201 1419 1327 1323' 319 1311 1219 1 94 ; .. r 1524' 1424Y{1,418 1442 t404 � - 0 1320 T CSAH 5 -------------- _1 521 1511 .1503 14 f7*r 1405. _ 132f z _ 118 r 1w N, 121 - 4 I ater lw The Birthplace of Minnesota N - - S Ilk #1 W _ _ W W 314 � I — _ 11 11Y2 312. k 3 ' 3 302 FA 313� ,�:. i 402 m 321 c/_ - _ 320_ 3 - �� 322 - eT316 13?0 130 sr 12 to 1204 12b2 W WEST g OAK ST STREET U17 F- ' 403 1 404 -�� 'r W T OAK STREET — 49T W 406 403 _ W 409 �408, 1C�3 13071303 �409 F 411 „41Or U 409 F - � W 1-2P5121-91215 1207 415 ''- . 414. fn. 413 _ 4 — �411 ;_ "416 �415 418 - 408 Z - O y 4 427 415 W,: (A ' 417 W 416 _ U 42 15iO4.. 1418 424 I�8 13p,,13 - 1j118 _. ki �f a1 = * _i y 1116. - W wa Text F STREET WEST TIE STREET O 1517 I 1509 502 = 1f 01 Q 131-9 t506 0` 1-22-S 1215: 1 24a 1125 +117j 1111 504 V - y .1417 .511 -ALLEY o _ s " t_ _ h 5 . O : . .. WEST WILLA � $� -'525 � 14 (t7 i" JP^,s 1 crk . 510 0 550 3 517, ti i T01-' . 611 1201 1109 515 1303 716 W 617 1115 O , .--72 7. U) 0 .. 4 4 + 101 Site Location 416 Grove Street South 0 162.5 325 650 Feet General Site Location V 96 cRglx CARPENTRY, LLC .. To Whom it may concern, St. Croix Carpentry (SCC) is requesting a variance as a representative of Jeff and Diane Wright at the property of 416 Grove St S. Jeff and Diane would like to build a 20ft x 25ft addition off of the south elevation of their home to accommodate a two -stall tuck under garage, with living space above. The above living space above will consist of a larger kitchen, and family room. Due to the poor location of their home on the lot they currently have a single -stall tuck under garage that they cannot use because there isn't enough room in the driveway to turn a car into the garage. With this new design it would allow Jeff and Diane to drive straight into their new proposed garage. The Current allowable space between the house and the side property line is 17ft. We need an additional 3ft in order for the Jeff and Diane to have a two -stall garage. Unfortunately, the home was built almost center of the property from each side lot and currently their home has 15ft to the side lot line to the north (the opposite side of the house). Had the original builder thought ahead they might have shifted the house closer to the northern lot line to accommodate better access to the original garage that is unusable and allowed for this addition without the need of a variance. We appreciate your consideration and are available to help in any way. Please let us know if there is any additional information you would like or need to assist in the processing of this variance. Tim Jozefow 45Vh i NP JJ 20'-0" Lower Level Floor Plan 1/4"=V-0" New ��E Ex i st i ng 10'-2" h existing deck is O I Kitchen I I vaulted II � I Walk-in II I Pantry II II II r� II 9 I DN �1 Its I is O III � existing Llouse N II end of vault I II II I II II I II I II II Great , Room II I trans 20'-0" Upper Level Floor Man I 1/4"=11-0" existing deck Legend existing walls new walls Preliminary Design ,=A• L A. H. BAUER ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. FINISHED PROJECT APPEARANCE AND STRUCTURAL DETAILS MAY VARY. NO GUARANTEE IMPLIED. THIS PRINT IS NOT TO BE COPIED OR MADE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY ABOVE COMPANY. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN SERVICES www.ahbauer.com 115-38(0-5188 PROJECT: Diane 4 Jeff Wright DATE 1-31-20