Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-19 CPC Packeti11wai THE BIRTHPLACE 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 November 19th, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of October 28th, 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. 2020-50: Consideration of Variances associated with the construction of an attached garage and porch on the property located at 805 3rd Street North, in the RB district. Charles and Amy Hartl, property owner. — POSTPONED FROM 10/28/20 MEETING 3. 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, in the AP district. Jon and Ann Whitcomb, property owners. — POSTPONED FROM 10/28/2020 MEETING 4. Case No. 2020-57: Consideration of a Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a garage addition to the property located at 313 Pine Street West, in the RB district. Matt and Jen Hauer, property owners. VI. FYI — STAFF UPDATES — (NO PACKET MATERIALS) VII. ADJOURNMENT .Loom Meetrng Recording.. illwater City of Still Bob Lohmer Program Jennifer Hauer Chad Thomas Richard Schultz LP Participants (14) Q Find a participant City of Stillwater (Host, rne) 6 John Dybvig ' QJ ® Sue Steinwail Q] CD Todd Meyhoff $ ❑a aBob Lohmer Be ▪ Chad Thomas © Eric # O7 ® Jennifer Hauer ® jon whitcomb fp Oa ® mikekocon f DProgram` CORichard Schultz j,( %( mRyan Collins # 01 03 City Hall (Co -host) JD ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 28, 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, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 23, 2020 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Kocon abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Lauer announced that Case No. 2020-50, Variances associated with the construction of an attached garage and porch at 805 3rd Street North (mis-noticed for 805 3rd Street South in error), and Case No. 2020-54, Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for White Pine Ridge, a proposed subdivision to be located at 12950 75th Street North, are being tabled to the November 19, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. 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 6th Street South, in the RB District. Sean and Clodagh McAfee, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the application. The property owners are proposing to add a 16' X 24' addition onto the south side of the existing 440 square foot detached garage. The addition itself conforms 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. The applicant is requesting: 1) a variance to allow a detached garage to be 28 feet from the exterior sideyard setback (30 feet required); and 2) a variance to allow a detached garage to be less than a foot from the rear yard setback (three feet required). Staff finds the proposed garage addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and does not conflict with the intentions of the Zoning Code for this district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances with four conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-47, Variances related to the construction of an addition onto an existing detached garage at 902 6th Street South, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman stated that townhouse complex at 1167 Parkwood Lane is 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. The property owner got permission from the City Council to move two structures from Oak Park Heights into Stillwater and to build a third structure. During the building moving process, the northerly 3-unit building was set 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 as -built certificate of survey determined the structure was over the setbacks. When originally submitted to the City, the building design had been inverted. Adjacent property owners reached out to the City to express concern that they believed the building was not in conformance with the requirements and the site plan. Because there are not licensed surveyors on City staff, the engineering department did a site visit and determined they were in conformance, and the City allowed them to drop the building in that location. The direction the building was placed puts the front (northern) corners a few feet into each interior side lot. The applicant is requesting: 1) a variance to allow a townhouse to be set back 20' from the from the interior side yard property line on the northeast corner of the property (25' feet required); and 2) a variance to allow a townhouse to be set back 22' from the interior side yard property line on the northwest corner of the property (25' feet required). Ms. Wittman went on to explain that 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 which was inverted 180°, it was a mistake that resulted in an encroachment. In these circumstances, staff feels that 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 with four conditions. Ms. Wittman stated that one proposed condition is that a new stormwater management plan be submitted and implemented within six months of approval. Additionally the City still holds some escrow funds for grading, so a fifth condition could require that these funds not be released until the stormwater management plan is implemented. Chairman Lauer asked, what is the responsibility of the City? Ms. Wittman replied that the night that the buildings were placed, staff was not on site. City staff looked at markers to determine they were accurate and in line. The building was not going straight in, but was put in with the long end in a tight space. There is no guarantee that the mover could not have hit one of the stakes - there is room for error in a circumstance like this. Commissioner Kocon asked, wasn't there a foundation waiting for the building to be set on it, which was inspected by the City? Ms. Wittman said that is a good point. She has not gone through the entire inspection record to know all the inspections that occurred. It is correct that the foundation should have been in conformance. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Michael Hughes, 1172 Parkwood Lane, said it was correct that there was a foundation in place that perfectly lined up with the building that was installed. The problem was with the foundation that was Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 staked out and poured. He brought this to the attention of Mr. Nolde and the City. It was not the case that people were caught by surprise without notice. Mr. Hughes watched the property quite closely and it seemed that a lot of the commitments have not been adhered to. He has had tremendous runoff from this project that he had not had before. It eroded the topsoil the entire length of his building. Marty Morse, 1172 Parkwood Lane, said she and her husband Michael Hughes originally supported this development on the vacant lots, but they are concerned that they still don't have the data to know what the encroachment is. She understands that City employee Byron had collected data on the property line and discovered it was inaccurate so he discarded it. Ms. Morse was given a copy by Lauren with property line distances marked, which appeared inaccurate. She and Mr. Hughes expressed their concerns to Mr. Nolde on May 6, 2018 but did not hear back from him. Mr. Hughes wrote to Mr. Nolde and said it didn't seem the same as what was shown to them on site. By May 10 there was a foundation, bringing another opportunity to check to see that the foundation was correct. On June 6 the first of the units was moved onto the site during daylight. She voiced concern about what affect the issue may have on their ability to develop their property in the future. She is also concerned about erosion and discharge issues. Mr. Nolde has placed large hoses going out to water basins. She is concerned about the expiration of Brown's Creek Watershed District approval of the project in 2019. She and her husband have had to reposition private improvements. There also was confusion in that this was submitted for a four unit townhome and it was meant to be a three unit townhome. They hope it is limited to three units. Commissioner Kocon commented that the Hughes/Morse issues are valid. He asked what solution works for them. Ms. Morse replied that erosion control is big issue and she would be happy if that is addressed. She does not want to be impacted in the future by consenting to this variance if it prevents her from perhaps splitting their very large lot in the future and developing the eastern portion. Mr. Hughes voiced concerned about whether consenting to the variance would remove financial remedies to him. He suggested some of the landscaping escrow funds be used to restore the lawn. Ms. Wittman stated that the development on 1167 Parkwood is not going to impact future development of the Hughes/Morse property. For the record, the developer submitted an as -built survey signed by a surveyor which is a legal document created by a certified professional. Any surveying work that City staff does is not certified because there is not a certified surveyor on staff. The Commission could require a sixth condition that a Certificate of Survey by a registered land surveyor be submitted before the variance takes effect. That would confirm the property lines that Ms. Morse is concerned about. Commissioner Steinwall asked, since the City still holds escrow, what else needs to be finished? Ms. Wittman answered that she is not aware of anything in terms of approvals by the City. All occupancies have been obtained and the building code requirements have been met. This variance is the final thing Mr. Nolde needs to complete before the project is done. He has completed the grading per the grading plan. The City was inadvertently still holding escrow funds. One escrow amount was released, only to find out from Mr. Nolde there were two other escrow accounts. The City released the escrows that staff knew of at the time, but inadvertently retained additional escrow funds. Commissioner Meyhoff asked, could a new water management plan affect the setbacks of adjacent property? Ms. Wittman replied the City doesn't allow a development to push water onto adjacent property so Mr. Nolde will have to address water runoff on his own property. Page 3of9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Mr. Nolde remarked this is the first he knew of any erosion problem on the neighbor's yard. He had understood that the City agreed with his grading plan and released the escrow. He has no problem with trying to comply with the conditions. If he damaged the neighbor's property he will make it right but it should be between him and the neighbors. Chairman Lauer asked, if there was a foundation waiting for the building when it was put down, how did it end up over the line? Mr. Nolde replied that his surveyor went out and staked, the City approved where the building stakes were, and he has no explanation how the building and the setbacks got moved. He cannot find any explanation for the cause. He had a certified surveyor and registered engineer stake the project. Mr. Hughes asked if the certificate of occupancy is temporary, because he believes it was issued after the expiration of the Brown's Creek permit. He was told that no work should have proceeded after the expiration of that permit. Ms. Morse added that she spoke with Lauren in early September 2020 and he indicated they were temporary occupancy permits. Art Junker, 1164 Parkwood Lane, said considering the latest technology for doing surveys, he doesn't understand why this got to be such a problem knowing that it was brought up early on, before the foundation was made. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon commented that he does not see picking up the building and moving it as a viable alternative. He believes amelioration needs to be done to control the runoff that was created by the improper siting of the building. Brown's Creek Watershed District needs to be brought back into the decision process, which is one of the recommended conditions of approval. He would like the neighbors to be comfortable with the plan for controlling runoff and solving the issues. Commissioner Dybvig recommended adding a condition that reasonable cost for the damage that has been done gets paid for by either the escrow or the developer. The only thing he can think of that is causing the damage is that the building encroached three feet further into the setback and isn't able to handle the water on site. Ms. Wittman said she doesn't disagree, but she doesn't know if the Planning Commission can legally require a development to help solve what is a neighborly issue. She can check with the City attorney. Commissioner Steinwall noted that the developer has already agreed that he is going to make the neighbors whole. She asked about the wording of the proposed condition that the City would hold a portion of the escrow - maybe it should be all of the escrow. Chairman Lauer asked what is the provision for involvement of the Brown's Creek Watershed District? Ms. Wittman answered that Condition #3 could be modified to state that the stormwater management plan shall be submitted to the City and reviewed for comment by Brown's Creek Watershed District. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2020-48, Variances to the side yard setbacks for an existing 3-unit townhome on the property located at 1167 Parkwood Lane, with four staff -recommended conditions, modifying Condition #3 to state that a stormwater management plan addressing the water runoff, infiltration and area erosion adjacent to the western property boundary must be submitted to the Engineering Department within 15 days. The plan Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 shall be reviewed and approved by the City in conjunction with Brown's Creek Watershed District. The approved plan must be fully implemented by March 1, 2021; and adding Condition #5 stating that the City shall not release any grading escrows until the required stormwater management plan has been completed and determined by the City to adequately meet the stormwater management and erosion control requirements; and adding Condition #6 stating that the property owner shall submit an as -built Certificate of Survey prepared and signed by a licensed surveyor which documents the property line and distances from all structures to all adjacent property lines; and adding Condition #7 stating that the neighbors at 1172 Parkwood Lane shall be made whole. All in favor. 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, applicant; and Cary Lund, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants are proposing to build an attached garage with a small exercise room in the rear. The proposed location of the garage extends 22' into the required 30' front yard setback. The property is unique in that it shares a driveway with the neighboring property and is "landlocked" giving the property a very secluded and private feel. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an attached garage to be set back 8' from the front property line, whereas 30 feet is required. Staff finds the proposed shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore staff recommends approval with six conditions. Mr. Lund said the garage is currently too small. He plows the shared driveway for his neighbors. Chairman Lauer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2020-49, Variance to the front yard setback for a garage addition at the property located at 225 Hazel Street West, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. 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. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that Central Commons, LLC, owner of the 35.3- acre property at the southeast quadrant of Manning Avenue and State Highway 36, is developing 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: a Hy-Vee store of approximately 95,000 square feet on Lot 3, Block 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 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. The developer is requesting: 1) approval of Final Plat and Development Agreement for Phase 1; and 2) approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phase 1. