Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-24 CPC PacketSiillwater THE BIRTHPLACE C F M I H H E S CT A PLEASE NOTE (NEW FOR 2021): Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into https://www.zoomgov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 24th, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of January 27th, 2021 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. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Resolution CPC 2021-02: Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial CPC Case No. 2020-01. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 3. Case No. 2020-60: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a residential building in the Central Business Height Overlay Historic District. Property located at 200 Chestnut St. Joel Hauck, applicant and Chestnut Partners, LLC, property owner. _ Tabled from the January meeting per applicant's request 4. Case No. 2021-02: Consideration of a Variance associated with a future re -subdivision for the property located at 819 William St N in the RB district. Michael Russ, property owner. 5. Case No. 2021-03: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, Concept PUD, and Zoning Map Amendment and variances associated thereto for the property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd N, in the AP district. Integrity Land Development, applicant, and Gary and June Jorgensen, property owners. 6. 7671 Manning Ave N in the AP district. Station19 Architects, applicant and Stillwater Evangelical Free Church, property owner. Removed by the City of Stillwater per Stillwater Township 1988 CUP. 7. Case No. 2021-05: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback to install a deck on the property located at 1002 4th Ave S in the RB district. Brian Smith, applicant and Margaret M. Georgi, property owner. VII. DISCUSSION VIII. FYI — STAFF UPDATES IX. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht (arrived at 7:08) Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of November 19, 2020 regular meeting Commissioner Steinwall suggested the minutes be amended to reflect that the variance being discussed for Case No. 2020-54, White Pine Ridge, was 20'. Ms. Wittman noted that the original request was a 25' variance but after discussion with City staff, the developer agreed that a 20' variance might be a more reasonable request. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2020 meeting as amended. All in favor. Possible approval of minutes of November 30, 2020 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the November 30, 2020 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5-0-2 with Commissioner Meyhoff and Councilmember Odebrecht abstaining. Councilmember Odebrecht introduced himself as the Council representative. Chairman Lauer thanked Councilmember Collins for his service on the Commission and Councilmember Collins thanked the Commission for their support over the past nine years. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution CPC 2021-01: Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial CPC Case No. 2020-54 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2020-60: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a residential building in the Central Business Height Overlay Historic District. Property located at 200 Chestnut St. Joel Hauck, applicant and Chestnut Partners, LLC, property owner. Planning Commission January 27, 2021 Chairman Lauer announced this item is being tabled to the February 24 Planning Commission meeting per the applicant's request. Case No. 2020-62: Consideration of a Variance for a septic tank and drain field on the property located at 2220 Orwell Ct in the RA district. Dale and Lois Muhlenpoh, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants would like to construct a new house and septic system. There is an existing nonconforming septic system on the property, installed in the early 1970s with no known maintenance. The septic system tanks and drainfield are proposed to be located in the rear of the property, on top of a steep slope. This would require a 30' variance because the drainfield will be situated within the St. Croix River Overlay's 30' steep slope setback. Staff finds the proposed septic system project meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance, and practical difficulty has been established. Therefore, staff recommends approval with five conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked if it can be assumed that if the variance is approved, the County will approve the septic system. Ms. Wittman stated that Washington County reviewed the project and directed the applicant to apply to the City for a variance to the steep slope setback. The County agreed this is the only appropriate location for the system. Dale Muhlenpoh, applicant, 10884 Thone Road, Woodbury, said he inherited the property from his mother and she had talked about replacing the septic system a long time ago. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Merrilee Olson -Jones, 2210 Boom Road, downhill from the site, voiced concern about tree removal, further erosion on her property, and the possibility of liquid coming from the septic system. She added that the ground is largely limestone which is porous and can break down. William Dupre, 2202 Boom Road, downhill from the site, questioned whether the goal is to replace the septic system or to improve the view for the new owner. He asked for an exact location of the proposed system. Ms. Wittman stated it is to the east of the existing home and west of the corner property of Fairy Falls Road and Boom Road, on top of the hill. Mr. Dupre said, with almost two acres to change the location, why would it not be more west to the highest point of the property instead of towards the bluff? Ms. Wittman answered there is no location to put the septic system that is not within the required setback from the bluff. The design has been proposed by the applicant's environmental team and preliminarily reviewed by Washington County. A new system may not be placed in the location of the old one. Ms. Olson -Jones reiterated her concern about erosion and tree removal. She worries about removal of trees for the view, and the impacts on people on the lower part of the hill. Mr. Muhlenpoh responded that the closest tree to be removed would be about 150 away from the rear of Ms. Olson -Jones's property line, so the impact on her property will be minimal. Mr. Dupre asked how the new system will impact all the downstream wells. Ms. Wittman conveyed that Washington County indicated that the proposed location conforms to their setback requirements from wells, so they did not express concern for contamination. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission January 27, 2021 The County also stated it will likely be more efficient than the current system. Well test kits are available to homeowners from the County. Mr. Dupre pointed out there is a huge ravine that is very often wet. He asked whether this system will have an impact and whether there are springs located in the area. Ms. Wittman said those questions will be addressed by Washington County Public Health when reviewing the septic system. The Commission's concern tonight is the placement of the system on the property. Without a variance, the property would never be able to change the septic system location. Old septic systems fail and leech. Alyssa Tuttle, 2218 Boom Road, echoed Ms. Olson -Jones's concern about erosion, which seems to have gotten worse in the last few years. She suggested all the residents should get together and come up with a plan to mitigate the erosion. She asked whether there are other septic systems that close to the bluffline. Ms. Wittman explained that the City doesn't issue permits for septic systems. If a new system conforms to all requirements, the City is only notified after the fact. All the surrounding houses were developed around the same time so there may be similar requests in the future. The City appreciates that the owner is taking the initiative to replace the system before it fails. Regarding erosion, there is a condition of approval that the site needs to be stabilized. Mr. Muhlenpoh has agreed to develop a plan for tree replanting. He no longer owns the property but has agreed to replace the septic system for the new owner. There is an escrow to do things like help stabilize the site. She encouraged the neighbors to meet with the new owner. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall asked what is the City's role in the permit for the septic system? Ms. Wittman replied the septic system installation permit is issued through the County. The City would review any building permit for the house. Commissioner Steinwall said, regarding the proposed condition that the site be stabilized following construction, she would encourage stabilization work to be done before excavation. Ms. Wittman replied that this is a steep slope. Sometimes the City's experts need to get on site to determine what needs to be done and where. To say that stabilization must occur beforehand puts Mr. Muhlenpoh in a situation where he cannot uphold his end of the agreement to replace the system. This could potentially affect agreements that have already been made between the current and former owner. Commissioner Steinwall argued that doesn't preclude determining what can be done before excavation at the top of the slope. Councilmember Odebrecht commented while that may be a hardship for the homeowner, it should not preclude the Commission from doing the right thing. Ms. Wittman said it has not been confirmed that the erosion is coming from this property, and this application cannot be held responsible for the erosion unless it is confirmed. Commissioner Kocon commented that the first thing to be concerned with is effluent. The new system will be a better system. Conditions 2 & 3 address runoff adequately. The purview of the Commission is the variance to the steep slope setback. Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission January 27, 2021 Commissioner Hansen noted that the platt for this property is very unusual. There is no other place to put a septic system. Trees will have to be removed no matter what. Practical difficulty has been established and the Commission should be able to grant the variance as conditioned. Commissioner Meyhoff said in his experience, part of the permitting process from the County will include standards for stabilizing soil before and during construction. Chairman Lauer reminded the Commission that the intent of the conditions is to reduce environmental impacts. It's better to have a new system than an old system. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the neighbors will be heard at the County level. Ms. Wittman said she doesn't believe there is a public forum for replacement of a septic system at the County level, but she will put the Olson -Jones, Dupre and Tuttle neighbors in contact with Washington County Public Health, the Watershed Management Organization and the Conservation District. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2020- 62, a Variance for a septic tank and drainfield on the property located at 2220 Orwell Ct, with the five conditions recommended by staff, changing Condition #2 to state that the applicant shall work with the City's Natural Resources Technician on the development of a tree preservation and replanting plan as well as a site stabilization plan. All in favor. Case No. 2021-01: Consideration a Variance for a Right of Way setback. Property located at 12950 75th St N in the TR District. Jon and Ann Whitcomb, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Jon and Ann Whitcomb and the Lohmer Trust have obtained preliminary plat approval for White Pine Ridge, a 14-lot single family residential subdivision proposed for 12950 75th Street North. The Planning Commission considered the preliminary plat and associated variances on November 19, 2020 and denied a request for a 25' variance to the 100' setback from CR 12 for one lot within the development. While the original request was a 25' variance, after discussion with City staff, the developer agreed that a 20' variance might be a more reasonable request. The Commission determined that the variance request was based on economic concerns and that practical difficulty had not been established by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a new application for consideration of a 20' variance to the required 100' CR 12/75th Street North right-of-way setback, providing a new practical difficulty narrative. An applicant may resubmit a substantially similar request within one year if the request was denied without prejudice. Staff finds practical difficulties have been established and that the proposed 80' setback meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a 20' variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval with three conditions. Commissioner Dybvig asked, how big is the buildable area within the affected lot 1? Jon Whitcomb, applicant, said the buildable area for lot 1 will be less than the other lots due to the setback restriction, necessitating a different type of house be built. The hardship for lot 1 is that it is not the same width as the other lots. Across the street to the south is the pond coming out of Croixwood which is the natural boundary between east and west. This site is the one spot along that whole stretch that has the greater restriction. It makes more sense to allow for a similar setback as those lots to the east of this site. Commissioner Steinwall asked about the trail easement referenced in the staff report. Ms. Wittman replied the trail easement was not shown on the preliminary plat but it was a condition of approval. Regarding the buildable area, lot 1 is about 41,000 square feet where Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission January 27, 2021 the lotto the north is 26,000 square feet, but with the 100' setback, over half of the total area of lot 1 is not buildable. Lot 1 will also be subject to the trail easement. There would still be 60' from the setback to the trail easement if the variance is granted. Councilmember Odebrecht said it seems as though granting the variance will result in a more consistent feel along 75th Street. Mr. Whitcomb added that the White Pine Ridge site has conflicting setbacks, one from the County at 75' and one from the City at 100'. The variance, if granted, will create a balanced pad size within the neighborhood allowing the builder to keep consistent home sizes with the rest of the development. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Gary Gallmeier, 12997 Boutwell Road, asked where the runoff will go. His property already has a lot of water runoff causing erosion. The City never had permission to dig the ditch. He would like the City to go look at damage that is already done on his property. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon said he supports the 20' variance request, as he supported the previous 25' variance request. Commissioner Dybvig countered that the situation has not changed and there is not necessarily practical difficulty other than wanting a bigger building pad. At the last meeting it was shown that even without the variance, the builder can still fit four lots there. He suggested moving the lot lines 5' each rather than taking the footage all out of one lot. He added that a bigger setback allows for a nicer trail that can meander a bit. Commissioner Hansen said he supports the variance. Non -financial practical difficulty has been established. The need for consistency is the most compelling argument for granting the variance. Commissioner Kocon asked how this setback became 100' when across the street it is 75'. Commissioner Dybvig noted there must be a starting line for every setback. All the way to Manning, the setback is 100'. This is the starting point of that 100' setback. Commissioner Hansen said it's an arbitrary place to start the 100' setback. It makes more sense to grant the variance because the City decided arbitrarily, before there was any development, to establish the 100' setback in this location. Commissioner Dybvig said under state law, a variance is basically saying there is a reason to break the law. If there is not a compelling reason then the Commission needs to deny the variance. The reason for this variance is to build a larger house. It has even been stated that a house may still be built without the variance. Commissioner Steinwall agreed. If the setback seems inappropriate, the zoning code could be amended. She does not see the practical difficulty in this case. Chairman Lauer remarked he did not see a practical difficulty in November, and still doesn't. The developer has already shown that he can do the project without the variance, so therefore it should not be an economic consideration. Commissioner Meyhoff said he cannot see that practical hardship has been established. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission January 27, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to deny Case No. 2021- 01, Variance for a Right of Way setback for property located at 12950 75th St N, with prejudice. Motion passed 4-3 with Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, and Councilmember Odebrecht voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES Annual Commission Training Ms. Wittman reminded the Commissioners to attend the Boards and Commissions training session on January 28. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chris Lauer, Chair Page 6 of 6 Planning Report MEMO DATE: February 17, 2021 MEETING DATE: February 24, 2021 LANDOWNER: Jon and Ann Whitcomb Robert G. and Mary K. Lohmer Trust DEVELOPER: Jon Whitcomb of Browns Creek West LLC REQUEST: Adopting written statement of reasons for denial LOCATION: 12950 75th Street North REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-01 INTRODUCTION At the Commission's last regularly -scheduled meeting the Commission considered a request for a 20' variance to the 100' 75' Street North right-of-way setback for one lot to be located in the future White Pine Ridge residential subdivision. In a 4-3 vote, the Commission denied the variance on the basis the applicant had not established practical difficulty and that the request was purely economic. Pursuant to State law, the Commission must adopt a written statement of reasons for the denial. SPECIFIC REOUEST Adopt written statement of reasons for denial of the 75t' Street North right-of-way setback variance requested as part of the future White Pine Ridge development. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-02. cc Jon and Ann Whitcomb Bob and Mary Lohmer RESOLUTION NO. CPC 2021-02 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DENIAL PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, § 15.99, SUBD. 2, FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION TO FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH CPC CASE NO. 2021-01 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a request from the Applicant Jon and Ann Whitcomb a 20' variance to the 100' right-of-way setback from 75th Street right-of- way to allow for the future construction of a home at 12950 75th Street North (PID 3003020140012), legally described as follows: The south 1373.77 feet of the East Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 30, Range 20, Washington County, Minnesota; excepting therefrom the north 58.61 feet of the west 268.95 feet of the south 1373.77 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the west 80.00 feet of the south 720.00 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the east 245.00 feet thereof; and also excepting therefrom all that part which lies southerly of "line 3" as described as follows: "Line 3" is 75.00 feet northerly of and parallel with the following described centerline: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 01°04'48" West, assumed bearing, along the north -south quarter line of said Section 30 a distance of 38.03 feet to the beginning of said centerline; thence North 81°50'36" East, a distance of 1,395.68 feet; thence Easterly a distance of 1,279.97 feet along a tangential curve concave to the South, having a radius of 5,729.58 feet and a central angle of 12°47'59" and a chord bearing of North 88°14'36" East to a point on the East line of said Section 30, said point being 262.54 feet Northerly of the east quarter corner of said Section 30, and said centerline terminating at said point WHEREAS, City Code Section 31-302 allows for the construction of new structures to be setback 100' from the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had a future structure to be located 80' from the right- of-way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicants' Application at their regular meeting on January 27, 2021; and WHEREAS, at the January 27, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, a motion was made by Commissioner Dyvbig and seconded by Commissioner Steinwall to deny the right-of-way setback variance request. The Commission voted 4 in favor, with Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, and Councilmember Odebrecht e opposing, and the motion passed; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2(c), provides that "[i]f a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for the denial. If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written statement of the reasons for denial stated on the record at the January 27, 2021, regular Planning Commission meeting by Commissioners voting to deny the 20' right-of-way setback variance: 1. The requested Variance was not consistent with all the standards for granting a Variance as described in Section 31-208. More specifically, the Planning Commission members voting against the requested Variance stated on the record at the January 27, 2021, regular Planning Commission meeting that the request was not justified for the following reasons: a. The owner had not provided evidence practical difficulty had been established; and b. The reason for the request was solely economic. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater this 24th day of February, 2021. Chris Lauer, Chair Attest: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-60 REPORT DATE: February 17, 2021 MEETING DATE: February 24, 2021 APPLICANT: Joel Hauck, ESG Architecture & Design LAND OWNER: 200 Chestnut Partners LLC REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a four-story, 61- unit apartment building LOCATION: 200 Chestnut Street East ZONING: Central Business District Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District Downtown Design Review District REVIEWERS: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad, City Engineer/Public Works Director Shawn Sanders, Building Official Cindy Shilts, Middle St. Croix WMO, Washington County Public Works PREPARED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION 200 Chestnut Partners LLC owns the property at 200 Chestnut East and is proposing to redevelop the site with a four-story, 61-unit apartment building with 73 underground parking spaces. In addition to holding a neighborhood meeting prior to the application submittal, the applicant participated in a Technical Review meeting with local agencies and organizations to gain insight on how the proposed project conforms to local regulations. The project proposed to the Planning commission (PC) reflects those regulations; where variations occur or conditions are recommended for conformance, they are outlined within this report. Residential uses, as well as Large Building Projects, in the Central Business District (CBD) require a Conditional Special Use Permit. The proposed fourth story, jointly with the building's overall 48.5' height, exceeds the maximum allowable three -stories and 37' height in the Historic Height Overlay District. The applicant is requesting variances to the City's CBD Setbacks, the Height Overlay standards, and the Off -Street Parking and Loading requirements. Given the scope and location of the project as well as the proposed height is 10% greater than the Case no. 2020-60 Page 2 maximum allowable limit, City Code requires the PC make recommendation for City Council (Council). Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to Council consideration. On December 16, 2020 the HPC reviewed a Design Permit application for the property that contained a recessed fourth story that included a mix of residential units, enclosed common space, and rooftop terracing. Citing the project's need to conform to the mass and scale of buildings in its vicinity (including the adjacent Stillwater Commercial Historic District), the HPC tabled consideration of the design, requesting modifications to the scale of the 4th story — if not full removal. On January 20, 2021 the applicant obtained conditional approval of a Design Permit application from the HPC though the HPC's conditioned the approval with no fourth story. The applicant has appealed the HPC's decision to the City Council. The design presented to the PC contains a fourth story though the vertical improvements are recessed from most right-of-ways. On February 18, 2021 the applicant met with the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC), and advisory body to the Council, to discuss the request for a parking variance. The applicant is proposing to create 73 off-street spaces, leaving a 35 space deficit, and utilizing an on -street parking space for loading and unloading. As a reminder to the PC, City Code allows for mitigation of parking (by payment in lieu of parking creation) in areas with zero lot lines or similar conditions. The DTPC indicated that, with certain conditions, they believe the development could still conform to the intent of the Off -Street Parking and Loading regulations. They recommend the Council allow the developer to pay a fee in lieu of creating 35 parking spaces. Their conditions surrounded around requiring off-street spaces to be dedicated to the residential units so that only guests are utilizing the public parking system. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a: 1. Conditional Use Permit for 61 multi -family residences in a Large building project in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. A 35 space variance to the Off -Street Parking and Loading requirements; 3. A one-story variance to the three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 4. A 11.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 5. Variances to the 20' (Combined) Side Yard and 20' Rear Yard Setback in the Central Business District. ANALYSIS Special Use Permit Generally speaking, conformance to the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use will be compatible with its surrounding uses. City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: Case no. 2020-60 Page 3 The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [Zoning] chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Comprehensive Plan Conformity With regard to residential uses in the downtown area, the City has found that they are not only compatible but a welcome addition in the highly -developed and walkable downtown area. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan's (Plan) Land Use and Downtown Urban Design Goals state a community goal is to "develop a land use plan that fosters economic growth and evolution...and welcomes both residents and visitors. Sensitively develop prime Downtown property using a compact mixture of commercial, office, residential..." Additionally, a Local Economy and Tourism goal is to "provide new locations for Downtown housing to support Downtown retail and entertainment venues." This project helps support these goals. The Plan further identifies the need to "provide for a range of new housing opportunities from large lot single family to multi -family." It elaborates that ways to do this are to "explore development concepts such as higher density infill..." and to "encourage market rate rental apartments as an element of mixed use projects in the Downtown area." The City's Land Use Plan helps support higher density development in areas where it is most appropriate, including in the downtown core. The Plan's vision utilizes the 2nd Street corridor for residential development to help support the Main Street commercial uses. However, the Plan indicates high density housing (apartments or condos) is appropriate above the ground level, implying mixed -use development would be preferred. That said, the City's zoning code does not restrict apartments from being on the ground level. In fact, ground -level units, though not common, are located within one-half block of the proposed project site at 110 Myrtle Street East, 212 2nd Street North, and 102-118 3rd Street South. The Plan indicates the City must "ensure all new housing, including high density, adheres to the highest possible standards of planning, design and construction." To help conform to this community standard, the developer has incorporated design features indicative of some of Stillwater's 19th-Century manufacturing buildings and traditional storefronts. This helps reduce the residential `feel' of the building and breaks up the structure into units of scale, ensuring the use's design is compatible with the commercial nature of this area. Zoning Code Conformance As noted, the developer is proposing variation from three sections of the Zoning Code. Analysis of these variances is addressed in a subsequent section of this report. There are City Code requirements worth noting: Height: The structure's proposed maximum height, when measured from the average elevation of Chestnut Street East (the front of the building) to the top of the elevator overrun, will be 52.5'. However, elevator and stairwell bulkhead are allowed to project above the maximum height of a building so long as they are integral to the building; given they serve the entire building from ground level up, they are integral. The requested maximum foot variance (of 11.5'), as reviewed later in this report, is measured to the top of the fourth story. Even as a three-story structure, requested of the HPC, the building's design would still necessitate a 2.5' Case no. 2020-60 Page 4 variance request. Trash: The developer is proposing to keep all trash receptacles in the building's basement parking area. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to insure trash remains in the building in perpetuity. Short Term Home Rentals (STHR): The City has created the STHR program to help provide additional housing options for visitors. While in the City has limited the total number of licenses in the CBD, there is concern that if a STHR license was obtained for this building, all units could be utilized for Short Term Rentals — whether that is the intent of the current owner or not. This would be in direct conflict with the community's housing goals previously cited. Staff recommends the PC limit the total number of STHR units to one. Traffic and Parking: The City retained the services of the engineering firm SRF to conduct a traffic and parking impact analysis for the City. They determined the new structure's uses would not have a negative impact to the existing traffic circulation patterns. The impact analysis additionally concluded that, based on International Traffic Engineering standards, the City' existing parking standards (requiring 1.5 parking spaces for every one unit and one space for every three units) is excessive. SRF concluded that instead of the City's requirement of 112 parking spaces, a range requirement between 64 and 108 spaces was more appropriate. The DTPC agreed to the 108 space requirement and indicated, if 73 spaces are created in the basement and used by the residences, then the 35 space deficit would not be a detriment to the City's parking system in this location. Stormwater Management: The property is located in the Middle St. Croix Watershed and must meet the City's adopted stormwater management requirements. The applicant is proposing to do this through the installation of a green roof tray system. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Watershed Management Organization (WMO). The WMO recommends two conditions of approval: • A proposed maintenance agreement shall be required; and • The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is updated to prohibit engine degreasing onsite. While the WMO has recommended approval of the plan, City staff is concerned for the use of this type of system. New to Stillwater and rather complex, City staff would recommend the WMO's condition includes the City's (or its representatives) ability to access the system. This maintenance and access agreement should be in place prior to the release of the building permit. Relevant Area Plans The developer is proposing to install pedestrian -scaled lighting on Chestnut Street East and 2nd Street South adjacent to this building. Though not an adopted plan, the City has recently consulted with SEH to assess the downtown lighting system for the prospect of future changes and potential ownership. City staff is recommending the pedestrian -scaled lighting conform to the City's design standard for such. Additionally, the developer should enter into a maintenance agreement with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. Case no. 2020-60 Page 5 Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The City has received numerous comments regarding this development and, while some of have been expressions of support, most of the comments are concern for the development's inability to meet the City's height and parking requirements. All public comments are attached for PC review. Additionally, where necessary, City staff is recommending the PC consider certain conditions of approval to help ensure the property and its uses will not be a nuisance or a detriment to the public welfare of the community. Variance Analysis The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance." Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The requested variance would not permit a use that is otherwise not permitted in this district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? • The purpose of the Height Overlay District is "to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown" by ensuring "structures close to the river not rise above the height of structures farther from the river". • The purpose for Side and Rear Yard setbacks is to provide for uniform patterned development for aesthetic and environmental reasons as well as to provide for onsite parking in the rear of buildings. • The purposes of the parking and loading requirements are to "reduce street congestion and traffic hazards in the city" and to "add to the safety and convenience of its citizens, by incorporating adequate, attractively designed, and functional facilities for off-street parking as an integral part of every use of land." b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? Case no. 2020-60 Page 6 • As discussed by the HPC, there are no four-story structures adjacent to the proposed development site. The overall height — which is an element of the structure's overall mass — is out of scale with structures in the adjacent historic district. • Reduction of the side and rear yard setbacks in the CBD area common. In fact, the Downtown Design Review District reduces the Main Street setbacks to zero to be compatible with the historic development patterns; this is not a development pattern exclusive to Main Street. The proposed reduction of the setbacks for this property has been found by the HPC to be consistent with the historic development pattern of buildings along 2nd, Chestnut, and Myrtle Streets and Union Alley. • If the developer was granted a variance and mitigation did not occur, this would not be in harmony with the requirements of the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) encourages high quality development in the downtown core that is compatible with, and does not provide a nuisance to, the downtown's historic character and its existing land uses. While reduced setbacks are in harmony with the Plan, the increased height and the parking variances would be in conflict. A policy of the Plan is to "encourage mixed use development that incorporates housing and parking structures within Downtown". Since the developer is proposing some onsite parking with mitigation for (approximately) 1/3 of the parking required, the waiver of these parking requirements is in harmony with the Plan 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? Residential properties with underground parking, including those greater than three stories and built to the lot lines, have been found to be reasonable in the downtown area. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The balancing of the community's competing goals and required development standards (including height, setbacks, and parking), though not unique to this site, does create a plight. If any uniqueness exists, it is in that this is one of the only opportunities in the downtown core where an entire (half) city block can (and should) be redeveloped at one time. In an area where the City encourages higher -density infill, accommodating for all zoning code requirements — even with raw, vacant land, can be challenging. b. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property is proposed to be developed to nearly all lot lines, maximizing the development potential of the site. Though the City encourages build -out compatible with the historic development pattern, it is the desire of the developer to have the proposed number of units despite the property's inability to meet all parking onsite. Additionally, it is the desire of the Case no. 2020-60 Page 7 property owner to have a (partial) fourth -story on this building. Therefore, the property's height and the parking deficit are created by the landowner. c. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? As indicated by the HPC, a four-story building will alter the essential character of the area the structure is proposed to be located in. As a three-story building, the HPC was not concerned the proposed building setbacks would alter the essential character of the locality. Additionally, the DTPC asserts that requiring all residential units to have (at least) one parking space would not alter the essential character of the City's parking system in this location. d. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? There is difficulty in meeting the community's (sometimes competing) Comprehensive Plan goals and the Zoning Code standards. To achieve this, maximizing the building's footprint to accommodate for more units (and parking spaces) is necessary. However, difficulties regarding conformance to the City's height regulations have not been established. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Recommend the City Council approve the requested use permit, with or without associated variances, with (at least) the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 60 and dated February 19, 2021, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Short Term Home Rental may not be utilized for greater than one apartment unit. 3. Refuse shall be kept inside at all times with the exception of collection day. Refuse containers outside on collection day shall not block the public right-of-way, including the sidewalk. 4. All mechanical units shall be enclosed or screened from public view. 5. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of trash, cigarette butts and other forms of debris. 6. All 73 onsite parking spaces shall be assigned to, and leased with, the 61 apartment units. 7. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. a) Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Conditional Use Permit. Case no. 2020-60 Page 8 8. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer will provide a traffic control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. 9. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the installation of pedestrian -scaled lighting located on public sidewalks. 10. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer shall enter into an access and maintenance agreement for stormwater requirements. 11. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is updated to prohibit engine degreasing onsite. 12. The project shall require full review by the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management and approval, and payment of all review fees, will be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits by the City. 13. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 14. 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 decision -making authority in a public hearing. B. Recommend denial of the requested use permit and associated variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While the residential use of this large building project is not of primary concern, the ability to meet all Zoning Code requirements is of concern. The State of Minnesota is specific in that Cities may grant variances but are not obligated to do so. When they do, they must make findings practical difficulty has been established. As noted in this staff report there is no difficulty in conformance to the City's maximum stories requirement though there is difficulty in achieving a three-story building (with tuck -under garage) in the maximum 37' height requirements. It is clear the development team has spent considerable time developing a thoughtful addition to the downtown area. Having obtained a conditional -approved Design Permit from the HPC, it is clear the overall concept of the building (though a change to this landscape), fits within its surroundings so long as the overall height of the building is reduced. The fourth story helps maximize the development opportunities of the site. However, the City is generous in its allowance for elevator and bulkhead features to rise above the maximum height level. This, in combination with the City's desire for setbacks consistent with the historic fabric, helps the developer maximize the development opportunity of the site. While City staff understands parking in the downtown area is limited and the removal of the existing parking deck system impacts the area, the developer is proposing to meet nearly 2/3 of all parking onsite. As discussed by the City's traffic engineer and according to traffic engineering standards, the additional 35 spaces not being met may not even be needed. With the Case no. 2020-60 Page 9 DTPC's recommendations to require parking spots to be assigned to and leased with the units and to pay a monthly parking mitigation fee that will contributed to future public parking system improvements, staff does not anticipate the parking plan will cause detriment to the area. While staff recommends the City Council's acceptance of the parking plan, staff does not recommend approval of a variance to the parking requirements. Given this, staff recommends the PC recommend approval of: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for 61 multi -family residences and parking plan, to include partial mitigation, to be located in a Large building project in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. A 2.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height as measured from the average elevation of Chestnut Street East to the top edge of the parapet; and 3. Variances to the (Combined) Side and Rear Yard to accommodate the building setbacks as designed and proposed. With the conditions outlined in Alternative A, above, and that the fourth story shall be removed from the plans. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Applicant Submission Elevations Floor Plans Renderings Public Comments cc: Joel Hauck esc November, 25th 2020 MEMORANDUM Project Name: 200 Chestnut Project No: 219543 Submitted to: City of Stillwater — Planning Commission & Heritage Preservation Commission Property Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, the North 47.14 feet of Lot 3 and the South 84 feet of Lot 3, all in Block 25, City of Stillwater, according to the recorded plat therof, Washington County, Minnesota. ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p 612.339.5508 www.esgarchitects.com esc November 25, 2020 MEMORANDUM Project Name: 200 Chestnut Project No: 219543 Submitted to: City of Stillwater — Planning Commission & Heritage Preservation Commission Statement of Proposed Use and Description of Project The proposed project will redevelop a 1960's-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a 73-unit residential apartment community with 73 below -grade parking stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of alcove, one -bedroom, and two -bedroom units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based economy, families, and empty nesters. The emerging trend toward more frequent telecommuting among the workforce is likely to create increased demand for housing in places like Stillwater. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor landscaped patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house several penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The inviting pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top district. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the shops, restaurants, and other services that make Stillwater such a unique community and increasingly desirable place to live. The massing of the building is designed to minimize the appearance of bulk while maintaining a traditional relationship of building to street. In keeping with late 19th and early 20th century commercial building forms common in downtown Stillwater, the proposed building is composed of simple, rectangular building forms. While the building is larger than its typical neighbor, it is broken into three smaller volumes that relate to the scale of nearby buildings. Two, three-story brick -clad rectangular volumes face Chestnut and Myrtle Streets, helping to link the pedestrian -oriented downtown core to the bluff district. Each of these volumes is 114 feet long along the street facades and 66' feet deep. These dimensions are similar to nearby buildings. The typical pattern in downtown Stillwater is for a building's narrow face to be oriented along the streets that run parallel to the river (Water St, Main St, Union Alley, 2nd St) with its long dimension oriented toward the perpendicular streets (Nelson, Olive, Chestnut, Myrtle). Specific examples include: ■ 321 5 Main (Alfresco): 50' on Main; 116' on Nelson Alley ■ 312 5 Main (Nacho Mama's): 22' on Main, 100' on Nelson Alley ■ 302 5 Main (Whitey's Saloon): 25' on Main, 95' on Olive ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p 612.339.5508 www.esgarchitects.com ESG I ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN ■ 236 S Main (American Gothic Antiques): 36' on Main, 100' on Olive ■ 201 S Main (Mara-Mi): 50' on Main, 116' on Chestnut ■ 102 2nd St (Gazette): 22 on 2nd, 108' on Myrtle ■ 123 2nd (JX Venue): 70' on 2nd, 200' on Commercial Spanning between these two bookend building volumes is a third, four-story rectangular volume that runs parallel to 2nd St. This volume is clad in painted siding (to contrast the brick volumes) and set back 10 feet from 2nd St and 37 feet from Union Alley. These setbacks and material contrast serve to minimize the visibility of this volume and emphasize the Chestnut and Myrtle volumes. Furthermore, the top story of the 2nd St volume is set back 14 feet from the Chestnut and Myrtle, minimizing the visibility of the fourth story from surrounding streets. We propose to reduce the yards to near zero on all four sides, in keeping with the surrounding context of late 19th- century commercial buildings. In the downtown historic district, commercial buildings are typically built right up to the street, with only civic buildings set back from the street to emphasize their significance. The proposed building's zero setbacks will enhance the historic context by filling in the existing site with traditional commercial -style building fabric. In particular, the new building's zero setback along Chestnut and Myrtle will enhance the context of the two adjacent historic civic buildings (the historic post office at 220 Myrtle; and the First National Bank at 213 Chestnut) by enhancing the effect of their setbacks. Variance Findings Variances are requested to increase the allowed height, decrease the required setbacks, increase the maximum lot coverage and decrease landscape area and decrease the minimum parking requirement. In general, the requested variances will allow for a building design that reflects and respects the historic character of the Downtown Stillwater, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for new development to "complement Downtown Stillwater's historic character, existing building massing, scale and materiality" and which encourages architecture and urban design which both "recalls late 19th Century commercial design" and "helps create an environment which is pleasing and interesting to pedestrians." In addition, the building massing allows for the increased housing density along 2"d Street that is also called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variances are due to practical difficulties related to achieving these goals of the Comprehensive Plan, given the conditions and location of the project site. Height The proposed height of the building is 4 stories/46 feet. A variance to allow a building that is taller than 3 stories/37 feet is reasonable and in character with the surrounding development. As illustrated on the context building height exhibit, there are several 3 and 4-story buildings in the CBD height overlay district that are taller than 37 feet. At 36 feet tall, the portions of the building along the street frontages will comply with the 3 story/37-foot height limit. The 4-story portion of the building will be substantially set back from the street, so it will not adversely impact the pedestrian character or experience. As also illustrated in the exhibits, due to the location of the project site within the topography of the downtown and the existing built environment, the 4th story of the building will not result in any meaningful loss of views of the river or bluffs. A 3-story building would not as successfully achieve the City's goals for increased housing options and availability along the 2nd Street residential corridor and in downtown Stillwater. These are unique circumstances that support a finding of practical difficulties. 2 ESG I ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Setbacks and Lot Coverage/Landscaping Area The proposed setbacks, and the related lot coverage of the building, are reasonable and consistent with the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above and illustrated in the exhibits, the setbacks and massing of the building are consistent with numerous historic buildings in the district and the essential character of the area. In fact, we believe that complying with the generally -required yards would detract from the historic downtown district overall and diminish the effect of the greater setbacks of the two adjacent designated landmarks. The building will create an urban "street wall" and enhance the pedestrian character and experience through its selection of materials and incorporation of large windows, balconies, and landscaping. Green roof elements will mitigate for reduced ground level pervious areas. The setbacks and lot coverage are also dictated by the need to maximize the area of the below grade parking garage which, due to the water table, is limited to one level (see further discussion in the parking variance section). And, as is the case with the proposed height of the building, the proposed footprint better achieves the City's goals for increased housing options and availability along the 2nd Street residential corridor and in downtown Stillwater. These are unique circumstances that support a finding of practical difficulties. Parking The minimum parking requirement is 1.5 stalls per residential dwelling unit plus 0.33 stalls/unit for guest parking, which equates to 110 stalls for residents and 24 stalls for guests. The proposed number of stalls to be provided in the underground garage is 73. Our understanding is that the City has recognized that these standards are not appropriate for every development and evaluates the actual parking needed for a development based on a supply/demand analysis. Our own analysis, provided by a professional traffic engineer, demonstrates that the project will provide enough parking on -site to meet the demand generated by the building's users. Therefore, the proposed amount of parking is reasonable and will not alter the essential character of the area. Not only would additional underground parking stalls not be necessary, the relatively low water table is incompatible with any excavation deeper than that proposed. A geotechnical engineer using data from soil borings performed on site in September 2019 determined that ground water lies between 10 and 15 feet below grade across the sloping site (elevations 691 to 694). The proposed elevation of the lowest level of parking is approximately 692; deeper excavation is not feasible. In addition to the enclosed stalls provided within the proposed building, the removal of two curb cuts on Myrtle Street will likely result in the creation of four new public on -street parallel parking stalls for a total of 26 public on -street parking spaces that will be available for visitors. The elevation of the water table, the parking demand analysis and the availability of street parking are unique circumstances that support a finding of practical difficulties. 3 LAND USE APPLICATION DESIGN UPDATE 2/19/2021 v 200 CHESTNUT ST S STILLWATER,MN SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE 12/16/20 & 1/20/21 HPC MEETINGS Ask: Reduce 4th Story Reduced Level 4 GSF by -7,400 SF - Removed 62% of the units on 4th level. Units removed along the West and North Elevation. Added windows and raised planters to north and west elevation at level 4. Ask: Lap Siding is not an appropriate material for Stillwater - Removed All Fiber Cement Panel from project. Replaced with vertical metal panel (similar to Lora Hotel). Added masonry to East and West Elevation in place of fiber cement panel Ask: Union Alley needs to feel more pedestrian - Reduced height of Cast in Place concrete planters by 2' along Union Alley. Top of planter wall now 3' above sidewalk. - Designed intermediate picket railings between planters for added transparency between public and private spaces. Ask: North Elevation (Myrtle) needs more articulation - Relocated NE balcony stack to North Elevation to provide improved architectural interest along Myrtle St. Ask: Increase storefront expression at South Elevation (Chestnut). - Fitness room relocated adjacent to building entrance. Storefront glazing added to this portion of the elevation. Ask: Revise East and West Elevations (long and tall) - Removed the 4th floor units on West Elevation. Results in 3 story fagade in lieu of 4. Reduced height of balcony piers on West Elevation per 4th floor revision. Added 3 story mass (clad in masonry) to East and West Elevation. Building Metrics Update: Reduced total unit count from 73 to 61 (-12) Parking Ratio updated - 1.20 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CHANGE SUMMARY esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER VIEW UPDATED m �Ti... �. m IX%. : s!r' 'r..T r=101.17g1.17I1. s 1.1. . • " r..,+•� ,.... ,�... !— .. a 'MM. . Ms. �- `T�!!=11M•m• m��' MIMIL �..'���w om T s. �" ':. �tw. ��. w r..i ... itw rw.�r�. .�i.r'r`.ilw! it • ! r.r i•l•mr� r M. a.r �wi++ rr awr wry r! �.ww. �� .' . rr�irw_� r'�rrirrrr Sri. e'�.r. r.r' .. rr ar�ir..i�VJ �...TriraT •r...r �. F.w� __ _ r.SS� t �1� awe r�p...Z.T .w�E� "iw: .r i� ..r "wr.. �...�" r ... ..-.�.... Z� +w4T � �� `0.. ' a`w =' "�rr�.rq�.. .'�.r � �.. ..rr mow::. ` ." r_�L �ar�e 1."` � lw..... � F. . ! a �...nC ` J� w �.�.."". A�'�.l0w �� .� ��j r.� ��} J� �lf� '� JR lF4.'��J� " � l��s _� !�� ! �i. rt�..7 ••..� N�.i.� ... �� wi.!!!i.' N.N. w.e — '."77— . d.":� � s� �� 1 _ i.li'.! s ��!!Y_ _ � aiL! .F.r firm. . m...rarwr .... ..Al7r.w �"� •"' YY.!#•.rl...w ww�ltiw� wRw it Ywl.. mow. w..iw.l w..w.^. ��!•� sw.iiN_. _�� �i. Yawlw�_I r:Y Y_wa�we Y_w l� t��_� a• .aYl.i ! .ir. s.tl...r rrmr"+r .1 ...� r.l.J ww......... sa •....l .. �. W _�.Iwl..f�il� i.'1�i �...� �y.y��� �^w _a�� • �+ .��}:.•Lw.:r.�� i7�Z� ZT/.r+i w^���.' ���.,�� �.w,.�� ram. • ��..w'1 �. �w..`..��"Tr_ .nwwr r y �=.. it ��r:_i.T�...:..Sw.7�. i. rt7"w%.w"d.� �� �1. r '-ll.L3"�' �•aIYr ��r mow• r..i. rM 1 l..�i.��,M _ !Y N�.. �_� i i �Y�i. i.~-� �w _ - F o-� -�..� a �.�� r"?i RR • sG. ^s�z�� �= ���zw.i.,„ _Valli m. ;; r =ter C::� mom : ._..=M.. is t.. wYIY Yir1 I.I. �Li m.1.1.1 i 11 ... .... ..M ll..I.Y. r.s lMil II.w! am. MNi! !_w..� rt...• w'".afr a m w� r +w�1......m � .a.... �°"OOI�� ma...... �rl Ima.�r _l..yM.ffil Ems Ma .pia.. ..:r 1. 7 �'3i�I. .'n .���=sires -2.:�T -a-- � T-..ars a.. irlatl.r�..�.-r---ir-mL.—..�..' .ice .6.3....... a. KIM .... • am Mona or. • _.. I . ...mars. • .• !nr • Nr. •OM. MEM • ▪ � 1.0wjj..�w..yP �...r.�� P Y.�Rrw c. �.• wl• �..w NYlm*Mi .mow._ •..I..rtml..wY ...11..mr,. VI MM. 101.01..1111. • rl-.!!lari. MOM 200 Chestnut -- - --w- 1.15 ! RIF MM MI. Ma am ma . M_ rrl.I. o y...*i ..... i.0 lam•IMO S1MEI .w.lr•..rs..al ie -- .r.a._ l wrr __ — wrr..r•Maal OW 1M ▪ =x •..�._ r_ esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ELEVATION ON CHESTNUT UPDATED esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER VIEW UPDATED esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW ON 2ND ST NEW VIEW 1 .err..-��,G`�•�" �r.�� � i .�� L� -" r�'�_ "=���.�`��++ .::;: -�"- emirs=-tea=3Zsa' r=171 sue -- �+ _ _, ;�s s'�3L-f�ss""'4 in IMO - - esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NW CORNER VIEW UPDATED esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST UPDATED esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NE CORNER VIEW UPDATED muwar t 1 11.1 i.r ..r8L . imamamm. 4161.6 f ti 411110ohmoitItIRi(tj 1 e sc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN UNION ALLEY VIEW UPDATED esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY UPDATED MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 2'-5" TO P.L. 26 25 24 23 3' - 0 3/8" TO P.L. 1,307 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,262 SF GARAGE ACCESS 21 RAM P DOWN PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF — SCREENED TRANSFORMER 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 19 UNION ALLEY 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 986 SF i8 4 TERRACE 2,938 SF 1 BED 856 SF LIRLULA I IUN 2,586 SF 2ND STREET SOUTH 1 BED 986 SF 1 A6 lb 5 6 7 8 1,249 SF 1 BED 887 SF 1 ALCOVE 602 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 13 -1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. 9 LOBBY/LEASING 1,642 SF 10 FITNESS 540 SF 11 ALCOVE 540 SF 1,252 SF 1'-O"_} TO P.L. Scale: 1" = 20'-0" TO DOWNTOWN CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 I Al 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF 66'-0" 66' - 0" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 1,342 SF 1 BED 887 SF 41' - 0" 115'-O" 1 BED 864 SF CIRCULATION 403 SF 1 BED 986 SF 55' - 0" 1 BED 864 SF 1 BED 986 SF 1,251 SF 1 BED 887 SF 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 66' - 0" 41'-0" 66'-0" 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 I A2 O GREEN ROOF TRAYS TFRRACF GREEN 3,138 SF ROOF TRAYS PATI') PATIO ILO o 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED AMENITY I 1,779 SF 1,456 SF 1,398 SF 749 SF I —I I I I I 1_ Ir F F PLANTERS I I I CIRCULATION 1,710 SF I Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 2'-5" TO P.L. 247'-0" GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER 0 I I I I I I I I RAMP UP _ 1'-41/4" TO P.L. PARKING 27,958 SF 0 0 0 n 3.90% 0 0 0 0 0 r TRASH =011 0 0 u u r, r, S - STANDARD STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 18'-0" DEEP C - COMPACT STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 16'-0" DEEP Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL MINUS 1 I A4 METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ALUMINUM WITH METAL PANEL GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS METAL PANEL AND BALCONY RECESS METAL INFILL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY EXTERIOR MATERIALS BRICK VENEER PREFINISHED METAL COPING PRIMARY BUILDIJNG ENTRANCE CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING PREFINISHED METAL COPING MASONRY VENEER CAST STONE WINDOW SILL FIBERGLASS WINDOWS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc RFUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION I A5 ( CHESTNUT ST) EXTERIOR MATERIALS MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING LI METAL PANEL AT BALCONY RECESS ALUMINUM BALCONY FIBERGLASS WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL WINDOW ROOF PLANTERS my' -wwwimmuurgymmutumwwwwmulyym 111 11 _ 11 ii ■ ■ 1 FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOOR s; .a UMW UM Mal BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER P I I I eMN e METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN METAL PANEL MIMI NMI MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT BALCONY 11 MASONRY VENEER BASE I I I I III I I, LI MASONRY VENEER CAST STONE WINDOW SILL P P Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION I A6 (2NDST) EXTERIOR MATERIALS METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBERGLASS WINDOWS MASONRY VENEER ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL INFILL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL imm BRICK VENEER !If CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND METAL PANEL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL RAILING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NORTH ELEVATION I A7 ( MYRTLE ST ) EXTERIOR MATERIALS AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ®11111® ®�aOYI© ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS AM OM e1.11111 imm BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL M ECHANICAL LOUVER SCREENED TRANSFORM ER AREA METAL PARAPET COPING OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS MASONRY VENEER METAL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EAST ELEVATION I A8 ( UNION ALLEY ) Jenn Sundberg Subject: FW: New proposed Apartment Building in Downtown From: Mark Balay [mailto:mark@balayarchitects.