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the recommended conditions in detail. Staff believes that the conditions of approval for the concept PUD are either fulfilled or in the process of being fulfilled and recommends approval of the Final Plat, Development Agreement and Final PUD for Phase 1 with 19 conditions. Commissioner Steinwall referred to the staff report regarding the proposed 10' height for monument signs in exchange for enhanced landscaping. She asked, what does enhanced landscaping mean? Mark Lambert, 6770 Stillwater Boulevard #110, developer, said landscaping is not determined yet. Page 5of9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 City Planner Wittman clarified that the first staff report had 19 recommended conditions and the updated report had 17. Mr. Turnblad explained that some of the conditions were already met so there are actually 17 recommended conditions. There were 22 conditions in the resolution that approved the Concept PUD. Those that have been resolved were not brought forward into the final PUD proposal, leaving 17 conditions to attach to the final PUD. Condition #18 could be added stating that details of all the conditions of approval of the Concept PUD be brought to the City Council for clarification. Mr. Lambert said that discussion with neighbors has continued and he has reached understanding with Washington County on the Linden/Manning interchange, and has addressed concerns about the light plan with the other neighbors, which was submitted today. The landscaping plan on the southeast corner toward Lake Elmo has also been enhanced. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-52, Final Planned Unit Development for Central Commons to be located at 5651, 5757 and 5775 Manning Avenue North, with the 18 conditions recommended by staff (with the understanding that the previous Condition #22 in the original staff report is now Condition #18), and adding Condition #19 stating that prior to review and approval by the City Council, an updated landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all monument signage landscaping. All in favor. Case No. 2020-53: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage for a shed to be located at 516 2nd Street North in the RB district. Brad and Tiffany Vick, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The applicants are proposing to build a 12' X 8' (96 square foot) shed in the southwest corner of the property. A shed in this location is allowed by code, however this property is already 482 square feet over the maximum allowed structural lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the lot's structural coverage to be 29.8% (maximum allowed structural coverage is 25%). 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 with six conditions. Brad Vick, applicant, said their garage is very small and they need more storage. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2020- 53, Variance to the maximum structural coverage for a shed to be located at 516 2nd Street North, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman explained that the owners of Leo's Grill and Malt Shop, 127 Main Street South, would like to redevelop their patio dining area off 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. The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1) a Conditional Use Permit for a restroom addition and accessory structure; and 2) a variance to the 20' rear yard setback for the construction of a trash enclosure and elevated dining area. Staff finds the proposed improvements to Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 be reasonable and feels they will be constructed in a fashion that will not result in increased damage in the event of flooding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the design with conditions. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commissioner Steinwall voiced concern about where and how materials including grease would be removed in the event of flooding. Corey Buettner, applicant, said the area proposed for the trash enclosure is where the existing trash enclosure is located. The trash containers are on wheels and would be moved to higher ground if that were recommended by public health officials or City engineers in the event of flooding. Commissioner Steinwall asked if they have a place to put all those items in the event of a flood. Mr. Buettner said he has a storage unit in Houlton, WI but would make other accommodations if needed. Jennifer Noden, Seven Edges Design, said the trash enclosure doesn't require anything to be removed. The 55 gallon grease barrels with locked lids are secured to the wall so they will not go anywhere in the event of a flood. The interior is designed so that trash bins may float but they could not get out or flip. If the lids of the trash containers need to be secured that could be done easily. It is being designed so the trash containers do not need to be removed. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Kurt Vickman, owner of 308 East Chestnut, asked for clarification on whether there is going to be a second floor to the enclosure, and about the grease barrels and how they will be secured. Ms. Noden responded that the trash enclosure itself is an independent building. On the north side of the trash enclosure are enclosed steps up to a second level that accommodates seasonal seating. Gloria's To Go is a walk-up, pick-up food service. The seating being lost there is being picked up on the patio. The trash enclosure is a fire -rated building. The grease containers are 55 gallon steel drums with lockable lids. The grease is picked up regularly and replaced with empty barrels. The ordinance is intended to ensure that whatever is accessible to flood waters does not float away. The intent of strapping them to the wall is to secure them so they would not float away and still allow staff and the recycling company to access them. Mr. Buettner added that the grease barrels exist currently. The intent is to replace the 20-year-old wooden shed structure with a brick structure that will look better. Councilmember Collins asked, is it safe to assume that putting up a brick structure will make the barrels more secure than they are now? Mr. Buettner said yes. Mr. Vickman said the renderings don't show how that second story is affixed to the building. Ms. Noden showed a rendering to help Mr. Vickman understand where everything is. She said the seasonal vending area on the rendering is just a placeholder. That area has not been designed yet. Ms. Wittman stated for the record, Leo's has obtained approval to move the Leo's on wheels mobile food vending trailer onto that site, even though it is labeled Gloria's To Go. Mr. Vickman suggested if the seasonal vending is still in the design phase, it needs to be considered as relates to what is being proposed. Ms. Wittman responded that the Planning Commission doesn't review seasonal vending. There is no structure being proposed there. Mr. Vickman asked, how does the mobile food unit get in there? Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Ms. Noden replied when Chestnut Street Plaza is developed there will be no curb. The seasonal vending will be either trailered or craned off the property should they want to move it. They have talked to the City Council about how this will be moved as Chestnut Plaza is developed. Commissioner Kocon said the proposal is an improvement. He reminded the Commission that floods don't occur without time to prepare so there would be time to move things if needed. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-55, 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 with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman explained that Jeff and Diane Wright wish to expand their existing one stall garage, which is unusable 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. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an attached garage to be set back seven feet from the side property line, whereas ten feet is required. 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. Therefore, staff recommends approval with five conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Roger Kuehn, 403 Grove Street, spoke in support of the application. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2020-56, Variance for a garage addition at 416 Grove Street South with the five 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 Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Chris Lauer, Chair Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 9 of 9 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT DATE: November 5, 2020 MEETING DATE: November 19, 2020 APPLICANT: Charles and Amy Hartl, LANDOWNER: Charles and Amy Hartl CASE NO.: 2020-50 REQUEST: Variance to the side yard setback and the steep slope setback to allow for the addition of an attached garage with a screen porch on its rear side. LOCATION: 805 3rd Street North ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Charles and Amy Hartl recently purchased the property at 805 31-d Street North, which is a single- family Victorian style house at the end of a dead-end road, built in 1884. Mr. and Mrs. Harlt are seeking to add a 480sf attached two stall garage with a 190sf screened in porch behind it. Currently this property has an extremely small garage, and the Hartls would like to remove that and add a reasonably large enough garage to aleviate winter parking issues, which are exasurbated by being at the end of a dead-end road. The owners would additionally like to attach a screen porch to the rear (east) side of the home. However, this proposed addition will require a variance to the steep slope setbacks and sideyard setbacks. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: • A variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow an attached garage to be setback a total of eleven feet from both interior side yards, whereas the minimum combined side yard setback is 15'. • A variance to City Code Section 31-512. Subd. 1. (d). to allow for a screened porch to be setback 20' from the top of the steep slope, whereas 30' is required. CPC Case 2020-50 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, One -Family Residential; attached garages and screen porches are 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's structures, for fire prevention purposes. Steep slope setback The steep slope setback is designed to protect minimize the risks associated with development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or unstable slopes as well as to protect personal property. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on any steep slope. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Side yard setback If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. In the RB Zoning District, an attached garage has a setback of five feet; however, both of the two side yards combined, including the main building, must equal fifteen feet.' The proposed attached garage would meet the five foot setback requirement. Nonetheless, since the existing house is setback only setback six feet from the City owned property to the north, City Code would require the garage to be located nine feet from the south property line. This variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code, because the garage still maintains a five-foot setback, as intended by City Code. Steep slope setback If granted, the proposed variance would not be out of harmony with the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code requires structures to be setback 30' from steep slopes, though the screen porch is proposed to be 20' from the steep slope. The existing house already sits about six feet from the steep slope on the northern side, and the distance from the house to the slope grows as you move to the south. The owner is proposing to put the porch towards the south, where the distance from the house to the slope is at its greatest. While, there is some encroachment into the setback, the structure will still remain near conformance, and does not juxtapose the intent of 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. City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). The total of both side yards must equal 15 feet with at least five feet on each side. CPC Case 2020-50 Page 3 of 4 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? In the RB Zoning District, a property with single family residence, which included a two stall garage and a rear screen porch, would be using their property in a reasonable manner. It has been City Policy to recognize the need for a reasonably sized garage, due to the cold, and often inclement, weather in the winter. And equally so, there is an understanding for the need of porches as well in the summer 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 house was built so that it sits along the edge of a ravine on the north and east, so the only possible room for expansion would be to the south. Furthermore, the applicants have stressed the need for a garage because, due to being at the end of a dead-end road where snow gets deposited by plows, it is hard to park on the street. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not fully created by the landowner. And while the owner is proposing to encroach, improvements are modest and encroachments have been reduced to the greatest extent possible The house and all the above mentioned circumstances far pre-existed the current landowner. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? The addition of an attached two car garage will not alter the character of the neighborhood because most houses in Stillwater have garages. The plans submitted show this garage set back behind the front line of the house and is architecturally very sensitive to the historic nature of this house. The porch on the rear of the house will not alter the neighborhood because it is in the rear yard and is not very visible from the street. Moreover, this property is located at the end of a dead-end road and is surrounded by City owned land with steep slopes on two sides, so this property is fairly secluded and isolated from the rest of the neighborhood. 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 have a garage that can fit two cars, in order to alleviate issues associated with street parking in the winter. In an effort to address their issues with the garage they are adding a rear screened porch as well, which reflects their desire to fully enjoy their property in all months of the year, and not economic considerations. POSSIBLE ACTIONS CPC Case 2020-50 Page 4 of 4 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- 50, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and level of detail and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. Runoff from the addition shall not be directed towards the neighboring property to the south. 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 lack of a usable garage and the property being flanked by steep slopes, have been established. In which, the difficulties are solely due to circumstances unique to the property, as it was built in 1884. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-50 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Preliminary Design Sketch Floor Plans (threes pages) cc: Charles and Amy Hartl Rairrumr. ��I I iis.til : F -WEST A ' ' EET __ �. _� . �--• z. . MAS 3S 'EN • S BEET //ater 1 i 1 7 924 1 9211' ;_ 9 . x _ " 905 - The Birthplace of Minnesota �t f 6 u i W ��lty;E a IIFi ,,1, 903 ,,_ * i • 7141i UTILITY EASfli5ENT HOC 8,723 . m `V - • 40 640 11y 820 _ j 11 I 1 82or. P II a _ �,. 640 630 ^ / 630 U30 s ', , 630 4 Site Location 805 3rd St North 808.~�y/- 80904 O �- ' 806 ' Oj 9j1805 `'' Z 204 - - !_ z -.'x ` 722 , 7216 620 620 629 620 620 71.8 Text 1/4"420 • •. 7`' 220 110 4 0 40eet 713 �r , a 4; � n � �.. 718 <• - 116�^ General Site Location _ 702 Ili 70W d 4 \ \ tra ;I. �yMj Iy_ llliuu11Lt . Il a , _-+� 11 „�1ia - .; ,;- M•• � IV/ p 1; ,-- 621 CV‘y / 613 �` S a1'-r+ 609 ¢, / !'t' L�' ��1" ;frJ 1 � \. September 25, 2020 To: Stillwater Community Development Subject: Proposed Variance for Garage and Screened Porch — 805 3`d Street North We recently purchased the vacant 1880's Victorian home located at 805 3`d Street North. We have selected John Sharkey from Sharkey Design Build to help us bring this wonderful home site back to life. Our application is for setback variances for an attached garage, and a screened porch. We would like to add an attached two car garage to the south side of the existing house, with a 5 foot setback from the southern property line. We understand the 5 foot side setback meets current code requirements. However, our existing home north side setback is currently 6 feet. We understand that the total side setback code is required to be 15 feet, so we are asking for a variance to allow less than a 15 foot total setback. The property we border to the north is city owned, it's a slope and ravine with a catch basin that will never be developed. In looking at options, our practical difficulty is being on a dead end street, snowplows will typically build a large pile of snow at the end of 3rd street in front of our home. This makes on street parking a challenge, and a garage on the north side of the home would not be accessible in heavy snow winters. The 2 car attached garage and driveway will solve this difficulty, and will maintain a 5 foot setback from the south border. The 5 foot south setback will be consistent with the neighboring homes on 3'd Street North. Our second request is to build a screen porch attached to the back of the garage and existing home. As drawn, the northeast corner of the screen porch would be 20 feet from the top of the slope. Understanding that current code is a 30 foot setback for new structures from the top of the slope, we are asking for a variance. The practical difficulty for us is that the existing home is only 6 feet from the slope. We have pulled the screened porch as far south as possible from the slope while still being accessible directly from the home as opposed to a detached screen porch. The porch corner will be 20 feet from the slope, while house itself is 6 feet from the slope. The current design plan keeps the screen porch hidden from street views, and further away from the southern property sightlines. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Charles and Amy Hard Mr, 40,1 lea,it Ster,i:c DfiVID CtIfIRLfi DfSIOFIS Sqntigni,r 11, zO2u • o G r S14941',56"W ITT 00 4Fr !‘A A ?If,* 4 116" 4400,1•311A; lafr,•s • 6nry C Z.' r•ottih M4t's WRY rxixtyv wriow ft) ler 041* MitoissA SS' 71:10"W LECEND o Demons WON MONUMENT FOD O DENOTES 1sRCN MONUMENT SET Mr MOTES SANITARY W11 MAI E) DENOTES CATCH SAWN •/, DENOTES EXISTING CON TOUR DENOTES DOPING FENCE vo 1,2 DENOTES OWING ELEVATION . HOS ,ntl. STREET, arilaWn [Pei, VN- I HARTL RESIDENCE ea,ak,.. Dr, StiC,V, r01,1!!:, 111..111,XP PEEIFIC,PDP43 DC'C.7,-,-,175 FOR (7,110NALITEMI.IKOWN FOR ILLUMR71, t:OND7101.11 .Y.AV bE .!..12E/..C2L,NVE.!= TO -ME NU-FES1 LEG, Below kcal dt fiestertotion tot Port of Lots ; scstoNeLtoc foilowr 13'•94"nin9 thence or feet; therto feet; Went feet *New feet; then0 feet to Sail eocute ' s DflVID CtiflPLti Dtsions DAVIDtHAFILG2 DESIGNS HARTL RESIDENCE 805 3RD ST. STILLWATER, MN ...., I,. F--Fk PL,IFIC.AX/Ni I,LIPDED C*II DN., NIA-r Nfl pi CM WE!. H,PEST j coRkHr AVI c,AH,E2SII a/r.STRE,P-, 5-1-LLEVIPTFR. FIN I HRFat .511,01Cz rzzic..RE- ,115,,10EERN3 orkr !ME,: APE ,11,0,1" No}r 5R 0501.,17,ErECWX:ATIONn.E.E:DOD,CIP..EC-1-10,40(.0:::,p.IEN-H•F(EK INCEas•FII, FE, •IFF- CFIINA 1-F, =1, :-4RATIvE PUEE-ENE.S.Et !_,LESCAPINGAIFD,IIIE R-1,17h, RIZE,R.ENDEP 'ED THEEID,PESE 6 et r.,:nR1,7,11C,VLE -- • UPPER LEY{L alfiRLf/ DtSIGHS s. BUS ,310. 1,11,f: 57r MK I Wall. RESIDENCE L.pt.rtsli I. I , DI, ;7;07405.0r, PCOPSSIN, C,L, t• 0.7:7,,,S.FC,(1:7,Ar..,E,IIT,,NOIC.E PS FF TOON SFECIrrATIONS 000 C0N0t0 CI V, ff,,S IIDFE0tIJ0 OP7101,4L SLH0..4 FOR SIWNS ,L,F,PC,SF =ND-17.-AF AND .SEE NU;P000 0n.0o,i. 00000 SEES P.C..FIDED 71.1NE001S7 C..P Vi10.1-17 DIIVID CtifiNfl DtSICAS fllIURE f IAD LOWf BrIfIl {201R-111S \f(7.1 d ot LOWtPtVll OPT. 295 SQ FT 190 OPT. sQrr PATIO 1435 SQ Fr MAIN LEVEL FINISHED 228 SQ_FT ... FRONT POItCH PORCH 480 SQ FT GARAGE 2779 SO FT TOTAL FINISHED AREA 1344 SQ FT 480 UPPER LEVEL SQFT FINISHED SKYDECK. NOS 3110 E.-ERET, STILLWATER, IAN HARE.L. RESIOINCE AHR HEREI,I• PE, 10 NADER SIRC r44 I0,A0c0IcucrIn,INHCRE.,E,NIS FOR RICRUIDEO FEAT LRRS, OPIIORAL tTeRE EROAN EVA IDATIRAINF FHEPOR, IAHCHICAVOG e (1.011E.I0717 ,EAT ROI 44 A7 4t10,/, POONA SRO 440j46OE0107H6 64444106 A C0N 011-HsvoiHaAPRE, A t13 6rcult- la nrNi :1- Va r 1-- C n ,,` =ri C P S- ZozO -SO Received NOV 1 ? 2020 Community Development Department T7 c4 v-, TA- ce,r— c,r-15 weir; r c-J1, ci- rnAl u.eslicr5 cam.J rc,' ou,-vli- rn olr.0.w n 4 . ti S ` �-,a. ter, ue s c�.G-- a-ld M �r� 4,wl� G. r- t w A-. itt Ut Girl Axle_ e_ 0 Y-Op o $ exil —fA.e, & r i iNs J 16 aL tie Wl i ii- rlevi fle i 40/1,1:36Ys . la o_ cy-("D. �, re,.}, r) n S S u.c_. W rh *'; iD rc:jec i S we. have, c._. rri rs-p t-t., +ree. 51 d1/4-e vi‘calL 41rmoi-- 5-t-r-PrckILA fke, prciak.rd-ti 1; rw_. .1-1\.14? et, h H-s e� o scei rah I m pGY4r04 `� -fir p s fJ`t 1 on ,50 S proper . InJe- ,Fea . +hcti- rad; Pr a, atr, 0,d- `Kaki m ; 5 ld. Lx-r`7 uoiAt Le_. ok mcki toi re r-, - Ire oi_ -e- `%e... tide. per Gt,ntii rem u.es L c.,.. co n cerr < ith-n i anal e wcv l3 oOUa Gvn 010,, m qq $ +rec, cvn i k re, Di- 5-ru---vre. of u.r% rtiI Cohs1-,rtit.ciicin, urbt 1,1,p ruhci GLAle INIcA141--4 loL,1 Sn--,; 72_ -3121 CI_ 1 1,w64,r s6 cAA--11 . 01, txn J . 3 2 Planning Report MEMO DATE: MEETING DATES: LANDOWNER: DEVELOPER: REQUEST: LOCATION: October 20, 2020 CASE NO.: 2020-54 Park Commission Planning Commission City Council October 26, 2020 November 19, 2020 December 1, 2020 Jon and Ann Whitcomb Robert G. and Mary K. Lohmer Trust Jon Whitcomb of Browns Creek West LLC 1) Rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preserve to TR, Traditional Residential 2) Preliminary Plat approval of White Pine Ridge, a 14 lot Single Family Residential Subdivision 3) Variance to County Road 12 100' setback and to the 600' maximum cul-de- sac length 12950 75th Street North COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: Base Zoning: AP, Agricultural Preservation Overlay Zoning: Shoreland District for Brown's Creek Tributary REVIEWERS: City Engineer Shawn Sanders, City Natural Resources Technician Taylor Stockert, Deputy Fire Chief Tom Ballis, Browns Creek Watershed District, Washington County Public Works, Stillwater Park and Recreation Commission REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Jon Whitcomb of Browns Creek West LLC has submitted an application for rezoning, preliminary plat and associated variance approval of a 14-lot single family development to be known as White Pine Ridge. The site is located at 12950 75"' Street North and contains 8.81 acres owns by Whitcomb and .24 acres (10,264 square feet) of property owned by the Lohmer Trust. The smaller parcel of land, located directly to the east, is proposed to be used exclusively as right-of-way. SPECIFIC REOUEST CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 2 of 12 In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of the following: 1. Rezoning of the property from AP, Agricultural Preserve, to TR, Traditional Residential 2. Preliminary Plat known as White Pine Ridge for 14 single family lots 3. Variance to: • A 25' variance to the 100' setback from CR 12 for Lot 1, Block 1; and • A 250' variance to the 600' maximum cul-de-sac length EVALUATION OF REOUEST I. REZONING The applicant has requested the property be zoned TR, Traditional Residential. It is currently zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation, which is the temporary zoning classification assigned by the Minnesota Municipal Board when the area was annexed. The expectation is that when development occurs, the property would be rezoned to a classification that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The requested TR zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides development of the site and neighborhood as Low Density Residential (1-4.4 units per acre). Rezoning shall not become effective until after approval of the Final Plat. II. PRELIMINARY PLAT This development is proposed to create 14 single family home sites on +10,000 square foot lots, one of which would contain Whitcomb's single family residence. The plan would also to extend infrastructure to allow for future development of surrounding properties. Sewer and water will be extended from both Subject Properties the north and south property lines; and will be stubbed for future development to the east. The road layout, with an intersection on County Road 12/75th Street North, lines up reasonably well with Northland Avenue. The right-of-way will curve to the west with all new lots accessed off of a cul-de-sac. Road access to future development to the east will be provided. No sidewalk or trail improvements are proposed for the property. 75TH A. Minimum Dimensional Standards: Traditional Residential (TR) District Standard Minimum Proposed Lot area 10,000 sf 11,629 — 51,586 s.f. CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 3 of 12 Lot width' 65' 65'+ Lot frontage on public road 35' 34'+2 Front setback House Garage3 20' 20'-27' 20' Side setback Interior4 Exteriors 3'-10' 15-20' At least 10' Rear yard setback 25' >25' County Rd. 12 100' 75,6 Maximum lot coverage, Lots 1-9 25% TBD Maximum lot coverage, all other lots N/A TBD CR 12 Setback Variance Analysis A 75' setback from County Road 12 has been requested. The Commission's granting of variances is contingent on the Commission's ability to find that what is proposed is reasonable (and all other reasonable alternatives have been considered), that there is some uniqueness to the property that was not created by the landowner, that — if approved — the character of the area will be maintained and that the request is consistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there must be some reason for granting the variance aside from economic considerations. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure there is sufficient land area between new homes and the adjacent right-of-way. This is to protect future homeowners from the adverse impact of the roadway on the reasonable enjoyment of the property. The setback of the future home is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. I: J I Q I 69 eaa —asv y I ,r 75' SETBACK FR I COUNTY ROAD 12 I — L_ L.q 10-8 5 6c7s___- �+-3�'�.9f REsTWIGrED Accm 2=5804.58_ - ❑=3°39'41" Z4 sl 30 L" €/ A 5 EG The applicant has submitted documentation showing the 100' setback could be achieved. As shown in the visual aid on the next page, strict application of the requirement results in compressed building envelopes. While this is 1 Width is measured between side lot lines at right angles to lot depth at a point midway between front and rear lot lines 2 Lot 10, Block 1 does not meet this requirement though in conformance with subdivision standards which require width at the front lot line to be 30'. Either Lot 10's driveway will need to be combined with Lot 11's driveway or the frontage at the property line will need to be increased. This has been incorporated as a recommended condition of approval. 3 Front -facing garages must be setback 27' whereas side -loaded garages may be set back 20' 4 The house must be 10' from the property line but the garage may be set back 5' (3' if located in the rear of the yard) 5 The house must be 15' from the property line but garage must be set back 20' 6 A variance has been requested for this setback reduction. CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 4of12 not an uncommon design in Stillwater, the compressed nature of building pads along CR 12 is not consistent with the visual character of the area. While a 75' setback seems reasonable and is consistent with County setback standards, only two properties within 1/2 mile are closer than 100'. The residence at 125 Maryknoll is setback (approximately) 75' and the fire station is (approximately) 80' from the CR 12 right-of-way. Granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The presence of the creek, the inconsistency in setback standards and the compression of the site due to the creek are all "circumstances unique to the property". Staff asserts practical difficulty has been established for the granting of a variance but would not recommend a variance greater than 20' for the future building to be 80' from the right-of-way, consistent with newer residential developments along this right-of-way. Impervious Surface Coverage Analysis The TR zoning district does not indicate a maximum lot coverage. However, Lots 1-9, Block 1 are in the Shoreland Overlay District of the Brown's Creek tributary that flows just west of the property; this can be seen in pink to the right. Only 25% impervious surface coverage is allowed in the overlay district. The remainder of the lots would be allowed to develop to the maximum threshold allowed. R4R 9'111 I. L— ,2 r__- laar SeThAa Calgrf ROAD R=58Q4.58 --yco� e=s°sa'ar' CF hal However, in lieu of having a base zoning district maximum coverage established, the City could take one of several approaches: • Require all lots in the development to have the same coverage limitation. This would impose the City's maximum restriction on all the lots in the development. Since greater than 50% (64%) of the lots are restricted to 25%, it is reasonable to require the entire development to meet the overlay requirement. However, one challenge is the lots not located in the overlay district are smaller than those in the overlay. This would result in the development likely having different sized homes along the same street frontage. This could affect the overall character of this development. • Look to other TR-zoned lands to determine what is a LIPPI 1.2.00 CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 5 of 12 reasonable coverage limitation. Within the more -recent past, the City has approved three developments with TR-zoned lands: Browns Creek Cove (2015), Browns Creek Preserve (2013), and Nottingham Village (2018). While the two former plats were approved with no maximum impervious surface coverage, Nottingham Village was approved with a (Browns Creek Watershed District -approved) maximum 35% total lot coverage restriction. • Assign coverage limitations similar to other Low Density Residential development within the vicinity of the project site. As the development to the northwest, West Ridge, also has split coverage limitations, it would be most consistent to allow for the lots on the east side of the right-of-way to have a greater maximum coverage limitation. However, that should not exceed 30%, consistent with the RA zoning district found to the northwest and in Croixwood, on the south side of CR 12. It should be noted the actual coverage for the lots has yet to be determined because specific homes have not been designed for the lots. The typical footprints shown meet the coverage standards. Care will have to be taken when buildings are designed for these lots. B. Creek Overlay District Standards The property lies partially within the shoreland overlay district for a tributary of Brown's Creek. Therefore, the following additional standards need to be met. 1. 150' setback from creek for structures o This setback does not impact any building pads in the project. 2. 100' no disturbance buffer from centerline of creek o This does not impact any of the property. 3. 25% maximum impervious cover on lots in the overlay district o This impacts Lots 1-9, Block 1. 4. Steep slopes are protected. o In the Shoreland Overlay District, a steep slope is one that has a grade of 12% or more'. There is a small area of land on Lots 8 and 9 that meet the definition of a slope in a Shoreland Overlay District. The steep slope will not be disturbed for the construction of the residences. o However, the building envelopes on Lots 8 and 9 are situated directly at top of the steep slope area. While this is not an encroachment, care will have to be taken when buildings are designed for these lots so that future variances are not requested. Additionally, the developer is proposing to constructing an infiltration basin in the steep slope setback area. 5. Bluff setback of 40 feet. Where bluffs exist in a Shoreland District8, structures must maintain a 40 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The setback is met by all future building pad areas shown on the site plan. C. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and made the following comments. 7 See definition for steep slope in City Code Section 31-101 (152). 8 See definition in City Code Section 31-101 (19). CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 6 of 12 1. Northland Avenue will need to be renamed to reduce street -addressing confusion as Northland Avenue, to the south of CR 12, is not `South Northland Avenue'. 2. The water main will need to be looped to the existing waterman on the south side County Road 12. 3. Storm water runoff east of the development shall be accounted for in the storm sewer calculations for the development. 4. Sewer and water mains shall be stubbed in for future development to the east. 5. Storm water calculations shall be submitted for review. 6. Soil investigation report, specifically for the infiltration areas, shall be submitted for review. 7. The existing driveway easement, shown cross- hatched to the right, shall be vacated where new right of way is platted. If applicable, a new shared driveway easement agreement will be required to be submitted at the time of final plat. Washington County Public Works has reviewed the development and concept plans. While the County's comments are attached, they are summarized as follows: 1. A Washington County access permit will be necessary for the extension of Northland Avenue. 2. A Washington County Right -of -Way permit will be required for any work in the CSAH 12 right of way as it relates to this development. 3. Washington County does not support cul-de-sacs served only off of a County Road. Northland Avenue should be extended to the north property line. 4. The drainage report and calculations must be submitted to Washington County for review of downstream impacts to the county drainage system. 5. The developer should assess the CR 12 noise impacts and take action outside of the County right-of- way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. With the exception of the Northland Avenue extension to the north property line, addressed in the Future Development section later in this report, all Washington County Public Works comments are proposed as conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat. Cul-de-Sac Variance Analysis The developer is proposing a cul-de-sac that is greater than 600' in length and as requested a 245' variance to this requirement. The City of Stillwater has adopted the MN State Fire Code including Appendix D which allows greater distance than Chapter 5. Dead end access roads can't be longer than 750' without special approval. As noted, the Commission's granting of variances is contingent on the Commission's ability to find that what is proposed is reasonable (and all other reasonable alternatives have been considered), that there is some uniqueness CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 7 of 12 to the property that was not created by the landowner, that — if approved — the character of the area will be maintained and that the request is consistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there must be some reason for granting the variance aside from economic considerations. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure a minimal number of properties are affected in the event of a public safety emergency in the area. There are no conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. While the cul-de-sac's length exceeds 600' from CR 12, it will not exceed 600' from the right-of-way that will extend to the east. The uniqueness to this situation is adjacent properties are not developing at this time. Once the property to the east develops, the cul-de-sac's length will be in conformance with the City Code. It is reasonable to develop a longer cul-de-sac until such time as adjacent properties develop. As reasonable access will be provided in the future, the plan is in substantial conformance to the Fire Code. D. Park, Trail and Sidewalk Improvements Upon review of the City's Trails and Sidewalks plan, two trails are shown adjacent to the subject property: 1. One trail is proposed to extend from Northland Avenue, on the south of the highway where there is existing sidewalk on both sides of Northland Avenue. This is the only location Washington County Public Works will permit as an intersection with Co Rd 12 between Maryknoll Drive and Minar Avenue. 2. The other trail is proposed to run parallel to the north side of the highway, on the south side of this development. Extending sidewalk/trail across Co Rd 12 is appropriate. However, no through road is proposed at this time. Therefore, right-of-way or easement acquisition must occur for the future development of the off-street trail or sidewalk that will service this subdivision, connecting it to its neighbors and the trail systems upon build out. This will need to occur on, at a minimum, the east side of the proposed Northland Avenue extension and on the south side of the subject property. However, the east side of the extended right-of-way is not proposed to be included in this development. As such, the easement should only be required for the south side of Lot 1 at this time. This, in combination with acceptance of fees in lieu of land dedication, was recommended by the City's Park and Recreation Commission. E. Environmental Issues Browns Creek Watershed District — A permit will be required from the Brown's Creek Watershed District. The permit application has been submitted though BCWD has requested additional soil borings for their review. BCWD's primary concern is for the proposed infiltration basin on the northwest corner of the site and its location in relationship to the steep slope; BCWD questions whether or not the steep slope will hold. If the basin cannot be achieved in this area, proposed basins may need to become larger or additional land area may need to be set aside to meet stormwater requirements. The infiltration basin near the northwest corner of the property is on the high side of the development and located in a setback area. While the City would not require a variance for its placement in this location, City Engineering Department staff, too, raise concern as it is a 'dry pond'; this means it is unlikely the pond will treat the stormwater on the site but, rather, be built merely to meet stormwater requirements of having sufficient infiltration area. The Subdivision Code requires the design of new developments to reflect all CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 8 of 12 necessary measures of protection to ensure against adverse impact to protected areas.' The developer must show the all stormwater requirements can be met onsite without overtaxing other proposed infiltration basins. Tree Preservation & Landscaping - The City's Natural Resources Technician Taylor Stockert has reviewed the tree preservation plan and tree replacement plans and provides these comments. Two development standards exist for trees: 1) street trees and 2) tree preservation. 1. Street Trees: The subdivision code requires an average of three trees per lot along the street, though they are to be planted outside of the platted right-of-way. The landscape plan shows a total of three trees for each lot for a total of 42 trees. 2. Tree preservation: The City's tree and protection ordinance allows 35% of the tree stock to be taken down. Since 42% is being removed, replacement is required. If greater than 35% of significant trees are removed in development, they must be replaced on a 1:1 basis. There are 300 trees total in the development, according to the tree inventory provided. All are deemed significant as defined in Stillwater City Code § 31-101, with 125 proposed for removal. The 35% removal threshold represents 105 trees, requiring a net replacement of 20 trees. With 55 trees currently scheduled for planting, 7 additional trees must be added to the landscaping plan to meet the development's net requirement of 62 trees. The subdivision code allows a tree replacement fee to be paid if they cannot be planted on site. The fee would be based upon the retail cost of a 2" DBH deciduous tree. If the developer proposes that the builder or owner will plant these, the City will need a guarantee that this will be done. The amount of assurance will need to be discussed at the time the final plat is considered by the City Council. And the obligation amount will be included in the Development Agreement. While Stillwater has no species selection or diversity requirements, it is strongly suggested the current planting schedule be retooled to better fit future diversity goals. While the six species currently listed in the development project are chosen regularly because they are proven and popular, all of them except northern red oak are already the most abundant species in Stillwater. To avoid repeating the possibility of a species extinction trend, greater diversity must be emphasized. It is for that reason recommendation is made to replace the species selected in consultation and review with City's Natural Resource staff. Final Plat plans will need to include an updated landscape plan, identification of tree protection zones and the treatment method, and make sure materials should not be stored in critical root zones of trees to be saved. These recommendations are incorporated as recommended conditions of Preliminary Plat approval F. Development Fees The property consists of 9.05 acres. However, excluding the 51,586 sf of land area proposed to be retained by the developer for their homesite, the net developable acreage is 7.87 acres. The developer will be responsible for paying development impact fees based upon the net developable acreage. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. The fees are summarized as: 1. Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $4,553.87 per acre (for a total of $35,838.96) is required. 9 Areas deemed environmentally sensitive due to the existence of wetlands, drainageways, watercourses, floodable areas, steep slopes, or other environmental features. CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 9 of 12 2. The trunk sewer and water fees of $15,379.57 per acre (for a total of $121,037.21) is required. i. The existing home will be required to hook up to sewer and water. The fee for each of these is $4,488 for a total of $8,976. 3. Park and trail fees will be due in lieu of land dedication, if the Planning Commission and City Council are agreeable to the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation. This will apply to all lots minus one for the existing home site. $2,000 per lot for park fees. $500 per lot for trail fees. Therefore, a total of $32,500 will be required to be paid. All land development fees are subject to annual increases. If payment is not made in 2020, the fee shall be adjusted according to future rates. G. Future Development The City's Subdivision Code, requires "provisions for future [street] extensions or connections to adjacent land" and states that "proposed subdivisions must be coordinated with existing nearby .... neighborhoods so that the community as a whole may develop harmoniously" 10, " In practice these future development provisions compel City officials and developers to consider how properties abutting proposed land subdivisions could reasonably develop in the future and to coordinate the construction of infrastructure, so that if feasible, abutting properties are not landlocked. The developer of White Pine Ridge would be responsible for constructing infrastructure improvements on his property only. Though, he would also be responsible for extending infrastructure to his property lines in such a manner as would be "harmonious" with future development in the neighborhood. To that end, a potential street layout has been offered by the developer; the proposed street alignment is consistent with what was submitted and reviewed at the time West Ridge, to the northwest of the site, was platted. The conceptual neighborhood road network shown by the developer represents a potential alignment. It is not intended to be an absolute alignment and it does not obligate development of the other properties to occur as conceptually shown here. What it does show, is that if the proposed subdivision is approved, it would not preclude reasonable development of surrounding properties. Staff has assessed the conceptual roadway plan and notes the following comments: • Regional transportation planning efforts historically desired a north/south connection from Northland Avenue to Neal Avenue, classified as a collector by Washington County. This was to support continuous north/southern collector routes through the center of the community. While the City's subdivision regulations require local street development to conform to the state road and county highway plans, the city has determined this is not as significant of a connection point since Maryknoll, a signaled intersection. was extended across CR 12/75th Street North. The City would rather, if traffic were to transverse through this (and connecting) neighborhood(s), that it would do slow at a slower speed than what would occur on a collector roadway. t° Section 32-1, Subd 5 (8)(c) Streets 11 Section 32-1, Subd 6 (2)(d) CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page l0 of 12 Washington County asserts that in lieu of a direct north/south connection on this site, traffic will be pushed to Maryknoll or Minar Avenue, reducing the traffic volume at the Northland intersection. They have indicated they cannot assure the City they will be able to put a traffic signal in this location if traffic volumes do not warrant one in the future. • The conceptual eastbound roadway cuts in between two wetlands located on the adjacent property. However, wetland buffers will be required on both; the construction of roadways in buffer areas is not permissible. If it is determined both wetlands are of a high quality or ground -water dependent, then a 100' buffer would be required. Under this scenario, no roadway would be able to be placed in this location. However, the roadway could be placed between the two easterly wetlands, even if the maximum (100') buffer is imposed. Analysis of both possibly roadway connections allow for future development of these parcels consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's future land use of Low/Medium Density Residential development. • Concern has been raised that the connection of public roadway to the rear access to the Stillwater Fire Department (FD) will enable cut -through traffic in this area. However, even at the time of development of the fire station, it was contemplated that this CR 12 access point could become a right-in/right-out for development west of the FD. At the time the property at 13055 75th Street North develops, the City will work with the FD to ensure access is designed to prohibit cut -through traffic. ALILR1NATIVES Proposed Future Transportation Plan The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning and preliminary plat. The Commission may approve, with or without conditions, table — requesting additional information from the developer, or deny the request. If the Commission makes recommendation to deny the request, it must state specific reasons for such denial and determine whether or not the denial should be made with or without prejudice. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning, and an 80' CR 12 setback and cul-de-sac variances with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Preliminary Plat Dated 9/25/2020 CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 11 of 12 • Overall Site Plan (Sheet C000) Dated 9/25/2020 • Preliminary Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan (Sheet C100) Dated 9/25/2020 • Preliminary Street and Storm Sewer Profile (Sheet C200) Dated 9/25/2020 • Preliminary Grading Plan (Sheet C300) Dated 9/25/2020 • Preliminary Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C400) Dated 9/25/2020 • Tree Preservation and Removal Plan (Sheet L200) Dated 10/2/2020 2. Rezoning shall not become effective until after Final Plat approval by the Stillwater City Council. 3. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to approval of the final plat. 4. Lots 1-9 are subject to a 25% maximum impervious surface coverage restriction. 5. Lots 10-14 are subject to a 30% maximum impervious surface coverage restriction. 6. Lots 8 and 9 shall be developed in conformance with the City Code; all improvements shall be located outside of the steep slope and setback areas. 7. Northland Avenue will need to be renamed on the Final Plat. 8. The water main will need to be looped to the existing waterman on the south side County Road 12. 9. The existing driveway easement, shown cross -hatched to the right, shall be vacated where new right of way is platted. If applicable, a new shared driveway easement agreement will be required to be submitted at the time of final plat. 10. Storm water runoff east of the development shall be accounted for in the storm sewer calculations for the development. 11. Sewer and water mains shall be stubbed in for future development to the east. 12. Storm water calculations shall be submitted for review. 13. Soil investigation report, specifically for the infiltration areas, shall be submitted for review. 14. The cul-de-sac at the end of the road shall be no less than 96-foot diameter. 15. Washington County access and right-of-way permits shall be obtained at the time of development. 16. The developer shall assess the CR 12 noise impacts and take action outside of the County right-of- way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise on future homeowners. 17. The developer shall be responsible for paying all applicable development fees including Trout Stream Mitigation, trunk sewer and water, and park and trail dedication based on 7.87 developable acres. All land development fees are subject to annual increases. If payment is not made in 2020, the fee shall be adjusted according to future rates. 18. A 20' trail easement bordering the southern property line shall be submitted to the City at the time of Final Plat submittal. 19. The developer must show all stormwater requirements can be met onsite without overtaxing proposed infiltration basins. 20. All grading and stormwwater management plans shall be submitted for review and approval to Browns Creek Watershed District prior to the submittal of Final Plat to the City of Stillwater. 21. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 22. An additional seven (7) trees much be shown on the landscaping plans submitted to the City together with the Final Plat. 23. The developer shall work with the City's Natural Resources technician to ensure species diversity is achieved onsite. An updated landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City together with the Final Plat. 24. Details of how the tree protection zone will be managed must be submitted at the time of Final Plat application. 