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:10 PM To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: New proposed Apartment Building in Downtown [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Abbi and HPC Members, We want to make sure my wife Cathy and I give you our opinions based on the materials in the HPC Packet online, since our home is close by at 110 Myrtle St. One of the perspective shots they took shows the building set into a photo that is taken from our driveway. Being familiar with the site lines in that small area. The view they did not take was from North Third St. That is where the full body of the building will be quite visible and dominant in the scenic view. A view from the upper ground portion of the parking for the parking ramp will have the west elevation of the building almost in full view. The design of the building is fairly neutral and utilizes geometry from the rest of downtown and looks fairly compatible. The use of Lap siding in this design solution is very contemporary and not a historical qualified move. I would not switch to a stucco type product instead of this though. Tough question. The four story proposal is unfortunately way to big, and it exceeds with it's "penthouse level" what is allowed by the currently crafted zoning ordinances. Notice that those top units are dominantly two bedroom for a financial reason. We do like the common room/ terrace space. We do not support a four story building but would support a three story structure, which wpud meet current height restrictions we believe, Second huge issue is parking deficiency. Their proposal does not do what it needs to do for permanent parking spaces for each unit. If the building is reduced to three levels that problem will go away we believe. The Stillwater governmental body has already not allowed development in the old Armory because of parking deficiency and this building being residential makes it even more important to comply and provide required units for each apartment at least. We ask you to demand full compliance with parking. Thank you for hearing our opinions and conclusions and taking them into consideration on this matter. Mark And Cathy Balay i Jenn Sundberg From: Anne Loff <anneloff@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 9:20 AM To: Planning Dept Subject: CPC 2020-60 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The ownership group of Hotel Crosby is in support of the request to allow for variances at 200 Chestnut Street E. We believe that this project will provide a much needed residential base in Downtown Stillwater and will greatly contribute to the continued growth in the area. Thank you for your consideration, Anne Loff Chris Diebold Brian Asmus 612-987-2044 612-315-4909 fax i Abbi Wittman From: Kristina Marshall <kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1:58 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Re: FW: Concerns regarding the Chestnut Building project Attachments: 20201014_142930.jpg; 20201022_112618jpg; 20201014_142916jpg [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Abby! I had a chance to look over the proposed plans and would like to officially submit the following concerns as a downtown business owner: My first concern is the height of the project they are proposing. I know they are asking for a height variance to be able to build a 4th story onto the project, making it about 13 ft higher than what the current height restriction allows. My studio is located right up the road on Chestnut (118 Chestnut Street East), I'm on the 2nd story and have windows that look out to the East. According to the builders, the current Chestnut Building height is estimated to be around the current height restriction, and I'm really worried that building a 4th story onto that is going to be a monster of a building, and will definitely be impacting surrounding buildings. I'm including some photos taken looking out my windows, and you can see where the current Chestnut building height is. I cannot imagine having another 13 ft of building on top of that. While the 4th story would be set back, I think it will really tower over the surrounding buildings. Especially the 1 story buildings on the corner. Having a 3 story building alone built on that full lot will really change the landscape of the block as it will be a big tower on a space that has mostly been open parking or courtyard space. I understand it's their right to build up to the 37' height, but I am concerned about them getting the 4th story variance and setting a precedent for future developments. A lot of their renderings they showed during the presentation were from higher vantage points, looking down on the building. As a photographer I know that perspective is everything, and from a downward viewpoint size is minimized and can be deceiving. My second concern is their request for the parking variance. I know they are requesting to do only 1 parking spot per unit, not the 1.3 spots the city currently requires. If they only did 1 space per unit (73), instead of the 95 they would need at the 1.3 multiplier. That's 22 spaces they are shorting per current city requirements. I'm also concerned about the parking variance because it is quite possible for 2 adults to live in even the 1 bedroom apartments which could equal 2 cars for just those units alone (not to mention more for the 2 bedroom units). If only one car can fit in the underground parking, where will the other car(s) be parked? I'm worried that these cars will take up valuable parking spaces elsewhere in downtown. We're already losing quite a few open parking spots (about 14 if my math is correct) with this project with the loss of the small parking lot on the property (not including the lower and upper parking garage space that's currently designated for Chestnut Building business). It appears from their parking study they are saying the peak parking demand will be from lOpm - 5am. However, in their other document they noted that "The emerging trend toward more frequent telecommuting among the workforce is likely to create increased demand for housing in places like Stillwater" which if that's the case and more people are working from home means those cars will likely be in Stillwater throughout the day and not just in that 1 Opm-5am timeslot. Something to take into consideration. i Again, mainly wanted to voice my concerns as a way to spark conversation and make sure the city is looking at all aspects of how this project might impact the downtown area. If anyone would like to see my space to really get a feel for how this building could change the viewpoint from this perspective I'd be happy to arrange that. Thanks so much! KRISTINA MARSHALL Kristina Lynn Photography & Design I Owner & Photographer www.kristinalynnphoto kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com • (651) 968-1635 Minnesota Studio • 118 Chestnut Street East, Stillwater, MN 55082 Iowa Studio • 106 1st Ave SE, Clarion, IA 50525 o On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:00 PM Kristina Marshall<kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com> wrote: Hi Abbi! Thanks so much for sending those over. I glanced through them and they are definitely more in depth than what was presented back in October. Very helpful! I'll take a peek at them and then resubmit my concerns :) THANK YOU! 2 ✓s. 1r_ CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE as>1Q c .1 4t7. rt Cn .1L V•4 r CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILD NG ROOFLINE A _-1'A•� r, C''`45i s 1£.; -r�� "' '.?r.,�' . .,�. 7,A k,.1,, I d C,r, CI �. CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE • 700 Olive Street • Saint Paul, MN 55130 December 18, 2020 craRAL S'), tin9 CARPENTERS Members of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission Phone: 651.646.7207 • Fax: 651.645.8318 I am writing today in support of the Reuter Walton project for 73 units on 200 Chestnut in Stillwater. This project will include $17.5M in construction which means thousands of work hours for carpenters and other construction trades workers, that will pay wages and benefits to support a middle class living. With the construction economy facing uncertainty due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we urge the support of this project that will build housing for your community in partnership with a responsible developer such as Reuter Walton. We understand that Reuter Walton is seeking a 4th floor variance to be able to underwrite the project. Reuter Walton has been thoughtful with their approach when designing the 4th floor as it will be set back on a 3rd floor that is only 37 feet in height. This seems to be a well thought out compromise and we look forward to this project making it through the necessary planning stages at the City of Stillwater. On behalf the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters, we strongly support this project at 200 Chestnut in Stillwater. Fraternally, Adam Duininck Director of Government Affairs www.northcountrycarpenter.org Constance J. Paiement, Attorney Joseph M. Paiement, Attorney January 1R, 202n vidE ' ENT/ LAW OFFICE Licensed Attorneys in Minnesota and Wisconsin Stillwater City Council Members; Stillwater Planning Commission Members; & Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 221 East Myrtle Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 T 651.967.5050 F 651.967.5055 www.paiementlaw.com RE: 200 Chestnut St East Property — Case CPC 2020-60 Dear Stillwater City Council; Planning Commission; & Heritage Preservation Members: This letter is in response to the December 15th and November 22, 2020 Memorandums from Swing Traffic Solutions regarding parking analysis for 200 Chestnut Street East. In reviewing the memorandums three rather significant issues jumped out at us. First, the analysis of the parking demand is based on national data and not specific to Minnesota or Stillwater. Habits and trends on modes of transportation will of course vary depending on the local climate. We would think there would generally be a higher demand for indoor off-street parking in colder snowy climates vs warmer climates. Second, the report compared the property to suburban areas nationally, parking for an apartment building in downtown Stillwater we would assume would be different then even Woodbury or Lake Elmo, where there is space for street parking and parking lots on the property. Third, the study assumes parking demands are the same for all types of apartment dwellings or is using an average of all types of apartment dwellings. We would assume that a higher more expensive rental unit would likely draw tenants who demand parking spaces for each adult in the unit whereas a lower end apartment building there may be more shared vehicles for adults in a single unit. The 200 Chestnut property is being promoted as a high -end rental unit. It is reasonable to expect that many of the units will have 2 adult drivers, including the one -bedroom units. Anything short of the current Stillwater current regulations on the number of parking spaces required for the property is going to create parking issues not only for the proposed tenants at 200 Chestnut but also for all of us in neighboring buildings. We are again asking the City to deny the variances to the parking and the height on the currently proposed apartment complex at 200 East Chestnut Street. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact us at 651-967-5050 or ioe(c�PaiementlIaw, cconnieCcr�paiementlaw.com. oseph Paiement & Co r i'e'nce Paieme Constance J. Paiement, Attorney Joseph M. Paiement, Attorney December 12, 2020 vpJE LAW OFFICE -- Licensed Attorneys in Minnesota and Wisconsin Stillwater City Council Members; Stillwater Planning Commission Members; & Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 200 Chestnut St East Property 221 East Myrtle Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 T 651.967.5050 F 651.967.5055 www.paiementIaw.com Dear Stillwater City Council; Planning Commission; & Heritage Preservation Members: This letter is regarding the proposed apartment building on the city block at 200 Chestnut St East, Stillwater, MN. The undersigned own the property at 221 East Myrtle Street (Paiement Law Office) and as neighboring property owners we strongly object to the proposed apartment structure at 200 Chestnut Street East for the following reasons. Parking Issues — Based on the Pioneer Press article on the project dated December 11, 2020, the apartment complex will be a 73-unit building, with 44 one -bedroom, 10 one -bedroom plus, and 19 two - bedroom apartments, with only 73 on -site parking spots. For the size of the project the parking ordinances require 134 parking spaces, almost double what the proposed plans have. As for on -street parking, there are currently 22 parking spaces around the property: 10 spaces on 2nd Street, 3 on Chestnut, and 8 on Union Alley. The spaces on Union Alley and Chestnut are always at least 90% occupied 24/7. With the Chestnut building now empty, even during COVID with many businesses in the area shut down and people working remotely, people are routinely using the Chestnut building parking lot as overflow parking, and there is generally half a dozen or more cars in the lot during the business week. When businesses are not shut down for COVID and in nice weather the parking is even more in demand. In the last two years we have already seen the parking in our area shrink. First, the City decided to make the east side of Union Alley all no parking for 5 months of the year and now there appears to be a semi- permanent loss of several more parking spaces on Chestnut Street between Main Street and Union Alley. There are businesses and apartments on Main Street between Myrtle and Chestnut that the closest parking is the Union Alley and Chestnut Street on -street parking spots and there are already too few spots to accommodate current needs. The surrounding streets can no accommodate the additional demands of a 73-unit apartment building with not enough parking for all their tenants and guests. City of Stillwater Page 2 We also own a unit in Terra Springs, and the units in Terra Springs all have one underground parking spot and many have two, yet the outdoor parking on the property is generally full all the time. The proposed apartment complex for the Chestnut building needs to have on -site parking to accommodate, at a minimum, all their residents. Variance for Height — The Heritage Preservation Commission has developed over the years very specific strict rules for the downtown area to attempt to preserve a historic downtown look. We recall the two hour meeting/debate we had with the Commission simply to convert the non -working torn roll -out awning on Union Alley side of our building with new aluminum fixed awnings before it was finally agreed that we could replace the awnings so long as we kept all the mechanics of the roll -outs. The proposed apartment complex is looking for a major variance of 9 feet on half the site size, or one-half of a full city block. They claim it doesn't block any views. We disagree, for the most part our windows look to the west and will be directly looking at the new structure. The new structure will block all our views of the beautiful historic buildings we see that are on Chestnut Street, 2nd Street, and 3rd Street, in addition to some beautiful large homes sitting up on the hill. The additional height will cause even further loss of natural lighting into our building. For the reasons stated above, we are asking the City to deny the variances to the parking and the height on the proposed apartment complex at 200 East Chestnut Street. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact us at 651-967-5050 or ioe{a�.paiementlaw.com and connie(c2paiementlaw.com. Sincerely, Jo ph Paieme Co stance Paie �1� Jenn Sundberg From: James S. Redpath <JRedpath@redpathcpas.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 12:13 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Chestnut Project My name is Jim Redpath. My address is 640 Main St N-unit 6, Stillwater, MN I support the new project on Chestnut proposed by the current land owner because... a. ....The two variances being asked for are small compromises to bring 75-80 new residents to become patrons to the charming Stillwater businesses that need them now more than ever. b. ....The height variance being requested will have minimal view impacts, but will allow a very important project to move forward and add additional tax paying residents to Stillwater c. ...Based on this project being located in "the bowl", the additional height variance will have no adverse effects to existing residents that the allowable 3 stories wouldn't already impact d. ...This project will be Union built and will create thousands of work hours for carpenters and other construction trades workers that will pay wages and benefits to support a middle class living e. ...Given the excess parking stalls in nearby ramps and surface lots, the parking variance should be approved James S. Redpath, CPA Partner 0 651.407.5802 m 612.991.2882 e JRedpath@redpathcpas.com I14!UJiIaLISfS1. PPULBUSHOSS 14 1111101 best places REcipRTH to work 2020 redpathcpas.com 55 5th Street East, Suite 1400 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Fi WE aR E an ,.OEP'.. ENT H I HEER OF HLB THE GLOBAL A'DV SORY AND _ACCOUNTING NETWORK This email has been scanned by the Securence Email Security System on behalf of Netrix IT . If this email is SPAM please report it by clicking ##SUBMIT_SPAM_LINK## i From: Heathyre Sayers <drsayers@live.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 3:03 PM To: Stillwater <stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Planned downtown apartment project [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I'm not sure where a good place to email this would be. I am a building and business owner in downtown Stillwater across from the current chestnut building. I have been doing business here for 6 years now. I got a notice in the mail about a planned apartment complex going up in its place. According to the plan they are only including half as many parking spaces required with the remaining spaces being used by surrounding street parking. This directly affects my business and all of the surrounding businesses. Our clients have a hard enough time finding parking in downtown Stillwater that is with reasonable walking distance as it is without all of the surrounding spaces being used for the apartment residents. I know there is a meeting scheduled for tonight but with child schedules I am not able to attend. I am asking that the variance not be approved as requested as this will negatively impact business in an area that already struggles with parking. You should be supporting the businesses that have helped keep downtown Stillwater thriving and require that the apartment complex provide the 110 residential parking spots and 24 guest parking spots without taking up all of the limited street parking. Alternatively you could require that they decrease their building by one floor, thus decreasing their need for parking as well as not needing the height variance they are requesting. Heathyre Sayers Abbi Wittman From: STEVEN WAHLQUIST <STEVENWAHLQUIST@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:21 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Re: 200 Chestnut Street [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Abbi, I watch the HPC meeting tonight and have a couple of comments. 1) I would like to suggest that the metal siding be replaced with limestone or some other natural material. 2) I feel that there needs to be some more detail, possibly window trim to make this building fit with our historic downtown. Now it does not have any character. 3) I agree that this building can only be 3 stories tall. 4) What type of railings will there be on the roof and will they be visible from the street? I am concerned that the railings fit with our downtown. Thanks, Steven Wahlquist Sent from my iPad On Jan 19, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> wrote: Craig: https://public.ci.stillwater.mn.us/WebLink/0/doc/881416/Pagel.aspx is a direct link to tomorrow evening's Heritage Preservation Commission's packet. The anticipated review schedule is: HPC—January 20, 2021 Downtown Parking Commission —January 21, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission — January 25, 2021 Planning Commission — January 27, 2021 City Council — February 2, 2021 Please note only the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings (where the public is invited to comment at the meeting). We will include any written comments in the public record, share them with the commission and applicant, as well as address them in the meetings. You can access public meeting packets and videos of the meetings (including live stream) for any of the aforementioned meetings at https://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/city-government/meeting-agendas- minutes-and-material/meeting-videos. Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 1 P: 651-430-8822 I F: 651-430-8810 2 Jenn Sundberg From: Morgan Wells <mwells@agmotion.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:12 AM To: Planning Dept Subject: Chestnut building [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning and thank you for the notification about the Chestnut building proposal. As an adjacent property owner, I fully support this development and think it will bring additional vibrancy to downtown. Do you happen to have the contact information for Joel Hauck, the applicant? I'd like to introduce myself and offer any support I can for them during their construction process. Thank you Morgan Wells Stapleton Properties 612-834-6400 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2/24/2021 200 CHESTNUT ST S STILLWATER, MN 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 4-5 PRECEDENT IMAGES 6-8 SITE CONTEXT 9-15 HEIGHT & MASS ANALYSIS 16-17 BIRDS EYE VIEWS 18 CHANGE SUMMARY 19-30 DESIGN PERSPECTIVES 31-35 FLOOR PLANS 36-40 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 40-55 CONTEXT PERSPECTIVES 56-60 LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 61-64 PROJECT COMPARISION PROJECT VISION The proposed project will redevelop a site currently occupied by a 1960's-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a new 61-unit residential apartment community with 73 below -grade park- ing stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of one -bedroom, two -bedroom and penthouse units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based econo- my, families, and empty nesters. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house three penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater's rooftops and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The invit- ing pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top dis- trict. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the bars, restaurants and shops that make Stillwater such a unique community. PROJECT METRICS Level Total Construction GSF Plaza / Roof Terrace GSF Total Enclosed GSF Parking/ Mech GSF Residential Stalls Public Parallel Stalls Total Residential GSF Amenity GSF RSF Circulation GSF Units Efficiency (RSF/GSF) Minus 1 27,958 27,958 27,958 73 Level 1 25,883 2938 22,945 1,716 26 21,229 2,182 16,303 2,744 18 76.8% Level 2 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 3 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 4 8,990 3138 5,852 5,852 749 4,633 470 3 79.2% Total 108,071 6,076 101,995 29,674 73 261 72,321 2,931 61,370 8,0201 61 Unit Metrics Studio Alcove 1 Bed 1 Bed + D 2 Bed Total Levell 5 7 2 4 18 Level2 4 6 2 8 20 Level3 4 6 2 8 20 Level4 3 3 Total 0 13 19 6 23 61 Bedrooms 13 19 12 46 90 PROJECT ANALYSIS Zoning Analysis Lot Size (gsf) 29,035 Lot Size (acres) 0.67 Proposed FAR 2.49 Proposed DU/acre 92 Zoning District CBD: Central Business District Downtown Height Overlay Historic Building Adjacency no adjacent buildings Max height 3 Stories / 37' Proposed height 4 Stories / 48.5' Required Parking 92 Residential, 20 Guest Proposed Parking 73 Residential, 26 Parallel Stalls Building Area Analysis Site = 29,035 SF Level GSF % Site Minus 1 27,958 96% Level 1 25,883 89% Level 2-3 22,620 78% Level 4 8,990 31% esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT SUMMARY 3 4500 FRANCE AVE (Architect: ESG) THE ELYSIAN (Architect: ESG, Developer: Reuter Walton) LORA HOTEL (Architect: ESG) esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PRECEDENT PROJECTS 4 436 CHESTNUT ST E 321 MAIN ST S 123 2ND ST N A 102 2ND ST S esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN STILLWATER DESIGN CONTEXT 5 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT PLAN 6 DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY MAP .� .' Road centerlines CBD Height Overlay District Riverside -1.5 storiesl2O' Parkside - 2.5 stories/30' Historic - 3 stories/37' Bluffside - 4 storiesl45' Bluff Top - 3 stories/35' ZONING MAP (DETAIL) CBD: Central Business District esG REUTERWAL,TON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ZONING & HEIGHT DISTRICT MAPS 7 VIEW FROM CHESTNUT ST VIEW FROM 2ND ST VIEW FROM UNION ALLEY VIEW FROM MYRTLE ST esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EXISTING SITE IMAGES 8 5TH STREET S 845' +28 4TH STREET S 817' +79 3RD STREET S 738' 2ND STREET S 708' UNION ALLEY 700' ST CROIX TRAIL N 695' WATER STREET S 691' SAM BLOOMER 677' RIVER esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE SECTION 9 10'-0" SETBACK) 1 2ND STREET S 0 ELEVATOR OVERRUN LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 10 2ND STREET S BUILDING HEIGHT ELEVATOR OVERRUN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY M CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 11 2ND STREET S LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EW SECTION - HEIGHT 12 0 i- m 2ND STREET S AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 11-0" es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION - HEIGHT 13 f sw `.. ST CROIX RIVER STILLWATER, MN 1 321 S Main (Alfresco): 50' on Main; 116' on Nelson Alley 2 312 S Main (Nacho Mama's): 22' on Main, 100' on Nelson Alley 3 302 S Main (Whitey's Saloon) 25' on Main, 95' on Olive St 4 236 S Main (American Gothic Antiques): 36' on Main, 100' on Olive 5 201 S Main (Mara-Mi): 50' on Main, 116' on Chestnut 6 102 Main St S (Black Letter Books) 50' on Main, 100' on Myrtle St 7 102 2nd St (Gazette): 22 on 2nd, 108' on Myrtle 8 123 2nd (JX Venue): 70' on 2nd, 200' on Commercial es G REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING MASS ANALYSIS 14 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • / / I I / ♦ ♦ / • / ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ / • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • 0 i • • • HISTORIC HEIGHT 1 OVERLAY 2 STORY BUILDING ■ 3 STORY BUILDING ■ 4+STORY BUILDING 41 ill .4 E 4 Y _� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ▪ 1 / I I I ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 40' ♦ • • • • 0 ♦ ♦ ♦ --• ♦ ;1404 • 39' 0 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 90 ▪ ♦ i ♦ • ,• HISTORIC HEIGHT 1_ _ ♦ OVERLAY 4 2+ STORY BUILDINGS + 37 FT BUILDINGS 1 1 es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS 15 esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - SOUTHEAST 16 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - NORTHWEST 17 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE 12/16/20 & 1/20/21 HPC MEETINGS Ask: Reduce 4th Story - Reduced Level 4 GSF by -7,400 SF Removed 62% of the units on 4th level. Units removed along the West and North Elevation. Added windows and raised planters to north and west elevation at level 4. Ask: Lap Siding is not an appropriate material for Stillwater - Removed All Fiber Cement Panel from project. Replaced with vertical metal panel (similar to Lora Hotel). - Added masonry to East and West Elevation in place of fiber cement panel Ask: Union Alley needs to feel more pedestrian - Reduced height of Cast in Place concrete planters by 2' along Union Alley. Top of planter wall now 3' above sidewalk. Designed intermediate picket railings between planters for added transparency between public and private spaces. Ask: North Elevation (Myrtle) needs more articulation - Relocated NE balcony stack to North Elevation to provide improved architectural interest along Myrtle St. Ask: Increase storefront expression at South Elevation (Chestnut). - Fitness room relocated adjacent to building entrance. Storefront glazing added to this portion of the elevation. Ask: Revise East and West Elevations (long and tall) Removed the 4th floor units on West Elevation. Results in 3 story facade in lieu of 4. Reduced height of balcony piers on West Elevation per 4th floor revision. - Added 3 story mass (clad in masonry) to East and West Elevation. Building Metrics Update: - Reduced total unit count from 73 to 61 (-12) Reduced total bedroom count from 102 to 90 (-12) Parking Ratio updated - 1.20 esG REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CHANGE SUMMARY 18 es G REUTERWALTOl DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER VIEW 19 - on,,,...... :L= ir_mWr .N. -A mil M. MO .="..... Mt mam M. mm mi. AM M▪ O NM m. • - -...... i M. m=•••• .• MD ilmi., MP iim ' '....TAA -AM' 7=1?...=.•.=== .2•Ert=t2; . AA". MEM. OM.. imm Mm A • iimim .1m 4-. AM ... WM Z.. rt. •-• . .....IM ........1. A ....=.1.....=.. Cr= •••• '.iir.M. Am MIT-. 'imaTE. M. r . r r-7 1 W.m.'ffil • 7 " . m . . •• . . •• r . . . . "Wr. c... .tz.l.r.— ' r .: r... . 7 I : Mmr+ . a . r". d ..17 Z• `lb Fr. = i .w . . : T.. rr '. . . .rr. W. i . . . . XEM r,L▪ . Tj St4-1:72k. .• :M' E g . . er 674.:.: t." a EIE:LI' la rd ' r4eintl EL E4713 :" El =^ E. :4:"Zeai •17—M a ::" Me..E.4 a € :WA ri'X'aZri i : E,1• • =3"i zaFak. - ; 3.7 17-17;7-• L .2•4L • Lr. •=. • - - "= • . ai 47:4 al= AS PO a 4:74A14: ::W:Sg • "="77 . • ••=.=••••i mr= - " 7.7r. " • • - - . . . • - • 11 1! .• nm• I 71M:711 71 mlmHz &.• ••• AM mi. AM ••• AM M N.Wmaxm•mm AM ara ala adram... 'al. am. Mammy .1• •._• man aaraa..c . a am ma aim =Fa a-• MM• • • Ms= • I • • • • • • • ETP• C• • • = =7= = • " "r"' aerm. 1.‘ "'-WM. r7j• • 1=11/27 rrmli• • r • •.2Sr • esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ELEVATION ON CHESTNUT 20 esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER VIEW 21 i y�Yr�� �yr��® ........0:;-..p...:;_... _TN.: '41'.•.-.2%:‘:'--...°."r":*..' ' ...r.7� .1. VA 7 3 3 • I 3 7 " 1 7 3 • 2 3 ...00.1.00?dell=r ...7.1:=1.t.'--="P.--..m.0t; a- rt '- fir �, j�w'� r• rj�ir�rw!" sr MM. �Lr mr.t. M 11. �sw �ZsZ1" slam alga nEi e SG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW ON 2ND ST 22 esG I REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NW CORNER VIEW 23 es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST 24 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NE CORNER VIEW 25 �►ram''!, ►.-��r �diAs!!l�f'r0.A mow-Pr/ 01,0 Wit.-.