25. Materials may not be stored in the critical root zone of trees to be saved, nor may equipment or materials be leaned or stacked against trunks of trees identified to be saved. CPC Case No. 2020-54 White Pine Ridge Page 12 of 12 26. To guarantee all trees will be planted updated and approved planting schedule, the builder will be required to escrow the cost of all trees. The amount of that escrow will need to be discussed at the time the final plat is considered by the City Council. And the escrow obligation and amount will be included in the Development Agreement. 27. If the Developer desires to have a neighborhood entrance monument for the subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application materials. Otherwise, such a sign will not be permitted in the future. 28. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing any tree removal or grading on the site, and prior to holding a pre -construction meeting with the City Engineer for the project. Attachments: Site Location Map Development Plans Fire Department Comments Natural Resources Comments Washington County Comments cc Jon and Ann Whitcomb Bob and Mary Lohmer f � 1�1 �T�� /\ 1 / I 1 11 tea' ,- a ''- '{r U w-., i�c- • "` .. "� . ' . , 1 . y y_� -10 (water 1 Ilk � d e �.: '�11M. . l t "'AP-- x" ,, 4'1. c. The Birthplace of Minnesota . 11 •-'' 3295ST O NSTH' - * �► "' gr Y � 4• a t w •f+�' u-' Site Location ' 12950 75th Street e2 Subject Property Map North 3 I�2 12764 ��,,, 7990 7979 —" 12840 7959 7960 3325 7960 m - \ 7959 7930 7880 7879 . F, 940 4 7939 7939 12440 7750 7760 7770 7790 7819 1 •97 7919 7890 7897 12450 = 0 460 920 1 840 12430 '"H MINAR LANE NORTH 7789 7850 7857 Feet 7730 12420 ° 7775 7760 7759 7817 General Site Location 7710 12340 T TTTH STREET NORTH w 7729 A rt gr, • aomilt� �� %' 12380 12421 s 7680 7685 7720 350 71:1-/ II 1 IIIIh erit. � I ..—. nix -i a- \ ,C NY. 12345 NORTH 12377 7660 7625 7610 7699 12950 12960 c 11111 r, / 12363 miNnR AVENUE.7669 7640 7609 7639 � ��It, ��• .v all , ���� �� J% I��41 ���`;' 1 imrllIIPIr �� r■ w rEM . ®.® �.4. A ® 1 7520 _.• 250 ._wICJ Z 1 12360 12490 12530 3AH 2 EE- 1�, �1>L/�/ �;-� �V -i1` �� sTH STREE( NORTH NORTH •�o`11L�� � � JI 1 rll�lrn ■■� ®® �tr� \\ , � �'� 12721 ■ le ilia .y y '' :, I i ®�� . . It 105 =O� 12975 : _�m�11�+r1; •107 :FA_ `` i r 115 - • III y - �( : ■ *4'r— :1JRri k. W 00 O 10 N rD rD rt O rD 0 z 0 -n w m z Z_ Z to rD 0 = 0_ 0 co Cri 0 rD rD 0 rD co 0) to NJ • to O 0 rD rD rD = rD Z 0 O O 0_ rD (D rD saTnu!w SO N rD 0 0_ cri 0) to 0_ ro = 0 0 -h O 0_ rD l0 rD B. to 3 to 00 to rD 0 = 0 to a = n O z um 0=1 zz cr) n rD to 0) 0_ v, p1 = rD 0 N O 00 N rD (D rD to rt rD `< • O O rD rD a 0 = l0 p, = 0 = w S21fO1NOJ Cr n rD rD c a Di 7 to to rD I\) O 0 01 S Po O W eL o rD r-t l0 S M v,' S rD g r-t rD ll rN't n rD 7-N 0 < O 3 = 3 C C l0 W MN $) P - 0) to = 00__h2 (A = rD rD rD cri rD o_ = O. 0 (SD 0 N rt Al to 01 S m rD 3 P.)00 l0 in W O 00 ¢1 Z In ro n rD —1 0 7- -% p1 O = r* T S 0 rD GO m OO �,-nQ -' Z rD NNn w ZlQ w Z W 3 fD -lc n -h rD r•t 0 fD S to �° O=2 N n — S `,1 rD 3 3 0_ N = n O N rD l4 ,=-t S C v+ s N S rrDD n O 03-< Q 0_ 3 v, rD C N 10 rt O rD •N V, to 0 rD 4,. V r-t to 00 - Al (0 v, t O VI M ,-, = n0 p1 O O = J c 3 v, 10 ar DJ n 0 to SO '•'t 44 0 = = rD O_ r t (0 o * O 3 � l4 0 0_ rj rD to S E. �. F• O_ [1VJIdAl1 SAID 'ON 1J3f02id 33V321fS 31321JNOJ 3INVN 3lld 'a3d1113A a13I3 ION '311S83M OdOININ 2iN4 3HI W0213 DV1 n1 r m z mz DOI Z l/1 N r0m mO n r O 0z (/)0 c m70 N rO 0 c D -I 0 m -10 D T� 01 w m D z 0 01 m 1 m F.) m n z 0 2 0 z 0 O m 0 D -H Q 2 = S � 0) W '< O N w �10 0- (1) N N O n 0 rD rD to 0_ ¢1 5 S p1 0 ,,, < S 0_l0 rt N 0 n - 0n _ _O rt to � Oh E O 3 1 O _S n rn to z 0 ro 0 -h rD z 0 rD 1Q• r�t 0 -h ✓w = rD 0 -h 0 _ = In 0) W 2 -I m m D m -< Oc E w m cn Z DO m � n 00 c -0 z > C E 1— m to D NIVW1131VM 213M3S 1N2101S 3JV321fS SnONIW11119 113M3S A11V1INVS SVD ONfON02130N11 3N11 JNI011118 A1111111 O V3 H113A0 3NOHd3131 ONfOND2130Nn JIldO TABU ONfOND2130Nn n z0 v, e•-• z rn v, m � z -I n0 z n rn s D $1)n -0 m w r rat N 0 rt ,�-t r O rD a to N 0 0 N 0 to 0 W W V V rD rD 0 -h rD m 0) v, 2 a 1 0 -h rD 0) to -h 2 p1 0 rD Z 0 (D 0) p _ 0) 0 -h V1 rD 0 = W O LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF Al 318VJ ONfOND2130Nn 1 O N N C Z > m nz n 0-I CO zz o n C C -z - 01 O ^l z0 -o(A m m nT on v m 2• m Z D 00 Z 00 m W J1211J313 ONfON02130N11 3A1VA 2101VJIONI 1S0d m 0) to O 0) -o 0 3 O = rD 3HI Alb Q311ddf1S S31VNI42i00J NO a3SV8 32IV SDNI2IV38 :S3lON Jl3/�2if1S X to z to 0) 0 Z 0 rD _ 0) ,-t rD rD Z 0 O 00 r(D to p1 cri 3 to 0_ 1 = rD W to O 0 r(D rD = 0 0 -h 0_ 0) 0) rD rD 0 0 S 10 rD w = t0 0) 0 = l0 rD = 0 S 1 0 _ .0 _ 0) rD rD 0 -h to p1 0_ In o' = W O w X to z 0 rD to 0 rD 0_ rD = rD rD 3 3 O rD n 3 l0 0) r-t rD to 0 _ r(D to n 0 rD 0 -h Al X 0 o mn rD -0 X r* n ' rD r-t 3' S l0 f�D rY rD S � rD O m 3 rt O S aft r-t r-t oo O • ro rD S r-r n o fD rD to O c r't r O O 0 0 rD rD W rt v, ( f-DD O_ 0 rD -' tnw n N o- O rD rD 0- X n N o'er 0 la v, .. fD rD -h 3 rD rD szo v, NJ to -h O rD rD 0 w 0_ O _ = VG = = rD to rD a rD X -0 l0 ro -h 0 3 rD W N Z 2 cn m m In �ln rn D Z oo0 rn 01 n m In to D In m m • z -n 1 m 0 D N 0 0 c m Z m D 0 rml 0 0 D 0 D 01 to 2 0 z D D D 1 m D v '9598 L9 2i38Wf1N 1N3Wf1JOa SV a31I3 SINVN3AOJ 3A11J3102id 3O NOI1V2iV1J3a 321V JI1d3S 31VINIX02iddV A3A2i11S NO NMOHS 0e000000, TO N3131N 2131VM NIV210 IN1101S NISVB HJIVJ 31OHNVIN A21V11NVS 1fONV31J A21V11NVS 1V1S303d 3NOHd3131 31OHNVIN 3NOHd3131 213131NSVJ 0106410u 31OHNVIN 2131VM 113M 2131VM dO1S BN1J NOIIJ3NNOJ '1d3O 3N1J 31OHNVW 1A1NO1S NOIIJ3S ON3 0321V1d 31OHNVIN SVJ 310d 213MOd 33111 S1101101330 310d 1H011 33211 S11021331NOJ 213WN03SNV211 J11113313 1V1S303d J1111J313 1VNDIS JI33V211 NOIldI JJS34 1VD31 SILON 31111 m n 113131N JI 1J313 NOLLVA313 10dS 31OHNVIN JI211J313 JNI2108 110S 213NOI110NOJ 211V 31OHNVIN NMOMIN 1 -0 O Co T 11 0 ••n 1VIS303d Al 318VJ NJIS JI33V211 00 N F O co D 0 3A1VA 2131VM 5 7 5 V 1 W W o� FADI IW o O N.) H • 0 o o 0 0 o Z W N / / / / L - NOILVJO1 1J3R:Md OX G \ 80.00 N89°27'14" N q 0 0 A A A A Co I� Ck' ND 1 11 L F / /' / / / / r- `Y ' / / I / f - 268.g5 S89°27' 14" 268.96 m 0 /q20 RESTRIC I <`• • 1 898, L= 370.92 R= 5804.58 8q8\\ A=3°39'41" C.BRG.=N88°33'51 "W 119 C=370.�6� NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON ----- COUNTY HIGHWAY PER WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 344751 LO N In O 1V1d AJJVNIWI132Jd 0 r^m m (J1 0 m 0 Z ► . TH LI OF THE SOUTH 1373.77 FEET i THE EI/2 OF THE EI/2 OF HE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 30, T30, R20 2\ S89°27' 14"E - 153.34 ql8 uF RESTRICTED ACCESS l Frt- -h- t t1it t l / l-� f u, r) r) F Ou) D { Zn A � {O NW CORNER OF THE EAST 245.00 - F•ET OF THE SOUTH 1373.77 FEET OF HE EI/2 OF THE EI/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 30, T30, R20 01 O 00 N 9/O LO L# 'aAV uaaTsaML ioN 0S6 L 00 W 00 00 n rD 0l W Ul 01 0 O 01 0 rD rD 0 m v1 r* 3 -o ro' n FL) rD '-r r* rD q 0 6 :1Jb'1NOJ 0 • • w 00 O N r(D O rD 0 Z -H 0 -n W m z Z_ Z NJ • 01 ro O O (0 rD Z 0 0 0 0 rD O (D rD N saTnu!w SO 0 -h O 0_ rD O rD B. = ro 00 v rD 0 Q v A-) S21fO1NOJ n rD rD = 0) Al 7 eP ut V1 n 0 0 (11 -t n O w 0 w 0 0 rD O rD N' VI (0 m� g ,rt rD n rnD r° 0 O = 5 6 (o fD o.)N 0) to = 0 o_ _, 2 = rD rD CD v, rD O_ 0 071 0 r(D 0 N V) 01 S m rD 7 D.)00 7 La v) w 0 O P.,�z(„ n rD —1 0 =-- O = 0� A.)TI S 0 (0 CO m Op �, ,- - -1 Z N NNi w Z 10 Al Z rD W 7 (0 -O n rD -1 rD .-r 0 rD S VI ,°O=2 N en - S V rD 5 (D O_ V1 0 0 O rD lQ 0 N S C v' P N 7-"- rDn O -, O o_ S. v, rD C N C O ,-r Cr) rD CD rD V, lJ'I N rD V ,- LA 00 -n Al 0 v, rD 0 (n a) ,-, = o P.) O O '- S [1VJIdAl1 SAID z m ° 33V321fS 31321JNOJ NIVW1131VM 'a3dI213A a13Id ION '31ISB3M OdO±NW 21Na 3IH1 WO21d PARCEL AND ON STEEPS SLOPES PER LIDAR DATA OBTAINED (/1 m C m m Dn Z m 0 0—I 001 1 n0 OZ 07I C 0 0> m N 0 m 0 TI -H 2 m s D gon -0 m w r ,•--r NJ 0 ,74 rD O a v, N 01 O 0 0 -h rD v, 0 W w V rD rD 0 -h rD m VI 2 a 0 -h rD m v 2 Al -h -h 7- 0 7- (11 p Fri Al 0 -h rD 0 _ w O w -H 2 m D -< 111 0 m z 0 m 0 Z 0 r m D 01 r 0 3 3 -10 r D D m m D z C 0 N nog <c 0.H � N I1 0 D m D m z 1 r r r r r r 0000000 0 10 * 4. W N 0 II II II II II I I 01 01 w 10 213M3S 1N2101S 3JV321fS SnONIW11119 113M3S A11V1INVS O 01 V1 N N lO pp Lri --♦ 1• • 2 0 0 m SVD ONfON02130N11 3N11 JNI011118 0 Z m A1111111 O V3 H213A0 n D O n m m 3NOHd3131 ONfOND2130Nn JIldO TABU ONfOND2130Nn n z p � z �rn m -< (!) z -I '5) 0 z n rn I I N 01 W p TI • z -H m 0 Al 318VJ ONfOND2130Nn J1211J313 ONfON02130N11 z 01 0 0 m 0 2 m n 0 -n N 3NO 113HdOD 2i3d NMOHS 531111I1f1 GNf10202i3aNf1 m 0) rr O 0) -o 0 = O = rD Dy 01 2 - Z 2 nn OD z n� ON Zm o O (n Z cn 00 ((/1 Z O-1 -n m N n (/1 m C z- r 0 m 00 w co 2 m 000 —1-1-1 00 V 01 11 11 11 N N NJ 01 O V 01 0 w w -P V) V) V) ppp 'r1 m m 1 71 71 3A1VA 2101VJIONI 1SOd D D TI 0 Z TI D n_ Z n NJ 000 —1-1-1 v1 w 11 11 11 N N W NJ V1 N Cr) 00 01 01 01010 01 01 V) ppp TI TI m 2 0 v1 m 0 -n m 0 TI Cr D m N 0 Z_ Z n 0 0 z D z n S>IJ`d813S 03SOdO21d v, w 0 ro _ 0 (0 rD Z 0 O 00 Al 3 0_ r rD w N V 01 O O -h rD 0 -' 0 -h 0 0) 0) rD rr rD -h 0 S rD w = (o 0) 0 (0 rD 0 S N 0 _ O rD rD 0 -h Al 0' w 0 w :91ON A3A If1S 0 rD v1 S rD 0 rD rD rD 0 3 (0 n O 0) r-r N 0 _ (DD 0 rD 0 -h 00 —1-1 11 11 N -P 01 N 00 W 01 01 01 pp TI 1 1 D 0 -H O z D r m N 0 m Z D r 0 01 n A.) rD n - v, X 0 S 0 = N X 0..< O n - _ rD(o �S r-r = rD = W O rD V S - 0 V m 3 fDD r-r X O S , r�r 3 0 0.)— = S rr (0 rD 00 — �-r O -0 O - ro S (0 3 -h n' O ,rt 0 —' rDr-r — S S rD (roi N m O (11 0 S = C K 111 N.)= 0 0 (0 0 -,00 rD ' (0 -h rD ,-r ,••r 0 W ' r-' S S AL) rD rD rD 0- O r* n Q1 NJ N 00 rDrD 111 X -1-1 ro(/'0 O -0r.m. (0 O E. 0 n — rr 0 O - O. r* S 3 N S rD (0 v, W N O O -h _ O = 0 S V v, rD W _S rD V 23 N W rD O NJ fir° O SO O rD (0 O NJ 1' o S v, ¢1 rD O v' rD 0 (O w 0 O = Q W N z z cn w m m v1 v) rn D Z oo0 01 Cr) n m D m m z TI r m 0 D 01 0 0 C m Z 0 0 m 0 r 0 D r z 0 n 01 m n -H -H 0 0 D 0 D Lc) V) 2 0 z D D D • r m D • = v3I`d -lv101 w O w (O 01 N p m '9598 L9 2i38Wf1N 1N31Af1JOa O 01 'd`dW DNINOZ (gwo3T!LIM)- L 13J2Pdd SV a31Id SINVN3AOJ 3A11J3102id dO NOLLV IV1J3a D'�1 nc xi w n m cn -I-0 70o D -0 m MIN MI <n Dc m Z m n0 �z m 0D D r 000 0 0 G ocl( T* 0 N3131N 2131VM NIV210 IN1101S NISVB HJIVJ 31OHNVIN A21V11NVS 1fONV31J A21V11NVS 1V1S303d 3NOHd3131 31OHNVIN 3NOHd3131 213131NSVJ 006410U 31OHNVIN 2131VM 113M 2131VM dO1S BN1J NOIIJ3NNOJ '1d30 3N1J 31OHNVW 1A1NO1S NOIIJ3S ON3 0321V1d 31OHNVIN SVJ 310d 213MOd 33111 S1101101330 310d 1H011 33211 S11021331NOJ 213WN03SNV211 J11113313 1V1S303d J1111J313 1VNDIS JI33V211 NOIldI JJS34 1VD31 S31ON 31111 :vlva 1N3WdO13A34 IV 0 z n z m D 0 z EC, 113131N JI 1J313 NOLLVA313 10dS 31OHNVIN JI211J313 JNI2108 110S 213NOI110NOJ 211V 31OHNVIN NMOMIN 1 9 O 03 T 0 O • 1VIS303d Al 318VJ NJIS JI33V211 00 N O D 0 3A1VA 2131VM m m z 0 .0 VI W W o H N o W W I O O rvH (AO 0 0 H 0 0 0 o Z W N NOI1VJ01 1J3fO2Id L / 0u-0 q00 W ND 103 I4 II Y 89e 70.9 noon e4» / S89°27'14 ' 268.96 237.16 SIDE YARD LINE r 228.80 mL m' 248.11 HOT TUB RESTRI C 1f' NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON ---- COUNTY HIGHWAY PER WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 344751 n z n o � 74 0_ '< (0 0 0_ sa7 N3• — o i N N <_� fp00 03 7100 CL o ^ S p ¢, S Q s trt O $, "3 LO N 0 1Vld A21VNIWI132Jd ► . TH LI OF THE SOUTH 1373.77 FEET e THE EI/2 OF THE EI/2 OF HE NE 1/4 OF SE-C. 30, T30R20 889°27' 14"E j 153.34 REAR YARD LINE 119.53 =13.1 1 1 32. 6 UE RST-RICTED ACCE /' l " l f —1 l I—( /— — /— — / /1 / 1 / /— / / r —, oX /m m r—J') 0 m 0 Z 0 0 0 z 0 2 :,kJIJ/A1Nf1OJ 74 NJ p CT) m O �O V —♦ _� D Z 0 m 0 m0 r D Z O D m mn(n D m Z O m 0 Z 0m 0 NW CORNER - FEET OF THE THE EI/2 OF 1/4 OF- SEC. 910 LO L# 'aAV uaaTsaML JON 0S6 L 01 IV 00 W 00 00 n 0*Wv1W 2 0 CO Z mHZrm�1C1 7v20H� DO m Z Z 0 m v)> '- -H oo(m/1m2 z O D _ OZO0H n co 2 = m r D m o Z z Z n ( 0 1J1 D H m m Z M00 c _ Z r Z Z m to v7 I O — — OF THE EAST 245.00 SOUTH 1373.77 FEET OF THE EI/2 OF- THE NE 30, T30, R20 Vl W Ul 01 0 0 01 0 rD O CD rr rD Q m S v1 r* n �* 0 nco3 00c 3 rD rD' 70 rD rD :13V1 N O J rt Ln (11 0 :91141 SV NMOHS 3dV S1N31N3SV3 Aina l QNV 3 JVNIVdC1 O3SOdO21d P:\Projects\Projects - 2019\12196152 - White Pine Ridge Residential Development (Stillwater)\C. Design\Drawing Files\12196152 C000 - Overall Site Plan.dwg 1111\11 III • • i II II 1 \ II 11 j I\ �1 I II 1 1 11 \ \I II \ II \ I II \ Ili 1 I 1 \ \ 1 1 \ \ \ 1 1 I / I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I 1 I •\ \I \ \ `\ \ \\ I 1 \ I j 1 1 I 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I 1 '1 \\ \ \\ \\ ` \\ ` '\ \\ '\ I I <• ! ' \• \\• \ \ \\• \ \\ \ \ \ I I \ 0, \ I \ \\ \\\ \`•\I \` '\ \\ \ • \` II I ' /// I \ I \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ `\ I I 1 \• \ \• 1 I I I I 1 II I I �� I 1 \I '1 '1 '1 ' 11 1 1 ' I III '\ -II--_--I- TL+�ri- I 1 1 i i/ i I I I I I I 1 i I I I I / / 1 \ \ 1 I 1 1 I I I I Y // 1\1II / \1 IIII / \ \ I / \ `\ \\ '1 II I 11 1 I i II b / II I \ \ \ I 1 \ i \ 11 \ 11 3 I l '\ 1 j I 1 1 \\ I\ 1 I I \ I/ \ 1 I l 1 1 \ \ 1 1 II I \� \ \ I I •1 1 1 \ 1 I N • \ I I •1 1 1 1 \ \ \\ I '• \ \ I 1 I I I i 1 'I \ 1 \ 1 1 \ \\• I I 11 1 '1 '\ \\ 1I \\ \\ \` ``4,\\ \ I 1 1 I \ \ 1 1 \_ \ `� I 1 1 l I \ \ \ \-- 1 I \\ \ % \\ \� I 1 1 \1 ` \1 \ 1 1 \ \\ �\ \ \ / \\ \\ I I I \\ • '\ \.\\ \\� \\ A1 -��`- , \ \ \ \ •/ / / / / \ \ 1 / \ N -- \\ \ \\ \ 1 / / / / I\•\ I $r�/ �� o i/' \ \ I / / / / /1 / / / / /-- ' I) o �\ \\ , // // / / / O \\ \ \` \ I` I f / /// /............. ' / / / \ /// 1 \\ O 13 \ `\ \\ `\ \ `\ I`i I I / / / / -' <\ c 4-/ / \\ m OT I \ \ \ \ \ 1, — / `\ \....., � \ \\ \ I\ `\ \ \ \\ \ \ // 1 / / / / / \ • __ \\\\ \• \\ \ \ /—� / / _ „ _----�•\ \\� \\\\\ ` '� \ \\ \\ \ `\ \\\/// / I / // / \ / / 1 1 \ \ •\ \ \ \` \ 1 ` \ \ \ ` 1 I I / / / / / -----1 \I \ \1 \ \\\ \ `• \ \ \\ \\`\ \\ I 1 I 1 / // // //' ` /� /1 O J ( / • / / / I I \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ \ 1 / 1 / / / / /� / - / - - 1 1 / / \ / / ,, \ / / / (( /-- I I 11 \ I 1 1 1 I1 / l- I / I / I I 1 \\ I 1 /' 1\\ \ I I II 11 y ►/ II 1 \\ \ 1 1 1 1 \\ // I I \ \ I I I 1 1 1 \\/ I 1 \\ I 11 I I / 1 1 I 1 1 / I \I I 1 —I I I� -tIf // I 1 1 r IIf/ I I I I I II r/ 1 I I P II b I I 1 1 1 I1 II I v I , I$ I X 1°I $ I / 4 / / / I 1 I / // /I I I 1 I� /J / / 50" $' 1 ! 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 11 / — --71 II / I I 11\` \/ `\ \` \ II 1 / l II // I/ // ' / I \ '\ \\\ I ''I 11 1\ '\\ \\� J I I 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 \ l\\ \ \ I \ I / , I \ 1\ I \ \ \ \ ` 1 1 / / I 1 1\ \\ `\ \ I I I I I I ► 11 1 1\ \\ 1 1 \\ 1 I I I I I 1\ \ \ \ \ I I I I \\ \\ ' '1 'I I1 II I \ 1 1 1 I l 1 1 I 1 'I I\ II 1\ 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 IIIII 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 11 1 1 1 1// II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I / 1 11 I I 1/ I/ I I 11 I I 1 1 I I/ I/ I I I I 1I I I g I I / I / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1T I 1 I / / / I 1 I l l I I 1 I I I I / I/ 1 1 1 1 1 I I i / i i l l / // i l I `'Il I/// 1 /// l l I l I l l IF l I ' l 1/ III / I ,4 / j l l 1 / 1 150 / I I / / j / bl 0, / / % 1 q 7 / / / / / / / / / / / ; / / / / 1 I / 'I 1/7/ ' ' / / / / / / , I I / / 1 HI I I 1 I //lii // / / / /// / i 1 1 1/ll/,, / I I/ /I11' 1 I I I I / / // 1/ / l I 1 II / I /I �/ ;_ I / / / / / / / / / 11 1 / / / I / ! / / i - / /- - 1 / / / / / / 1 1 / / / / , / / 1 /'' / / / I/ I /// 1 / I I/ 1 1 1 / 1 I / 1 I I// / / I I I I I 1 I I 1I111 1 1 '1 • I I '\ '\ \\ \\ \ I I I \\11 \1\\ \\ I\ I I 1 1 \\\ I I I• I • I 1 I I I i � I 1 1 1 1 I \ I' I / 1 i i /I / / / �m/ i -/' ) / I 1 / I 1 1 I / / D //I / /, // ) \ , / / / / / �\ I I I I I I / / / / C) / / / _ __ _ / / I I I I 17 i / / / �1 III I / I I I / I I I I l l l lI ,/ (/' I I f I 1 I I I I I I I , / ❑ / I I I I I I II 11 I j/ I I /40 / 1 I W cn 1/I 1 I I 1 1 Ill \_I / I I I I 71 1 / 1 1 1 1 111 1 I I I I I I m I I I I I I I 1 1 / \I / I I I I I I i I; 'n m 1 I I( l!1 / • 11 I I I I 1\ \ • �, <� __ I / 0 0 I I \ V A II I I I I I I 1 \V 1 V I / / 1 j I I l 1, l\ •I\ • \\\ 5 \\ 1\ I 1 1 1 1 I I I / 1 1 1 I I 1 •1 I I •1 m 1 V 1 V A I I . \\ c3` I / 1 /// /"‘ / 11 1 1 I I I I IV \ \ • \V V A \ �'\ \ V\\`/ 1 \ I III �I // / / / / // ////--�L/ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ I 1 1 l \ \ \ 1 \ I• / _ s 1 I I I \ \ • \ • \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ / / / / d \ \\ II II 1 1 1\ \ \ `\ I\ \ \ 1 \ \\ \\ \ \I \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ I �� m i 1 ' 9/ // / / // /\ �" / \ 1 \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ // / / \\ 1\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ 1\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ �\ / �\ / / // // // // //// // • \ \ •\ \ \ \ \ •\ \ \ \ \ _, _ \ / / _ (<<• _ \ ` . \ \K \ \\ \ \ \ 1 1 \ l I \ \ \ \ \ \ O) -cjo \ \/, l�/i I \ \_- / / / / / / / \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \, \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 1 \ \ \ \ 1- TI \ _ _ / ' % / - - _ __ • / / ,/ / ,/„/ / / \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ 1 `• \ \ \ \ \ O \\ f / \ \ +� / / / / / \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \� / / / / / / / \ \ \\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ \ \ \ `m • \\ \. / / // V. \ —•,--i,—. \ —N.I., \ N : N : • • \ • ` \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ • \ • `\ \ \ \ \ I\ \\ • �\ ` \\ \\ \ \\ \`��x� //- // // /� / / \ \ \ \ I�(.1 \• \�\ \\ \\ \�•\\\•\\ I •\\\ \ //-/ /// / \ \ \ \•\------__ • I \ \ \ .,,,_ • r.. • // n\\•\\•\\\•\\•\ \\•I \\\•\ \ _---// -/'� \ \ \ \ \- •• /--� ek \ \ \\ •�_— \ \ \ • - \ \ \ \ •. / / / �/ / ' / /' \ /. / / / / //I / ----/ / --/ //3 /// \I / / / / / /' �' -'- // / // I / / / / / 1/ --- ,- /' // - \ / / / / / — /' / / i // /' _ \ 1 / / / / / // / / / // \ 1 / / / / / /, - \ I / / / // // // \_ -/ / / /.--� 1 / / / / - - // /, ,�- \\ //- / -//7-/ / / l / , , I // �, / /� \ /— // / -/ // / / / / / / I • / / — / /'/ —/' /'/ /'/- ��'/ J / — /'' /'//'/ // / / / / / 1 / 1 / �/— //' --// I // /',, / //' /' // // // / / / / 1 /• —/—� /// /// --- /_-/ /, , J / / // / /� / /// /, // /•\\ / / / / 1 I 7-1.... — -/ / / // ///•\ j / / / / / I /— / , \ , / / / / I I /7-7- / /� / \ , / / / / I I / / / I I I I I / I I I I I 1 I / / / I / / / /' /'' / / / / / / / 1 / / / /'////� 1 _\\ // / / / / / / //' —� -- /' / / / // / --�'T-- //— — -- �— -- / ' / / / / 1 / / / / / / / / / / / I / 1 I / \ / r 0 w / \/ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\`\ \ \ • \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ •\•\ \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ •\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\\\ \\ \\\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _t \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\\\\ \\ \\\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \. `\ \ \\\\\ \\\ \ \ \ S1 \ \ \ �\ ��� ....... \ \\ \ `\ \\ \ \\\\\ \ \\\\ \\ \ \\ �' \\ \ \ \ \ •\\ I "��— -- —. \ \ \\ \\ \ \`\\\ \\ \\\ \\\\\ \\ \� `—�—\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ t \ \ - \ \ \ \�\ `\ \ • \ \ \, • I\ • • / / /// / / I i I 1 I / / / , , / / / / / 1 I I I I I / / / / / / / / / /' I I ' / / / / // /�' // // // /i i/� / / / �I I 11 I / / / / / / / I I I I ///' - /' / / / / / / / / I I I I -- //�' /'/ ,/// / // / / I I I I / --' - // ' /--'//// // / / // / I I /- - �/ / / / / / // / / I I I --/ -/ -- --- --'/- �/ // / /1/ / I I I / / /---- --- - - - / / I I // — ---- - -'/ / I I I - / / /�// ///// 7/'-- - -- - // I 1 j / / - - _I I /' /' / / /' / I I / ,/'/ -/'/ -- - - -- ,-- 1 I III / / / / / / / / I / // / , // ,/ /' I I I I // / // /' // // // P *' I `fie / / / / / \ _ _ . , i _ _ _ . i s s _ _ 1 I °/ / // / /// \\ _ _ — — I I i"- \ 1• \". J / 1 \ \—i—/ l / • \ • • • • • • • • • • • • stl • 0 (111 CCE 0 0 Co CD m -c, ,:, ,— > z i— . m E ca . _, _ c_ Iv ,..) cD cn q. 0 • • • • • • • • • • UE • • • / / • V 1- 0 • • • • • • • • 3f1- • 3n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • / / / / / / / / / • • • • • • • • • • • • • / • • • • • • • • • • / • • • • / • • • • • • / / • / • • • • / • / - / • • • / • • lit • 1/7 / • • / • • • / • \ \ / \ • / \\ \\.\\X\ • / • • • • • • \ \ • u. • \\\\\A\\\\\•'\\ \\ \\'‘::\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\:\\\\:\:11\22\1\2:: • • • • • • • • • • - • / • • • • \\ t • / \ r • • • • • • • • • \\ • • • • • • II ii • • • • • • • / II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • / / / / / • • • • • • • • • • • PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Project Title: WHITE PINE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 / /// • • • • • / I 7 / / 4 /' / I I X / / I // i / 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Client: METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 1950 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 02020 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. P :\Projects\Projects - 2019\12196152 - White Pine Ridge Residential Development (Stillwater)\C. Design\Drawing Files\12196152 C100 - Sanitary And Watermain Plan.dwg i i I I Z 0 2 I I I I I r I r / 11 I _1 \ II I I I f \\ \. \ r UE IMM 3n f 3n / r 0 H r 0 o) X 3n 01 103NNO0 \ < 00 in z (n 7J N (A z co H z i to CO CO W o) r 0 W = WRi / / r 0 H N cn z r 0 r 0 N r 0 UE — — UE UE 4 (/) 0 0 ',1-'z o) `^ 0- 'J J7 -1 0 - 7Jm (n 0 0 cn n- Iv coCD C(0) `0 p ( c m (a co m m `••` - o 0' �# A co o Ff O r >7 > XJ m—I-‹ m vJ Lcn m xi Dm� co <_ (_ iv * 7J N <,ocn N N o o -0 0' 0 Z a 3n 3n « E 1 09.688 = ANI 7 96.906 = W 121 9-H W NVS 3Ad .8 di ££ ± NV I AH „9 I — �— —� m m X i D 2 z G) C 5' cn 0_c m O X I]) CD 3 Sv Sv O < 3 CD 0 CD `< Sv v =4' 0 3 D o 3 O 0 oo c 0 = 0 0_ CO (0 X CD o Sv O_ Q w o 0 3 oo cp CD c c come o -s = O an o_ -1, 0 0 c m � 0 o o c (S 0 <. 0<<0c 3 rt0 c coo n Q- 0 v = (n Q) 2. O a) C) =cn (D co 03(nc- v (D v CO O — 0 ( 00 o X cn G CO 7 (Q (D cn O O v a) eL o (n cz a(0 C CD Cn (D D) 0 3 -11 s< �cco O 0 202 II < 00 0)>co o 0 z z— m 0 0 CD n) 2 oco �. N fD 0_ -0 v0 (n 0 51) (D cn o < 0 o 7J cn o o_ o a cn (D o -D N cn 02 o (-Ds < C) rn 0 N (3) O 0 co a (n N Pressure test and disinfect all new watermains in accordance with state and local requirements. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION o - ) 0 (n — -- 0`<a m 21- CD (n 3 CD cn (n v O 0 a) o — . c) g(vg0(o o Q Cn m 0 0 CD o 0vc m c. *a • Q (n (n (nil) sv Q a a o m CD �a Sr) N- 0CD 0_ Project Title: WHITE PINE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 11. See Project Specifications for bedding requirements. 10. All watermain piping shall be class 52 ductile iron pipe unless noted otherwise. o 0 < O cn- - � CO ^� (n -o. co O_ 3 0 v' a a 0 0 N 0 0 c 0= 0 C (n 0 0 (D 0 (o (n co O O � O CD c — 0 0 a 0. o N < C (�D E. a O- O CD (D) cn- a) a 0 C (n 0 (s o co o a CD a (n c 0 P co 0 0 o cT (n (n (n cn cn. < v. w 0 0 cn5- 0 (D 0 ) O ' 3 9 a o < 3 !? c cn cn� 0 ) O N O 0 - 0 c 0 3co- 0 0 CD FDs 0 ) CO 0• o w o 0 5. O (D 0 cn 0 zv 01 0 - � O� W • v CD (7) c O O 3 (D (n v (n S a)CD CS g (4 Q O 0- All RCP pipe shown on the plans shall be MN/DOT class 3. 51 o (n o eL cn 5 (D O -063 Nco O. o — 0 v 5. CD 0 7 CD v 0 0 0 =a (D = c c CO • 0' (D (n 0 v a c 3 7 7 (0 0 0 c CO co 0 a O O- CD 3 o_ (D 0 v 0 I)) 3 I) 0 (D 0 CD X rn (o c CD• (n 0_ 3 0 m o = o � v O o O X 0 < 0) 0 0. (D CD v 0 (n v a 0 a 0 (n 0 0 0 (D 0 0 (n O (D X 0 c co (n a 0 Ol O®❑00 1OHNVVJ A2IVIINVS 0N3 a32IV1d 3-0d 1HJI1 11N1 9Hl0 dd01fHS H31VM NIS'd9 HOIVO X00 '8 3A1VA 31VD Client: METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 1950 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 31OHNVIN IN2:101S A ± NVHO) H -I 3dld 31I1NIV Ia (n v-D CD 0 S. v co 0) (n a O O 3 0 O —h0 3 C (D p C 0 0 o 0 0 (n v 0) CD 0 IS) 0 2 a) I) 0. cn 2 (n CD 3dld NIVIN2:131VM 3NI1 ON110219H3GNf1 3N0Hd3131 D (n co 0' (D 0 0 (D 0 O (n (n v 0 (D a CD 0 CD 0_ 0' I) 0 0 a I) 0 CD (n v m I) paepuels pool 3dld 213MJS WHO1S 0 0 0 2 p• c„ 0 (CD 0• o 7 (1) o (D 0. C 0 0- 3 co 0 N Fri (n Q) v (n 0 CD 0 fl) 0 CD 0 a co (o I) (n 3dld H3M3S A21V1INVS 3NI1 ONf10219H3aNf1 SVO 1VHl1VN co ai cn cn 3 cn co co o CD 0 a. cn o o o o 3NI-1 aNl02IDH3aNfl OI1d0 H39Id 3NI1 aNf10219H3GNf1 01H10313 3NI1 a'd31-12:3A0 01H10313 SALON Alllllfl 3N1l ONl0HJ2,3GNfl 319'd0 5 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 ©2020 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. P:\Projects\Projects - 2019\12196152 - White Pine Ridge Residential Development (Stillwater)\C. Design\Drawing Files\12196152 C200 - Street And Storm Sewer Plan.dwg f I i i 01 i Z 0 r I 'I I/ / / --7 r I I— m m UE 3n JI r 0 H 3HnianH1S 1O211N00 X 0 r m H x r Ip O 0 co N X L z r O N r O w r 0 H 0 oo "I I < < co co II II �N 0 r O H N r O H I I I I I I I E 0 c13— N co m N 0 120 LF 27,, RCP I @ 041% — U E — — — �—-« UE m O 3n SUE 3n n I I co 0 0 01 m m in 0 rNM IMO --------------------- CD ((ID) 3 7 0 0 cn n- Iv o A < 0 T-D —IW-0J)QW H0°Ea 0 o IN) m r -12 'm °E�j cri oo 0 CI CD z m Z S Z D 7 00 o F, N N.)O � o 0 -,. o I I 0 0o co 31VOS 01 ION PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Project Title: WHITE PINE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 z 0 m 'Sl0NILNl118 d0 S1d1l H109 01 HOIHd H311l9 dO 30Vd NOV1 SNOI±V01d103dS a2IVaNV1S A110 HIIM 3ONVa21000V NI a3A02:IddV aNV a319313am98ns (8.6171-£ 0dS) MOO 2JV1fNV2JO 10313S Z6 0310A03H `9 SSV10 3SV8 31V932199V ..9 (00££83MdS) 3SHfO0 9N121V3M-NON '118 2 _WOO NOV1 SfONIWl118 (00££V3MdS) 3SHfOO 9NI IV3M '118 “9 l• Client: METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 1950 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 0 0 C tooZ7 N, Q° 0 - m m- m 7Jm 3N1-1H31N3O W U) Z mm m o- D_ c ram_ Z O c m m m z H aNDD 11091A1AS 5 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 www.larsonengr.com © 2020 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. P:\Projects\Projects - 2019\12196152 - White Pine Ridge Residential Development (Stillwater)\C. Design\Drawing Files\12196152 C300 - Grading Plan.dwg o I I / 111 11 iI lI I //// 1 I I / 1 11 l\ 11 Ii- - 1 I 1 I I po 1\I l\\ \\ 111 11 II \ \ \\ 1 I 1 I \\ \1 \ \\ I 1 1 \ \ \ \\ \ \ I I \\ \ \\ \\ \\ I 1 \ 1 \\ \\ \\\\ \I 11 I\\ �\ I\ \\ \\ \ I\ I 11 I \ \ \ \ \\ I 1 I1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 I 1 11 I\ \ 1 I I1 I I 1 1 I 11 I 11 I I I 11 1 I ' I 4 I -tTl I 1 I I 1 I\ I I I I 1 11 I \\ I 1 k I 11 1 1 \ 11 I 1 I 11I 1 I II I 11 1 1 I I I I b I 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 I I I 11 1 \\ 1 \ 1 I \ 1 11 I \ \I \\ 1 \\ III I I I I I I\ l 1 1 1 1 \ 1\ \ : I \ \ 1 11 11 1 \1 I \\\ \\ \ \4l\ \ \ 1 11 \\ \\ \\ I\ \ `\ l 1 \� \ 1 \ \ \ \ ) I11\\ / \ 1 \ \\ I\ \ / I \ I 1 I 1 I \\ / 1 1 I \ ,/ / / / / / / / // / / / / \/ / / / I / // / // /- 1 I > \f/ /////1I \ 1 1 I j \ \ I 1 l- \ \\ \\ \\ I\\ \` ` \\ \• \\ \ •\ • \\ \\ \\ / / m / 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ / / \ \ •\ •\ \ •\\/ / \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ CO z \\\ \ O �1 \II \\ \ \ II \\ II• - I \ \ §/ III \I \\ \\\ O r- O I 1 \ \ II ZI I / 1\1 \I \\ \\ - CO 1 1 \\ \\Oo I I to Z I I 1 \\ I \\ 1 I I / I \\ 1 1 I I I I \ I1It/-1 1 I I P II b I I I I I I II I $ I I I / I I 1II / 4 1 1 I I I l / / / I I I 1 % / I 1 $' I / / / / 4 / I 'I' I I I 1 I I $ I/ / I / / / / 1 / / I A11:-- • 1 / • I / —71 \ Pj► , 1 / I / / I / Il / / 1 I I I I P / / 1 I I / / / / / / 1 �1 / /l /l : 1/l �I lI d / I / 1— � / it / i 1 I �— i; i� nj_j/ %� 1 / / 11 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 / l / 1 1 I 1 I. 1 / 1 1 / I / I I I / I I 1 // 1 // / l / I 1 1 1 I- ! / / /, l / / I l 1 I / I 1 1 1 I / ti 1/ / I$ II / / / /I I / / / l / I / / C V , / / j / / / / / / / d N 1 1 1 / / / / // I /J)ll --, I I 11 1 i 1 Il I �l i/ / i l// i //I �'/ ,/ I 1 / / / / l / t / I1I IIIi1T / / I I I 1 I I 1 I I II /I // / 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I i I / I/ 1 1 II i I II i 1 i i 1 i �Ii // i I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I \ -1 / / I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I III I / I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I / 1 I 1 I I I I I I I/ 1 1 / I I \ II II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1• l\ / 1 1 \ \ I I II I 11 1 I I 1 \l \- \\ 1 I \\ 1\ 1 11 11 I l l l l 1 1 \\ I \\ 1 1 11 1 1 1\ I I I \\ \ \ 1 1 1 1 1\\\\ I 1 \- \\ \\ �1 1 \I X. \ \ \ \ \ l \ \� \I \\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ laI \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\\\\ \\\ \\\• \ \l \ \ \ I \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / `\\\`\ \\ \\ 11 I \I 11 \\ \\\ \\\ \\ \ \ \\ \\\ \�',le `T x\� - \\ \\ \\ \\ \ 1\ \ Ili \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \' dr- /I 1 _ \ 1 I. \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \\ \\ f t \\ \\ \ \\ \•\ \ \\ 1 \ \ \ \\ \ \ vie / / \ \ l \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ s� �1y \ \ \ \ / ,\ l`\\\ \ \ \ \ �\ I\ ,; \\ �\ \\ \ ,c- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - _ , \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ l \ \ \ \ \ ,7-1,-9- \off \• \ \ \ \\` _ i� \ \ ` \• \ �/ / \ • \ • \•` \ \ \ I\ \ •\ \• \ \ \- �X-/ \ \ \ A l \ \ \ % \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ��' /' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \\ I \ \--- �� / \ \\ \\ \\ \\ I \\ \ \ \\ \� \\ \\ I \\� \ /'/ /� \ \ \ \ \1 \ \ \ \ tom- _ / / \\\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \ Imo\ \� \\ \\ \\\ \ \\ \\ \\\ ----\---_-_-/ // • \\•\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ I\ n\ \\ \\ \\ \• IN` \--\\ \ —/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ --- ------ \ \ \ •\ \ \ \\ \\\\ \ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ t \ek \\ \\\ \\\ l\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\ \ \\\\\\ \\ \\ I S\I \\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ •\ \ ak \ \ 1 \ \ \ \\ \\ • \\� \ \\ \ \\\\ \r \\ \\ \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\• \\\\\ \\ \\\ \\ \I \\\\ 1 i \\ \\ \. \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ 0 < I�v 11 1NJ/1/1/) r 0 H Cn — L — — — ' / / I / / 1 / / / ' • / / / /' / / /— _// / / \ / / / ▪ —-- //7, / - 7 • 1 / 7i�/�'/ /I /—-/--' I / //l/ / i/ l / (I/�'i/ / / cei/-_ —�▪ \ /\/ // / \ I 1 / / , / / 7 '\, _ �/ /� j '�\ / / / -7 7 1 I I / l l --,-/ I -� /l I/ / / _- - - / 7 //- i 1 / / / / / I l // / —///-'�/I / /--▪ / - / /�/ //—-/\ _/ / / / / 1 / I —'/ //, / / / / / I // / /�/-----///—I ///J///// /////-- -f/// / / // l//// / / / / /• —i_�/�//-//' I/ // // //'// / / / / l / I//-- / \/ / / / // �/////////// / / I I/ \/ I / - _/ // .../ / \_/ • '▪ / /'/// \ / / / / / / / / / l / // -'--�////....... ....-- ./../ \v-/// I / // -7 / // 7 / 79443t -- _- -- / / // 7 / / 7 7 / / / / / �r' ' - (l- t I // __ _�//I I // / I // —i'i'—''/ / r'� ��,a—� / / I / / / // I / 1 / I / / / / // / / / / / // \\ /--�_ /\ \ 1 / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ \ \\ \\\ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ •\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \\ . \\ \ \ \\ I/ \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \I \I I \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1\ l 1 \\ I\ 1 i\ II 1 1\\\\ \1 \ \1 \\ 1 111 I j 1 1 11 11 1\ \\\ I 1 I II I I I I I I I 11 I I I 1 1 I III 1 \ I / I/ I I I I I] I\ I 1 1 II 1 I I / / I / I / / / 1 1 11111 I 1 //// /I / 1 I II 1 1 1 I / / / / / / / // / I I I II I 1 / / / / I I / 1 // / / //// // // /, / I 1 I I I / / // / / / I / 1 I I1 .- // // // / / // / / 1 1 1 / / / / /� / 1 I „. 1 /// /////////// I // / 1I I I I 1 / / / 1 _ „ ...._ ..,..._ .... ..... „ ..... ., .... „,,... „I 1 1 1 1 1 1 /il —___. — I I I I I ___-- 1 / I I' I • o` I /'-- • -// I I I I I 6 I I 1 - ------------- O O Z 0 2 I I I ¶ I 1 I • --- 4 , , -, 1 1 „.. i ,,,,, ...,_, „ _ , ,, __ . , , , _ , --1----- = UE I — Abe- -._;,‘.7„,_ � ? 0 O 0 co rn SB 9 i O CO CO _3n 3n I• _898- F\Sm I 1 I I I 1 I I ---------------- ----------------- ------------ • 0 (%) a) 0 CD (- g g at (Ida I- 0 Co 171 > )).:,- z o b o c, / 3n • UE • • 3n • • • • • • co • • • • • • • • • co co co CO CO co • • • • • • • • • • • / / • / • / / / / / • / • / / / • • • / / • • / -- ..........• 4 \ • / / / / / 1 / --. • \\:. • • • • • • • . \ \ \\. . \ \ . \ \\ \ 1 i ) i , i \ / / - / / / / ; / / • \\ I • • • • • • • • • • • rgs • • (393 03 • • X\ • • • • • • • • • • • • • \ • • \ \\ • \ik • • 1 \• • *• i / / / / / / / • • • • • • • • • • • • / • • • • / • 11/ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • / • — —9e6 • • • • • • • • • • • • PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Project Title: WHITE PINE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • co m Client: METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 1950 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 • • • • • • • • -IP CO Ca W ocr 0 0 192JONO0 - 0 SfONflVflll9 - 9 — 0 cr 0 CO 0 0 O. co 3NIl 2J311f1J - lJ 01 00'096 9Hf10 dO dOl - 01 <713 :SNOI1VIA H99V 1OdS o co CO 74. CD ToN) 3dOlS 2GVHO 3NIl )1V H9 2GVHO • CD 0 o 0 CD CO CD CD co (D0 o o CD co co 1VAH91NI HONIW - SHf1O1NO0 a3SOdOHd CO 1VAH91NI 2Jory - SHf1O1NO0 a3SOdOHd cn SHf1O1NO0 ONIISIX9 S±ON ONIGVHJ 5 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 ©2020 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. P:\Projects\Projects - 2019\12196152 - White Pine Ridge Residential Development (Stillwater)\C. Design\Drawing Files\12196152 C400 - Erosion Control Plan.dwg \ \ i I1 1 ll \ \ \\ I / I I \\ \\ \ 11 I I \ \ \ \1 \ 1 I I \\ \\ 11 \\ \1 I 1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \\ 1\ \ 11 I\\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ I II I \ \ \ \ \\ \ I I I \ \ \ \ \ ' I I 1 \ I I 1 1 Ill I \ I 1 I I 11 1 11 I 1 I 11 1 I � I_ 4 I 1 1 1T, I I I I 1 I I I \ I 1; 1 I J, I I I 1 1 I I f l \ I' I I I I I II ' II •1 1 11 \ I I b I I I 1\ \ \ 1 I / I 11 I I\ \ 1 1 I \ 1 I 1 I 11 \\ 1 \\ 111 I 1 1 1 \ 11 \ 1 1 1 \ \ \ 1 I \ \ , 1 1 \ \\ \ II \\ \ \\\4\\ \ \ \ \ \— \ 1 l 11 1\ \ \\ \ \ `\ 1 1 \ \I \ \\ / 1 \ 'I 1 I I / I 1 I I I I // 1 1 I I I // 1 11 II 11 II 1 I\ \ 11 1 /// \ 11 \ / \ 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 11 I jl I II b 1 1 1 I /I I 1 Y I I 1 / I I (/) 1 I I / / / F I 1 I l / / / H 1 I I I / I I$ I m / I r / / / l n / / I / / / / m / / / / d / / / / / -1 / / l l / 2 / 1 / / I -< / /_t / / 1 / / 1/ / I I I 1 I / / 1 / / / 1 1 I 1 I I 1 / 1 / / /Hl I/ / / /I 1I//1 / // / I I I I I I l / /I / i 1 / / / l I / / / / / I / / / / / / / / / / / 1 / / / / / / / j I / j / / / / 1 I I I / / / / / I I 1 / / / / / / I I / I/ / / \ \ 1 I / I I / 1 1 I — I- lTI l I I I I F 1 1 I I 1/ I / I/ I 1 /// I I 11 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I /II I 1 1 1 / 1 I 1 1 \ _ I I I I I 4 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1/ 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I III I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 / / I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I/ Ix 1 / 1 I I 1 11 I I I I I l!