► 0100 7.70 .10 .fir e sG R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN UNION ALLEY VIEW 26 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY 27 1 RIR Pie tail „pm_ iiiirrairit eta aft sag • 444:17,44.7:1:%, R es G REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 28 es G REUTERWA LTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 29 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PEDESTRIAN VIEW ON 2ND ST 30 esG REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE PLAN 31 MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 2'-5" TO P.L. 26 25 24 23 3' - 0 3/8" TO P.L. 1,307 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,262 SF GARAGE ACCESS 21 RAM P DOWN PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF — SCREENED TRANSFORMER 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 19 UNION ALLEY 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 986 SF i8 4 TERRACE 2,938 SF 1 BED 856 SF LIRLULA I IUN 2,586 SF 2ND STREET SOUTH 1 BED 986 SF 1 A6 lb 5 6 7 8 1,249 SF 1 BED 887 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 13 -1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. 9 LOBBY/LEASING 1,642 SF 10 FITNESS 540 SF 11 ALCOVE 540 SF 1,252 SF 1'-O"_} TO P.L. Scale: 1" = 20'-0" TO DOWNTOWN CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 I Al 32 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF 66'-O" 66'-O" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 1,342 SF 1 BED 887 SF 41' - 0" 115'-O" 1 BED 864 SF CIRCULATION 403 SF 1 BED 986 SF 55' - 0" 1 BED 864 SF 1 BED 986 SF 1,251 SF 1 BED 887 SF 41' - 0" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 66' - 0" 66' - 0" 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF 1 1 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 I A2 33 0 GREEN ROOF TRAYS TFRRACF GREEN 3,138 SF ROOF TRAYS PATI') PATIO ILO o 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED AMENITY I 1,779 SF 1,456 SF 1,398 SF 749 SF I —I I I I 1 1 r F F PLANTERS I I I CIRCULATION 1,710 SF I Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH es REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 34 2'-5" TO P.L. 247'-0" GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER 0 I I I I I I I I RAMP UP _ 1'-41/4" TO P.L. PARKING 27,958 SF 0 0 0 n 3.90% 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 r TRASH 0 0 u u r, r, S - STANDARD STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 18'-0" DEEP C - COMPACT STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 16'-0" DEEP Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL MINUS 1 I A4 35 EXTERIOR MATERIALS ALUMINUM WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM BALCONY !. WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL - I FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS METAL PANEL AND BALCONY RECESS METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN METAL PANEL METAL INFILL PANEL vur MECHANICAL LOUVER BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY OR 411111111111 EMI MOM 1 BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING PREFINISHED METAL COPING PRIMARY BUILDIJNG ENTRANCE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM PREFINISHED METAL COPING MASONRY VENEER CAST STONE WINDOW SILL FIBERGLASS WINDOWS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTOl DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION I A5 ( CHESTNUT ST) 36 METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING I MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT BALCONY RECESS EXTERIOR MATERIALS WI 1111111111ala -Mg IOW I BRICK VENEER !gl CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING ALUMINUM BALCONY FIBERGLASS WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL WINDOW ROOF PLANTERS 11 II-T_ II II MI • • • • • • •N ■• II 1 II A ii ii I I ■• 'III I • • • • poi , 1p 111 • • METAL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER FIBERGLASS MASONRY SLIDING PATIO VENEER DOOR METAL PANEL AT BALCONY MIN MASONRY VENEER BASE t MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN • 11 . i METAL PANEL CAST STONE WINDOW SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION I A6 (2ND ST) 37 METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBERGLASS WINDOWS MASONRY VENEER ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL INFILL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL EXTERIOR MATERIALS rrrrIL 1111111111ala MIMI M ,IMO BRICK VENEER !gl CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND METAL PANEL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL RAILING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NORTH ELEVATION I A7 ( MYRTLE ST) 38 AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL EXTERIOR MATERIALS Mg UMW I ■ BRICK VENEER !gl CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL M ECHANICAL LOUVER I uuIHu�L 111iF -f ipr METAL PARAPET COPING II M . ■■ ■I■ -- ■■ !!!! ■■ ■■ ■ Si Ems ■ • • • ■ ■I ■i ■ I■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , ■■■ ■ ■■ II■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ =■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 - ■ PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS SCREENED TRANSFORM ER AREA OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS MASONRY METAL VENEER PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EAST ELEVATION I A8 ( UNION ALLEY) 39 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT VIEW KEY 40 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - EXISTING 41 esG REUTEROVALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - PROPOSED 42 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - EXISTING 43 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - PROPOSED 44 • m71.1",L5:LT. �i.^ ww"+ y,i.+rrrr^ter l"w"'m IMP Ili 1111 11111II11A HIM�`� .—.w..rw....r...w........ k" .c._ w.r. .rr.rmw...^a m.�..iR.wum mo m..w.mmaw. rr rr..w. . wm}w.�.rs.arrrrw ordmim +r mwammwmmwmpliammigwrramprimmm MMWmmale 1a11•a. "7 Y_ --- - MM.= esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - EXISTING 45 W».�... %T '" mrrarr. rr�= .rrr.r..rM.a '.. M . MO imMOMMOmmO ' III MI 'Offal"' milt MO rar..w., memMMOMMomMO momasrwr^a� M. NEPOMM=MOOMmOMOWNOOMmoOMO= MOM r_'r."airs __s arraa�ir`+raaaa� .....ter ..r.. ........47......................... ... r.r.......• ....rra+rr.. rr.�.rr.....r.•.+•• ...rrr� r r' ' �ra�s++a�r....sr- ^�'�f.r.r�araa.��e wit? r arr.i....ar w. r i mmmmmmmmm mm .,r.rr.r.rrri • • rra 11 e SG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - PROPOSED 46 es G REUTERWA LTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 47 es G REUTERWA LTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 48 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - PROPOSED 49 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 50 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 51 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - PROPOSED 52 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 53 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 54 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - PROPOSED 55 GREEN ROOF TRAYS PA 10 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12/16/2020 2 BED 1,616 SF MECH 2 BED 1,561 SF U 2 BED 1,440 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS P 0 2 BED 1,322 SF Tr 2 BED 1,629 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS PAT 0 14'-O" 1 BED 887 SF 2 BED 1,774 SF n 1 21c1' - RR TERRACE 854 SF ill AMENITY 576 SF Lim 2 BED 1,566 SF p,,T • GREEN ROOF TRAYS 14'-0" GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 32 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 56 i- m O O 14'-O" REMOVED 5,450 SF 1,561 SF PRINT REM (5,450 SF 1,440 SF 1,322 SF RR 1,566 SF TERRACE 854 SF AMENITY 576 SF 14'-0" PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 57 1,759 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS 66' - O" HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1/20/2021 115'-O" PATIO CIRCULATION 1,688 SF O GREEN ROOF TRAYS 66' - 0" TERRACE 2,041 SF AMENITY 4,176 SF GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG I REUTERWALTON OW/ MOM ZE 200 CHESTNUT STREET ctillwatar nnni LEVEL 4 I A3 I IDnATIn es G R EUTERWA LTOl DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 58 O 66' - 0" 115' - 0" 66' - 0" 35' - 8" 0 m N O P AT 10 GREEN ROOF TRAYS • PATI 0 1,440 SF CIRCULATION 1,688 SF A"K O O REMOVED 1,950 SF TERRACE 2,041 SF AMENITY 4,176 SF 14'-0" GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 n 11 o f i /1 I I 1 A5 PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 59 0 GREEN ROOF TRAYS TFRRACF GREEN 3,138 SF ROOF TRAYS PATI') PATIO ILO o 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED AMENITY I 1,779 SF 1,456 SF 1,398 SF 749 SF I —I I 1 I 1 1 r PLANTERS I I I CIRCULATION 1,710 SF I Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH es REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 60 DOUGHERTY BLOCK TOWER ADDITION OWNER: CHUCK 4 JUDO` DOUGHERTY 5T.CROIX PRESERVATION CO ARCHITECT: MICHAEL F. DIEM ARCI-INET INC., STILLWATER CONTRACTOR: 6+n N5ON-ORTh es G REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 61 WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" .7m.= 17:7 ��g 11 , EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT = 41'-0" esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 62 WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 63 0 1r L WATER STREET INN 200 CHESTNUT 0 1r 2ND STREET S WATER STREET INN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 64 THANK YOU iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission January 27, 2021 February 24, 2021 Michael Russ Michael Russ CASE NO.: 2021-02 Variance to the rear yard setback, in order to split the property into two separate lots. 819 William St North RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Mr. Russ owns the 15,000 sf property at 819 William St North and is looking to split his lot into two 7,500 sf lots. However if the lot were to be split, the existing house would then fall within the newly created 25' rear yard setback. While the house would meet all the other setbacks, a variance to the rear yard setback would have to be approved prior the City Council's consideration of a resubdivision. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 3.5' variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a house to be setback 21.5' from the rear yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 25 feet. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. CPC Case 2021-02 Page 2 of 5 The property is zoned RB, Two -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? The purpose of the Rear Yard Setback is for uniform neighborhood development and to prevent structures from being built too close to the neighboring property for personal use, drainage, and safety related issues. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? As proposed, the existing house does not meet the required setback but would still have adequate spacing between the house and the proposed rear property line. Also, there is ample opportunity for rainwater infiltration on the property because the surface coverage is well below the maximum allowed 50%. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for higher density and infill development in this area of the City. 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 I the landowner; and the rtT'°u 5{fEU(1,,�; _ s4c.z �� � c0(.�/ r�s variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A single-family home on a 7,500 sf property is reasonable in the RB zoning district. r5o po S89'45 NV wee tISNC C 0• mei tl °' war. ne w K v w= w CPC Case 2021-02 Page 3 of 5 b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? This property is a corner lot, which means the setback requirements are tougher than if this were an interior lot. As you can see in the image above there is only a small section of land that is considered buildable, and a large portion of the lot is dominated by setbacks. Also, the existing house is setback 6.6' farther back than needed, if the house had been placed right at the 20' front setback line, there would be no need for a variance to the rear yard setback. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. This single-family house was erected on a double lot in 1956. The property has the minimum required square footage in order to split the lot, however when constructed the house was situated in location that was in the center of the two lots (See image below). d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negative impacts to the surrounding locality. This request very small in size and, because the way this corner lot is laid out, this variance would not be significantly noticeable when looking at the property from the street. Additionally, when originally platted by Staples and May this block was divided up into 12 lots, however today there are only ten lots. So if the applicant split his lot there would still be less lots and density than originally intended. Furthermore, when comparing this block to other blocks in the neighborhood, you can see that most blocks have a fairly high density similar to that of this block. In conclusion, allowing a variance to the rear yard setback will not conflict with the current pattern of development in the neighborhood. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? For the most part, lot splits and the creation of new lots are financially motivated decisions. However, if the applicant wishes to split the lot, a variance to some extent CPC Case 2021-02 Page 4 of 5 is unavoidable, because the house is setback from the front lot line a bit further than the code requires. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. There are no conflicts with any other City department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021- 02, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. The variance shall only become effective once a resubdvision is approved by the Stillwater City Council and recorded by the applicant. 3. 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 variance. 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 rear yard variance meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties, such as the property being a tight corner lot where the house is setback a bit further than required, have been established. Additionally, staff puts forth that this variance would be in harmony with the visual character of the neighborhood because there this block originally intended to have 12 lots on it, though there are only ten now. Furthermore, when looking at other similar -sized blocks in the neighborhood, there were a considerable amount of them in which their densities seemed consistent with that of ten to twelve lots per block. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-02 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plan Setback map CPC Case 2021-02 Page 5 of 5 cc: Michael Russ II x Ada • -,74111110 IR HICKORY 1/19/2020 Variance Application Narrative Property: 819 William St N — Stillwater, MN PID 2803020210089 This variance request seems reasonable for these reasons: 1. I propose to use the land as a single family residence which is consistent with both the zoning and the city's comprehensive plan for "in fill" lots. The total square footage of both lots will be 7500 sq/ft each. The variance to the set back will not affect the current home at 819 William St N in it's use, purpose or function. Applicant is the owner of 819 William St N so it will not negatively impact any other homeowner. 2. The request is due to circumstances unique to the property. The landowner did nothing to create a need for the variance. 