/ / 1 1 II I\ 11 11 I II II II 1 i II \I \\. \1 < L� _ _ i / I 1 AV I A 1 1V I I I I I 1 1 I jv 1. 1 I / \ \ 1 1 1 \ 1 \ \ I 1 I ■ \ S I / 1 / / \ \ \ 1 1 1 I \ \ \ \ \ \ I 1 \- III 'I // / / / / --_� \ A \ 1 I I\\ V A \ A l v A V •= ;/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� / / / / d \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I / / / / / / :� .\ 1 A A \ �\ \1 p \ \\ \\ \\ \V A A \ � vv I ,/ of / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , I / 0 / / / /\ /— v v v vvvv v vv� //////\\\ \\'I'\\\\\\\\\ \ \ /// // \ \ \ / / i / / / / / 1; / 11 / 11 /' / <^1 -o 1 / / / / I / / / /' / / —' \ I / ir : — '� 7' - / / r 1 / / i' / /' / / / / /' / _ 1"I f — / ' / /' / / /' \ / / /' z 7/ / / / 7/' /// / / ..--• /, -- -- - 7 / - - -7 — — - //1 / ___,/ - - --- I - rye i /' / / / r,--- / • / 1r I 1 \, \, \ \ \ \\ \ �?,_ i_ x\ \ \ \ \ \ \ II 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ yL__�/ / I --_ / / / / / \ �\ \ \ I \ 1 \ \ \ \\ \\ �, 1 \— \ \\f / / / // \\ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \\ \ \J — \• J / / / / \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ P \ \ \\ 4� •sk„ \\ \\ \,.. // \ \z / //,I \ L. 1 \I\ \ \ \ \ \� 1422 \ \ \ N \ \ •\•\ '`J 1 \� `"� // / / / \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ • \ \off \\ \• \ \ \\\ �\ �' / / lA / \\\\\\\c \\ \ \ \\\ \\ \ al \ \ ‘ \\ \\ \ \��Xx ,//// �/ \\\\�I \\\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\ \�- \ X��/ \\\ °\ \ — J/�/ \ '\1\Y \S\\\\ /'U'\\ \ \ /z\ \\\ \, \\\ ��z// \\\\ �\ I\ // \ / / \\ \ — ---_ _—/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ -cb \�\\ \\ \\ \ \\ \I\ I\\ \ \\ \\ \ \• \ \\--\\ \ _z7/ \\\\ \ \ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \ek \\ \\ \\` \\— — \ \ \ \� \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ S\ \ \ \ \ \\\\ \\ \\\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ �1 \ \ \\ \\ I Y \ • \\ \ \\\ \\ \ \ \\I \ 1 \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ak \ \ I` 1 \ \•\ \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \1.\ \ \ \ \ I\\\ 1i \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \� \\1 \ \\ \ \ \\ 11/ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \•\ 1 \ \ \ \ \ I\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ 1 I \ U) 1 \1 1\ 1\ \ \ \ \\ �\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ I I F I 1 1 1 1 1\\\\\ 1 1\ I I I I I I 11 I \I \ \I \ II II II 11 IIII Z 1m 1 1 1 I 11 1 I I I II 0 1 / l I 1 II 1/ l� i I 1 1 1 11 m / / / / / / / /I / / 1 11 1 1 - / / / // /// / // i I 1 11 I -o // ///// // // I 1 / I I / / / / / / / / / 1 I 1 1 I / / / / / / / /I / / I 7 �� // // / / / / / 1 .7 „/// ////// // / / I .-/ / // / / / / / 1 , / / / / / / / I / / ' I / I I / I I 1 - --- 1 I I /'�- -/A) 1 Z 0 2 I I -p I t I -0 I � I I I I 1 1 1 1 • 1 0 ' I I • (/) CD 0 ,g4-) (n m D- 7j C O�7cQCo* CD X 9 —m n 0 - cnm- �,o CD 0* a W co o ,,D, MPlii ZO r > N O Co-,: 0— zzz z ,x, D 0 0) o N N o cD cn s� 5 -898- ------------------ • - / — /- /'•• -' ' ' ..' ' . . . . ' . . . . ' . . . . . : . . . . . —\ \ C) / L—� /' ' / m /' / / — — / - /--- --I -< /�/ ///_� //,/—1}18-�� / --7i / /'/ /� /' / / ��/ / / ----- — -- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • / / / / / / / / / / / • • o • • • • • 1 `30N2 11-1IS rn • \ /— • efo ot sis • • • • ti CO o 3 cn cr CD CD 0- CD 0- co o. 0 CD (Do :a, ..+(i) :_m (Du) co o CO CD 0- cn CS o CD CD CD cn c CD o up a cn o o cn cn 0 3 3 co • / \ • • • • • • • • • • PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CD 2 CD CD Project Title: WHITE PINE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 • • • 3 cnc cr CD cn 0 co co cn co co 0. • • • • • • 00 3 ID CD g CD CO 0 3 17. All soils tracked onto pavement shall be removed daily. CT 3 co 0 cp 3 o w _sc.! (nu)! 021'3 0:61 0. "2-2 -‘ 5 3 0 —h cn co cn SD LI) 3. 5 5- 3. co 3 57) cn 07 3 cn CD CL 0 CD CD 0 CD O- 51) FA 3 cr o o o o o o. am- CT coo- 0- cn CD 0 cp CD CL C7_ CD co c co eL clo co o CD c CD co oh (713 o cn cn 5 CD SIP 0 CD co 5- o o 0. CD 0 cn 0. cn 0 CD o CSD • at CD cr CD Do as 0. cn CD CL 11) 0 o o CD cn co cn 0 0 co co CD 3 cn CD 0 0 CD Ell METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 1950 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 o o o 0 CD 07 0- 0 0- eq ileus ii!ppeq yauaal a41 5. CD CO SI) o 0 5 co o co cn cn co cn 0 In areas where concentrated flows occur (such as swales and areas in front of storm catch basins cn gh o co 0- 0 cr 57) 0 cn CD CD 0- 3 CD 0 CD 0 crt CD 0 0 cn 5. 0 eql to ylp!nn aa!lue a43 ssoJae >!ooa pegsnao yl!nn peaejins eq !let's seouealue el!s uo!lonalsuoo Ilb' 0- CO 0 0 CD 74 ca 0. • 3 co co 0 cn co cn 0 cn CD 0 co c53- cc Cfl xt 3 cn co eL cn CD 0- 0 cn 0 0 co CD cn co CD CP 133 0 cn cr 0 oh eL co co 0 0 cn o. cn cr cp EL cp cn co 0 0 cn 3 cn eL co rn ImJ o c EL cn CD 0 CD a 0 o 0. 0 co cn cn 0 0 co 0 co cr cn OCT 0 cT co co co co co cT co co o CD CD CL 3 • CD CL CL 0 cn 0 CD 3 cn cr CD cn N0110310Hd 13�N1 CD (DB Sll CD DJ 7 a 0- cT cn co CO CD co 0:2 o o CT CL al c0 CD cr c•a co ET co CD cn EL cn CD CD C X 0- CD 0 cn CD cn cn CD CO cn cn 3ON`d2IJ N3 .1SNO0 >1002:1 / dV J-d121 CD 0 0 3 0 0 CD cr eL 3 cp -57 0 CL CD 3 ni co co co eL o so 07 CD us 0 ID c cn cn CD 3 3 30N3d 11IS S3LON 1O2J1NOO NOISOID rn rn 5 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 02020 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. J \\\ \ \ \ 1. \� \� 1 \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ xj_ \\\ BEYOND DRIPLINE t\\ \ 1 \ \ 7/ 1 \ / / \ \ IS DIP \ C ) / ems— C4 0 N / / 0 /_ ----- — --a-- —i , ��� �\�\\\ / \ \ L _ - - - —J - - - - 1_ — - 6 FOOT MIN NOTES: TREE PROTECTION 1. REFER TO STANDARDS IN GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR TREE PROTECTION. 2. DIAMETER OF PROTECTION ZONE SHOULD BE ONE FOOT FOR EACH INCH OF TRUNK DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT OR 1/2 HEIGHT OF TREE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR 2-INCH CALIPER TREES OR SMALLER, THE PROTECTION ZONE SHALL BE 6 FOOT MINIMUM DIAMETER. 3. TEMPORARY FENCING (6 FT HIGH) SHALL BE PLACED AT THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREE TO BE SAVED. FENCE SHALL COMPLETELY ENCIRCLE THE TREE(S). TO INSTALL FENCE POSTS, AVOID DRIVING POSTS OR STAKES INTO MAJOR ROOTS. 4. DEAD TREES, SCRUB, OR UNDERGROWTH SHALL BE CUT FLUSH WITH ADJACENT GRADE. THERE WILL BE NO SOIL DISTURBANCE UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF TREES TO BE PRESERVED. 5. PLACE 6 INCHES OF BARK MULCH AT AREAS NOT PROTECTED BY BARRIER. 6. TREATMENT OF ROOTS EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION: FOR ROOTS OVER 1 INCH IN DIAMETER DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, MAKE A CLEAN STRAIGHT CUT TO REMOVE DAMAGED PORTION OF ROOT. ALL EXPOSED ROOTS SHOULD BE TEMPORARILY COVERED WITH DAMP BURLAP AND COVERED WITH SOIL OR MULCH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO PREVENT DRYING. 7. FOR PRUNING GUIDELINES, SEE ANSI #300. 8. NO EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY SHALL BE USED WITHIN THE PROTECTION FENCE. WORK WITHIN THE PROTECTION ZONE SHALL BE DONE MANUALLY. 9. NO STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, OR STORAGE IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE LIMIT OF THE FENCING. TREE PROTECTION — — — ---� --� ' NOT TO SCALE � / Go / / r-rr — �— - \ M -s _I I — — i i _ R\Projects\Projects - 2019\12196152 - White Pine Ridge Residential Development (Stillwater)\C. Design\Drawing Files\12196152 L200 - Tree Preservation Plan.dwg in \ \ 0 \ ( ) 1 CN I I I I I� 001 � _ L — / �I —I — 0 7- _°' _ -s°s-t co I/ _ \ Imo- n rn co TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or safety fence installed at the drip line shall be in place prior to beginning any grading or demolition work at the site. ( INGRESS AND4GRESS EASEMENT AS SHONM 'ill I / 141 SYMBOL LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREES WITHIN 30' OF GRADING LIMITS 7/1 .---,i / / / LLH I 7 7 tek be / / 1'1 , 1, I ill/ 1, NORTH orlml 25 50 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 al w Lo co Lo co CO 1.7 CO CO 1.7 0 Lu cy METRO EAST COMMERCIAL 0 REAL ESTATE 1950 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 0 12950 75TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 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 of the state of Minnesota. 04.6Xt //ljtk,42,11(6 First M. Last, P.E. Date: 10.02.20 Lic. No.: 41885 Rev. Date Description Drawn By: TJR Checked By: MJW Issue Date: 10.02.2020 Sheet Title: TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL PLAN Sheet: 200 From: Tom Ballis To: Abbi Wittman Cc: Jon Whitcomb; TJ Rose; "Matt Woodruff" Subject: RE: Fire Department Review Date: Monday, October 05, 2020 1:36:55 PM Abbi, In reviewing the site plan for the new development, I noted the following potential issues. 1. The dead end road is longer code allows. The City of Stillwater has adopted the MN State Fire Code including appendix D which allows greater distance than Chapter 5. Dead end access roads can't be longer than 750 feet without special approval. This has been done in the past but the developer provided automatic suppression systems in all homes on the road. The developer will have to provide some means to remedy the long dead end access road. 2. The cul-de-sac at the end of road shall be no less than 96-foot diameter. 3. Will the hydrant system be looped in somewhere so we do not have a dead end water system. 4. Is there plans for future development? Tom Ballis Deputy Fire Chief City of Stillwater 651-351-4951 From: Abbi Wittman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:44 PM To: Tom Ballis <tballis@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Cc: Jon Whitcomb <jon@metroeastcre.com>; TJ Rose <trose@larsonengr.com>; 'Matt Woodruff' <mwoodruff@larsonengr.com> Subject: Fire Department Review Tom: Please see the attached. Would you please provide any pre -development comments to Jon Whitcomb and his team, included on this email? Thank you, Abbi Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 P: 651-430-8822 1 F: 651-430-8810 Date: October 21, 2020 To: Abbi Wittman — City Planner, Stillwater, MN From: Taylor Stockert — Natural Resources Technician, Stillwater, MN Re: White Pine Ridge Development Tree Replacement and Species Diversity Comments The following comments are regarding the tree preservation and removal plan as well as the landscape plan for the proposed White Pine Ridge Residential Development. Upon review, based on Stillwater city tree ordinance requirements, the preservation and removal plan will require additional trees to be added to the landscape plan planting schedule. Additionally, there are comments regarding the trees selected in the landscape plan and the importance of species diversity. With 55 trees currently scheduled for planting, 7 additional trees must be added to the landscaping plan to meet the development's net requirement of 62 trees. Stillwater has two ordinances with tree planting requirements as it pertains to this development. The first, contained within the subdivision ordinance, requires three street trees be planted per lot, yielding a net requirement of 42 trees. The second, contained within the tree and forest protection ordinance, says if greater than 35% of significant trees are removed in development, they must be replaced on a 1:1 basis. There are 300 trees total in the development, according to the tree inventory provided. All are deemed significant as defined in Stillwater city code § 31-101, with 125 proposed for removal. The 35% removal threshold represents 105 trees, requiring a net replacement of 20 trees. While Stillwater has no species selection or diversity requirements, it is strongly suggested the current planting schedule be retooled to better fit future diversity goals. The "30-20-10 rule" is the most commonly followed guideline of the past 30 years. It suggests a local tree canopy should consist of no more than 30% of one plant family, 20% of one genus, and 10% of one species. While this rule has enjoyed extreme popularity because of its elegance and simplicity, it does not reflect reality. In the past 100 years, there have been three functional extinctions of tree genera due to exotic pests and pathogens. By adhering to the 30-20-10 rule, it means possibly accepting 20% mortality of the urban forest any time a new disease is introduced. While the six species currently listed in the development project are chosen regularly because they are proven and popular, all of them except northern red oak are already the most abundant species in Stillwater. To avoid repeating the possibility of a species extinction trend, greater diversity must be emphasized. It is for that reason I would recommend replacing the species selected in consultation and review with the city forester. A selection of possible substitutions is listed below. Large Street Trees Small Trees Conifers Northern catalpa Cherry (Amur or Canada red) Concolor (white) fir Kentucky coffeetree Ironwood Rocky Mountain juniper Elm (DED-resistant varieties) Amur maackia Norway spruce 'Prairie Horizon' Alder Japanese pagodatree Swiss stone pine Amur corktree (seedless male) Serviceberry Northern white cedar River birch (single stem) Eastern redbud Buckeye Japanese tree lilac Washington ^ County October 7, 2020 Abbi Whitman City Planner City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater MN 55082 Public Works Department Donald J. Theisen, P.E. Director Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer RE: Washington County comments on the Preliminary Plat of White Pine Ridge Dear Abbi, Thank you for providing Washington County with the Preliminary Plat of White Pine Ridge in City of Stillwater dated 9-25-20. The project consists of 14 residential lots on a 9 acre parcel north of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 12/75th Street North and Northland Avenue. Based on the plan provided, we have the following comments: • The Functional Classification of CSAH 12 is an "A" Minor Arterial Roadway, expander category. The right-of-way requirement for this section of roadway is 150 feet, 75 feet of dedicated right-of-way from the center line. Currently, there is adequate, 150 feet of dedicated right-of-way. • The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on CSAH 12 east of the CSAH 15/Manning Avenue intersection is 7500 and is 5200 on CSAH 12/Myrtle Street approaching the CSAH 5/Owens Street intersection, according to the Washington County 2019 Traffic Volume Map. The Washington County Traffic Study prepared for the 2040 Washington County Comprehensive Plan has estimated that traffic on CSAH 12 east of the CSAH 15 will increase to 10,300 trips per day by 2040. • The access point on CSAH 12 is acceptable to the County and will be an extension of Northland Avenue to the south. Washington County provided a right -turn lane and a center left -turn lane at CSAH 12 at this location in 2016 as part of the CSAH 12 construction project. A Washington County access permit will be necessary for the extension of Northland Avenue. • Washington County supports interconnected development and does not support cul-de- sacs served only off a county road. These connections are important for emergency response and give drivers access to controlled intersections. The preliminary plat does not extend Northland Avenue to the north property line. This is not acceptable to County. The roadway should eventually connect to the Westridge Plat and the right-of-way identified as Trolley Drive to Creekside Crossing and eventually, to Boutwell Road North. This local street system is critical since the County has provided the turn lane infrastructure on CSAH 12. • The developer or the City must submit the drainage report and calculations to our office for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action October 7, 2020 White Pine Ridge Page 2 of 2 drainage calculations, we will request written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater run-off into the county right -of way will not increase as part of the project. • Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds. County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right-of-way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. • A Right -of -Way Permit will be required for any work in the CSAH 12 right of way as it relates to the development. A plan set is required with the application and include any grading, installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer services, signing and any landscaping and other improvements within County right-of-way. • All utility connections for the development require Washington County Right -of -Way Permits. Typically, these are the responsibility of the utility companies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this preliminary plat. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-430-4362 or ann.pung-terwedo@co.washington.mn.us. For permit applications, please contact Carol Hanson at Carol.hanson@co.washington.mn.us. Regards, Ann Pung-Terwedo Senior Planner C: Carol Hanson, Office Specialist R/Plat Reviews/City of Stillwater/White Pine Ridge iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-57 REPORT DATE: November 10, 2020 MEETING DATE: November 19, 2020 APPLICANT: Matt and Jenn Hauer LANDOWNER: Matt and Jenn Hauer REQUEST: Variance to the side yard setback to allow for the vertical expansion of an existing legal nonconforming garage. LOCATION: 313 Pine Street West ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Matt and Jenn Hauer own the property at 313 Pine Street West, which is a single-family house with a two car garage attached by a narrow breezeway. Mr. and Mrs. Hauer are seeking to add a deck and a porch on the rear side of the house, as well as a master bedroom suite above the existing garge and closing in the breezeway to attach the house. This would require a variance, because the existing garage and the proposed addition above it, are only one foot from the side property line. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: • A variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow an attached garage to be setback 1.1' from the side yard setback, whereas the minimum side yard setback is five feet. Additionally, this variance will also allow for the combined side yard setback to total 7.7', whereas the combined side yards must total 15' in the RB Zoning District. CPC Case 2020-57 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, One -Family Residential; all uses being proposed are 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 The existing garage is already within the required setbacks, but has been grandfathered. However, when expanding an existing legal nonconformity, it necessitates a variance. The proposed addition will not be within close proximity to the abutting property's primary dwelling. However, City staff would be more comfortable supporting living space above the garage only foot from the property line, if a private easement agreement between this property and the abutting property were worked out prior to construction. Staff feels that without an easement, this structure could fall into future disrepair, if the neighboring property denies access to maintain the north property line. 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 RB Zoning District, a property with single family residence, which included an attached two stall garage with living space above it, would be using their property in a reasonable manner. 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 location and configuration of the house in relation to the property lines. The house was built in the center of a narrow lot and any expansion to the house on either side prompts a CPC Case 2020-57 Page 3 of 4 variance. And, as elaborated on below, this house's current floor plan makes it difficult to add on to the rear of the house. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. The house was built in 1954 and does not conform to current City Code. In order to add any more living space onto this house, the owner was forced to choose between adding onto either two sides of the house (both sides would require a variance) or the rear of the house. But with the interior layout of the house, adding to the rear is only an option if the interior underwent a major reconfiguration. Having to undergo such a large interior reconfiguration would be considered a practical difficulty, and the only reasonable option here is to add space above the garage. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? This property is rather distinctive to the neighborhood as is. The neighborhood is comprised largely of historic houses, many of which are mansions. Whereas, this property has a house that is more recently built and relatively smaller than most of the surrounding houses. Moreover, the garage, which is single story flat -roofed garage attached to the house with a breezeway, is unique to fmd this neighborhood. This expansion would have no negative effects to 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. The applicant is simply looking to expand their existing house's living area, in a way which is the least obtrusive to the house's existing floor plan. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. This building is within three feet of the property line and therefore both the existing garage and the addition will have to be fire rated on the eastern most wall of the building. Additionally, there can be no windows on this eastern wall (which includes existing garage), and the plan will have to be adjusted to reflect this. 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- 57, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The siding and level of detail and trim will be the same style and color as the existing structure. 3. Runoff from the addition shall not be directed towards the neighboring property to the east. CPC Case 2020-57 Page 4 of 4 4. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. There will be sections of the expansion that will need to be fire -rated and there can be no windows on any walls within three feet and facing a property line. 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 have been established, such as the inability to carry out other options without a complete reconfiguration of the house's floor plan. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-57 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. That having been said, staff strongly recommends the property owner work with the neighboring property to get a private easement for maintenance access. Attachments: Site Location Map Survey of Existing Conditions Site Plan Floor Plans (two pages) Elevations (two pages) cc: Matt and Jenn Hauer 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota N Site Location Map 313 Pine Street West CI 313 Pine Street West • 80 160 320 Feet •a) iJ O W cc 0 En -1-) 0 z a) �H • Ul rl •H rd a) Q a) • -P a) O r1 a) U -H U1 > H rd rd W t` J b-) (I) r-1 O U) rd • H a) 41=4I a) 0 u) •H U) U -H U) 4) W P4 a) rd • H a) 0 U +-1 U) O • H m rd (1) +-) a) r J a) U 4J g 4-) • H H rdrd U U -H 0 0 i1) 0•HH73.44J U) rd Ul a) = H H H • U) W = -1-) rd 4-a a) 4� a) N O P • H OD rd r 1 W z w d o 2 z z''[-• N 4-) co OJ� -P (r) 4-) a1 U) •Hrd i-H +-) ri rd rd . rd Pa P rd -Px 4i -P 0., O rd $ u) rd rd off uu) 4) H to a) • +J m •rd rl -P In W O • H M U) cd? a)•��a) � �-J a) �4) -HO0 .. H a) 4-) •H 3 -H 'd 0 a) 0 -1-1 3 W r� -) -) ur d u) 0 a)H 0 g u) 04) a)•H 0 rd U +) 0-1 P ?-I U 0 a •r, rd rd a) 0 a)0 Pc1 0 4 U U) BARRETT M. STACK noted otherwise. Survey Made U rd rd 0 -I- +-) r1 O rd U) 'd 0 H `•' �-I 1 ��1mmm�lllJJ/222 . Ul M -1-) a) r0 . U 0 4--1 N O -1- ,zt+ . H rn W •H rl -P 0 U) rci0) 4-1 11a 0 4-- a) a) �4-) w3 r7 H c H bl if) -H •H -4 U1 O 4_)0 rd 0 rd -HI +-- 0 •r-I -H o rd +J rl rd U r rd - P 0a) co4J cci r U r r- ' H rd -rH U) r1 4 -HI m cn U) 4) O 'd 4-I a rd 0 0 0g -P-I- 0 --I 4-i In U H rd • a) a) a) 4-I Z 0 4 U r1 0 -cd 4-) r�I O a) H W 0 0 4-) '� -PU Z a)rd a) rd ›•i N W 0 �' a) a) -H ,g r— W +� U) u) ,O•Zii i k\y 1v , V -) w q 30,E N 4 H d\ 0..1/ 'a' OD60/?✓ o,/SoL/s Z•9Z "i r r< Nkl V r T f •9z f B B�/ .�✓ 7 '6L /Z✓ /v,}O//— OS/ k / {„A94 /10 G//) 3�'%�[i- ti.-J k• 7r�rT b n` tea, O �I ks !: �0I ''.\\'' SITE PLAN PROPERTY AREA: 9750 SQ.FT. TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING STRUCTURE: 1 808 SQ.FT. TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE: 2338 SQ.FT. 1 7'-0" 27) CO + 0 N GAS FIREPLACE SUNROOM ADDITION DECK ADDITION 0 EXIST. KITCHEN EXIST. LIVING EXI. EXIST. BATH MUDROOM EXIST. CLOSET L • WI EXIST. FOYER K 1 WEST PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) DN DN EXIST. ROOF TO BE REMOVED. L EXIST. GARAGE -EHROOF OVERHANG ABOVE. EXIST. STOOP TO BE REMOVED. NEW CONC. STOOP AND STEPS. NEW WALKWAY. EXIST. ROOF TO BE REMOVED. NORTH = 7 = 7 k PROPOSED ROOF. OVERHANG. NEW DRIVEWAY EXIST. ROOF TO BE REMOVED. EXIST. ROOF OVERHANG TO BE REMOVED. + EAST PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) / PINE STREET WEST SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" Sheet No. 1 File: HAUER.pin • Printed: 10/22/20 17'-0" HIGH WINDOWS GAS FIREPLACE SUNROOM ADDITION DECK ADDITION EXIST. KITCHEN / \ U EXIST. BATH SINK 0 EXIST. CLOSET EXIST. MUDROOM EXIST. LIVING EXIST. FOYER HOOKS & BENCH n n n n EXIST. ROOF TO BE REMOVED. MAIN LEVEL PLAN DN V) w > J W 2 V) w 0 F- z z0 = rY u-0 w� z SHELVES EXIST. GARAGE TOOL PEGS & BIKE HOOKS 2 n n Ji 1 REPLACE EXISTING OVERHEAD DOOR EXIST. STOOP TO BE REMOVED. NEW CONC. STOOP & STEPS EXIST. ROOF TO BE REMOVED. EXIST. WALKWAY TO BE REMOVED WITH NEW INSULATED DOOR < PROPOSED ROOF OVERHANG. EXIST. DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. HIGH WINDOWS EXIST. ROOF OVERHANG TO BE REMOVED. EAST PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) Sheet No. 2 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" File: HAUER.pin • Printed: 10/22/20 SUNROOM ROOF BELOW. DECK ADDITION BELOW. EXIST. BEDROOM 1 EX ST. BATH /-1 J SOAP SHELF M. BATH 2'_6' EXIST. ROOF BELOW TO BE REMOVED. 0OU- -'..= '-w EAST PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN EXIST. BEDROOM 2 CLOSET 4 V) J N SHELVES DESK STUDY TALL STORAGE M. BEDROOM ADDITION P QUEEN BED HIGH WINDOWS STANDING DESK OFFICE ADDITION SHELVES M. CLOSET ADDITION TALL DRESSER 26'-0" VERIFY DESK F ROOF OVERHANG BELOW. EXIST. ROOF BELOW TO BE REMOVED. Sheet No. 3 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" File: HAUER.pin • Printed: 10/22/20 ADDITION (SHADED) ASPHALT SHINGLES. HORIZ. LAP SIDING. v VERT. V-GROOVE SIDING. NEW OVERHANG. t REMOVE EXIST. GAR. ROOF STRUCTURE. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. REMOVE EXIST. ROOF OVERHANG. V a a 4 f ti — �---- MAIN LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE SLAB ELEV. NI- , 313 I I 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" < 3 -J 4 v v Y a < 1 r J SOUTH ELEVATION J L — J ADDITION (SHADED) ASPHALT SHINGLES. VERT. V-GROOVE SIDING. HORIZ. LAP SIDING. REMOVE EXIST. GAR. ROOF STRUCTURE. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. REMOVE EXIST. ROOF OVERHANG. MAIN LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. SUNROOM FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE SLAB ELEV. Sheet No. 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" File: HAUER.pin • Printed: 10/21/20 HORIZ. LAP SIDING. I- L WEST ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 VERT. V-GROOVE SIDING. ADDITION (SHADED) ASPHALT SHINGLES. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. MAIN LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. SUNROOM FLOOR ELEV. i SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" HORIZ. LAP SIDING. VERT. V-GROOVE SIDING. ADDITION (SHADED) ASPHALT SHINGLES. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. MAIN LEVEL FLOOR ELEV. SUNROOM FLOOR ELEV. L le J REMOVE EXIST. GAR. ROOF STRUCTURE. REMOVE EXIST. PORCH ROOF. EAST ELEVATION 1 Sheet No. 5 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" File: HAUER.pin • Printed: 10/21/20 Chad and Krista Thomas 504 5th St. S Stillwater, MN 55082 November 16, 2020 Stillwater Planning Commission Attn: Abbi Wittman 216 North Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Abbi, I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Chad Thomas, and my wife Krista and I reside at 504 5th St. S in Stillwater. I am writing you in regards to the Planning Commission case # 2020-57 for Matt and Jen Hauer. This case is a request to the side yard setback to allow for the vertical expansion of their existing nonconforming garage. Our property is adjacent the Hauer's property, where their current garage is located. We do have two concerns with this expansion as well as a proposed solution outlined below. 1. Non -confirming to City Code Section 31-308- Garage setback requested (code is 5 feet for primary dwelling, with a total of 15 feet) and this abuts to our backyard 2. Side yard setback a. Environmental- Drainage and Landscaping b. Maintenance concerns — Not in support of Private Easement 3. Solution Proposed When we purchased our house, we were aware that the Hauer's garage was built on the property line, with the garage roof overhanging our property line. We were not concerned with their grandfathered garage in its current state as this is considered unoccupied space. We are friendly with our neighbors and they shared they were planning to expand above their garage. At the time, they led us to believe that the living space above the garage would be 10 feet away from the property line. This is why we were surprised to receive the case information and blueprints that showed they are intending to add occupied living space onto the entire garage, which is only 1 foot away from the property line. This is a significant change from our understanding of the project and raises several concerns for us as property owners. 1. Our main concern is that their garage is already overhanging our property, and an addition to this garage with added living space outside of setback codes would further encroach on our property. We are currently experiencing water drainage issues from the neighbor's yard where water from their garage and backyard run into our yard. This is eroding our grass; causing flooding in our yard, resulting in dampness in our basement. We were only recently, vaguely informed about the backyard additions. Our concerns are not with the backyard additions but do play a factor in the water runoff consideration. We are concerned that with their garage addition as well as deck and sunroom additions, there will be a further impact to the runoff since they have no side yard left over and less of a backyard left to absorb and direct the rainwater. They also need to cut back our large ash tree more significantly than we originally thought to accommodate this larger expansion. We already cut down another ash tree in our yard in support of their project; but do have concern in loss of our large tree as well as other trees and landscaping which borders their property where construction will need to occur. 2. Building within the proper side setback code would better allow the Hauer's to get machinery or equipment to their back yard and side yard for any maintenance needs or construction that may be required. I do see in the findings that the staff strongly recommends the property owners work with the neighboring property to get a private easement for maintenance access. As an experienced realtor, I know that an easement is something that would need to be disclosed to any potential buyers and could have a negative impact on the price and salability of our house. It would also prevent us in utilizing our backyard as desired (i.e. landscaping, fence, patio, etc...) Therefore, we would not be interested in granting an easement on our property. We enjoy our neighbors very much and would be fine with the additions if the two concerns are addressed. Proposed solutions a. Include well-defined plans for water drainage solutions and remedies for rectifying drainage issues should they worsen during or after project completion. b. Revert back to the original plan that Hauer's shared with us; which is to limit the size of the garage addition so that it would not require a private easement and would be more in line with setback codes (City Code Section 31-308). We ask that the planning commission support the Hauer's plans if practical solutions that address our concerns are included. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Chad Thomas