3. The variance will not alter the use, look or character of the neighborhood but only enhance it with a new single family style home which further supports the city's comprehensive plan. W. ELM ST. • LEGEND WEST ELM STREET N89°45' 14"E 150.00 -- FOUND I/O' IRON PIPE PT LOT CORNED [.7 41a 000 p Go �Oo FOUND/2' IRON PRE Itag4E0 04 LOT ilsl 150 00 S89'45 14"W FENCE EXISTING _FENCE CORNER 01-• FOUND I/2 NOUSE GONER 0 5 OF LOT IRON RPE LINE ARCED RLS N Of LOT 7447 06 N LNE OF LOT CORNER • O M�Ai.aw�i.n lsn. 20 rnnonrei B➢ .1rclw -ku«.rw.. T— WIRE -0- en0110.1 • ww..w. ▪ RITTTR O } ww.w0s O rf.. Row.. • w O°r 0°r01.010.45.11. 20 1 —aaw. e wA u WATER • resAnhilitew To WAIN W. we ORAL RATT 01 "s aw e OlOGERVIRROCM O 01.F4 % ® sywe.00. ORATOCHAATIR a naea.nT - Luyca..a - a.a{WAOL.a rrsole • 011e100.0 elm �— 5AwA 41600 41.0 nna iwxw yu.LL raven WORcr UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES r EXISTING LEGA{, DESCRIPTION' (AS SHOWN ON AVAIIARI F TAX RECORDS) Lois 2 and 3, Block 12, STAPLES AND MAY'S ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota. TITLE NOTES- wa TTT%X COM%4IN08t OR Tr-raOPPItONWA.4 RELTrymO THAT SHOWS THE RECORDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR ANY EASEMENTS 0R ENCUMBRANCES EFFECTING THE PARCEL SURVEYED. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THIS SURVEY ONCE SAID TITLE WOkR 15 RLLLWLEL EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. SURVEY NOTES: I. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983. BEARING ARE DIFFERENT THAN SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT, ALL INTERIOR ANGLES MATCH THE RECORDED PLAT ANGLES. 2, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. LXISTING IMPROVEMENT AREAS: HOUSE -1,215 BLS SQUARE tut! CONC./STEPS/PAVERS = 430 DRIVEWAY - 331 WINDOW WELLS = 6 WALLS = 35 SHED = 42 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS = 2,059 SQ.FT. = 13.7% DEVELOPEMENT DATA TOTAL EXISTING PARCEL AREA = 15,000 SQ, FT. PROPOSED PARCEL A - 7,500 SQ. FT, v PROPOSED PARCEL B = 7,500 SQ. FT THE UNOERGR4UNO 4T11 MPS SHOWN HAVE EEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE DR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) 2031 71986 SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST_ PALL BEFORE YOU DEL Gopher State One Call MIN COY AREA 651-45‘-0002 TOLL FREE I-60 252-1166 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - AFTER SUBDIVISION PARCEL A = 2,017 5Q.FT / 26.9% PARCEL B = TBD (SHED TO BE REMOVED) PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRiPTJONS: PARCEL A That part of Lots 2 and 3, Block 12, STAPLES AND MAY'S ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota lying westerly of the easterly 75.00 feet thereof. PARCELS The easterly 75.00 feel of Lots 2 and 3. Block 12, STAPLES AND MAY'S ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota. • NORTH 20 40 CONTACT'. M1DtAEL RUSS LEADER REAL ESTATE GROUP 612-325-1325 mruss@leader-reg, cD m COUNTY/cm, w.4sri11-4 -1-On1 COUNTY CITY OF F1LLWATEE2 REVISIONS DATE RTVLSION 11-1B-20 ISSUED CERTIFICATION I % e.W «nlN lher I Ns atm was prephe d 2y y'yrvv m0ie y doter.upenn, are' Mk! •ei • ISO. 1.010004 4vl5 ... wide ihr'Wwool I h. 11.I..1 Mnryyyl1 Da1, Tlnlnw, aig,.lnlra2..11e1,6y1 ?MI Dare: 11-1 B-20 PROJECT LOCATION: WILLIAMS ST. N. PID#2803020210089 Suite 4200 1970 Nolthweslern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dangcssurvey net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME SUltVL26sS PROJECT NO. ZZ20655 MINOR SUBDIVISION 5'4elf'Re4'r S + ul °"' r • 5eXock7 f-fprox/ +60,cks — S-cf-(,c,c Vs do ( n.e,c o • 7 .1/0' RON j API LAa FLAT • F01,14) 117 IRON POT MOM 111-s 7447 0,6' N, WEST ELM STREET N89'4.5'14"F 150.00 _-,.r • - - - - - ---y - - a_ - a. • how aMPILY -WOO, " ..,iir/%(//27>rrr�rr�rr'rrr,� - K OF LOT 1. '41; 150.po S89'45 14" W CORER O +' -'✓ 5. Of ►or LAE • l• • PARCEL. 6 PENCE O Q 0 iwater FFIF RIFITHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT MEMO DATE: HEARING DATES: LANDOWNER: DEVELOPER: REQUEST: 1. 2. 3. 4. LOCATION: COMP PLAN: ZONING: REVIEWED BY: February 19, 2021 Planning Commission Park Commission City Council Gary Jorgensen CASE NO.: 2021-03 February 24, 2021 February 22, 2021 March 16 & April 6, 2021 Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development Rezone from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential Concept Shoreland District Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat approval of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, a 12-lot residential development Setback variance from Highway 96 13187 Dellwood Road North (aka State Hwy 96) 2384 Oak Glen Trail Low/Medium Density Residential 1) Base Zoning: AP, Agricultural Preservation 2) Overlay Zoning: Natural Environment Shoreland Management District Shawn Sanders, City Engineer Abbi Wittman, City Planner Tom Ballis, Deputy Fire Chief Dan Scollan, DNR East Metro Interim Hydrologist Cindy Shilts, Stillwater Building Official David Kratz, MNDOT Senior Transportation Planner Karen Kill, Administrator, Brown's Creek Watershed District REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, LLC, is proposing to develop 4.19 acres of land that currently includes two parcels with a home on each. These parcels are located at 13187 Dellwood Road North (State Hwy 96) and 2384 Oak Glen Trail. About half of the property (2.02 acres) lies within the Natural Environment Shoreland District of South Twin Lake (see Map A). On these 2.02 acres, development must either be Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition February 19, 2021 Page 2 on one acre lots or must occur as a Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD). A shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the site remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake; 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. The developer has chosen to develop the entire site as a PUD, and the western 2.02 acres according to Shoreland PUD standards. South Twin Lake Shoreland Management District SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of the following: 1. Rezone the property at 13187 Dellwood Road from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 2. Concept PUD for a 12-lot development plan (includes both existing parcels); 3. Preliminary Plat of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, an 11-lot residential development (not including the existing lot at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, which is already platted); 4. Variance from the minimum allowed setback distance from State Highway 96 in order to build new houses as close as 45 feet from the standardized right-of- way, rather than the 100 feet required; and Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING The parcel at 13187 Dellwood Road North is currently zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation. The developer is requesting that it be rezoned to RB, Two -Family Residential. The lot at 2384 Oak Glen Trail is zoned RA, Single -Family Residential and the plan is to keep the zoning the same. The rezoning to RB for the larger parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides development of the property as Low/Medium Density Residential. The Zoning Districts that are consistent with the Low/Medium Density Residential classification are: CCR, RB and CR. The first addition of Heifort Hills Estate was also rezoned to RB. II. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the portion of the site within the shoreland district remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake; 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site shoreland district portion of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. This Concept PUD includes nine detached townhomes, one new single family home, and two existing single family homes that will be incorporated into the PUD. The cluster of nine detached townhomes has been located toward the east side of the property furthest away from South Twin Lake. Even though the PUD includes the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, the preliminary plat does not, since it is already platted. See Map C on the Page 5 for Concept PUD layout. Access Access is one of the most complicated aspects of this project. MnDOT will allow the existing access on Highway 96 to remain, but only one additional house may use this driveway. And, given that the east bound right turn lane into Oak Glen Trail begins right where the driveway intersects with the highway, MnDOT would prefer if the existing drive were eliminated. Since no additional access is allowed onto Hwy 96, an alternate access point is necessary to develop the property. To accomplish this, the developer has acquired control of the Oak Glen Trail lot. And he proposes to thread the private road past the existing house there to Oak Glen Trail. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 4 The normal minimum distance between centerlines of offset legs of an intersection is 150 feet. The proposed offset is only about 30 feet. As a PUD, this project is allowed to develop with alternate road design standards. But, the alternate design still needs to be safe to be acceptable. As seen in the attached Traffic Impact Study prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer, this causes concern. As quoted from the study, "The combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway (Neal Court) and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway". A safer intersection alignment is illustrated by the crosshatched roadway in Map B below. This represents the midway point between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane to its south. The disadvantage of the safer alignment is that the house at 2384 Oak Glen Trail would have to be moved or demolished. Map B Alternate intersection alignment Density Two separate density expectations are at play with this project. The first is that the Comprehensive Plan encourages 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre across the property. But, working against this density expectation is the fact that half the land lies within the South Twin Lake Shoreland District, which incorporates regulations that reduce its density considerably. Specifically, the State's shoreland PUD rules calculate density based upon what type of shoreland district is involved, the minimum lot size of that district, and the distance away from the lake. As long as 50% of the area within the lakeshore district is preserved as Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 5 permanently dedicated open space (i.e. an undevelopable outlot), density increase bonuses are allowed. And, the further you get from the lake, the greater the density bonus. The resulting number of houses allowed in the shoreland district of this project is calculated and presented in the table below. Residential PUD Analysis - Natural Environment Lake Density and allowable unit calculation Allowable Allowed Units with Units Allowed Total Unsuitable Suitable Min. Base Density Density Proposed transferred with Tier Area Area Area Lot Size Density Increase Incr Units to next tier transfer 3 73,852 0 73,852 40,000 1.85 200% 3.69 2.70 1.0 2.70 4 14,150 0 14,150 40,000 0.35 200% 0.71 1.60 0.0 1.70 88,002 0 88,002 4.40 4.30 1 4.40 In summary, 4.4 houses are proposed within the shoreland area of this PUD, and 4.4 houses are permitted. Map C 7 "j414 h Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition So Twin Lake shoreland district Private street New house Existing house I -// /// /A Shoreiand District open space Open space outside of Shore€and 100' setback Standardized 150' wide r-o-w Pervious turnaround Mire ' Concept PUD Layout 0 Swe Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 6 Open space within shoreland district As mentioned already, 50% of the area of a PUD within a shoreland district must be permanent open space. 50% is provided, as can be seen in the darker green color on Map C on the previous page. However, to get to 50%, the "grasscrete" pervious turnaround surface for the private road was considered open space.1 Impervious surface Only 25% of a Shoreland PUD is allowed to have impervious surface. The portion of this PUD within the shoreland district shows 24.5% impervious surface2. Setbacks With a PUD there are generally no setback standards, except from the perimeter of the project. In this case where both the existing neighborhood use and the proposed PUD use are detached single-family homes, the setbacks of the underlying zoning district (RB), shoreland overlay district, and Highway would apply to the property perimeters. Therefore, the setback lines will be: 25' from the east, south and west. And it will be 100' from a standardized right of way line along State Highway 96. The required setback is shown in red in the graphic below and magenta in Map D on the next page. As evident in Map D, none of the homes in the Oak Glen Neighborhood meet the current 100-foot setback. And the home to the immediate east of the PUD has a setback of about 45 feet. This is the setback distance requested for Lot 3. If a patio is eventually built on this lot, the setback would be measured to 1b the house, which would be about 60 feet from the standardized right-of-way. This is illustrated in the graphic to the right. 1 Roads and driveways within the open space area are not considered open space except for the pervious turnaround. 2 88,120 sf total area in shoreland district area. 66,570 sf pervious, which includes turnaround and secondary drive on Lot 8. 21,550 sf impervious. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 7 Map D Hwy 96 setback line In addition to perimeter setbacks, the detached townhomes must maintain a 5' setback from their individual lot lines, which they are proposed to do. As a PUD, the home setback distance from the internal public street is not mandated. III. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Overview The preliminary plat for this first phase consists of: • Nine detached townhomes, one new single family home, one existing single family home that will be incorporated into the PUD. As noted above, the project incorporates the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail as well, but it is not proposed to be included in this plat. • A 562' private road is proposed. This is in keeping with the 600-foot maximum allowed on a single access road. • Lots for the detached townhomes will only be large enough for the house and 5' setbacks from lot lines. The rest of the property will be platted as an open space outlot lot that will be owned in common by all the 11 lots in the plat. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 8 2. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the plan set and finds the following. • Some of the proposed houses are too close to the private road. In order to provide sufficient room for utility work and snow storage, a minimum of 10 feet should be provided from back of curb to every house foundation. • The private road will need an easement, since it is in the Home Owners' Association outlot and not being platted. • A private street maintenance agreement will be needed. • Due to potential drainage issues, especially for lookouts and walkouts, 15 feet of separation should be provided between each house. • Water mains and sanitary sewer within the private road will have to be private. • Since the water main in this project will provide public water looping, that portion of the water pipes that are public should not be in the private street. A preferred location would be in an easement along the south edge of the project. The City hired a traffic engineering consultant to study the potential impact of this residential subdivision on the intersections and roads in the neighborhood. As seen in the attached study, the projected traffic generation would not alter the current levels of service at any intersections. They will continue to operate at A and B levels. 3. Fire Safety • A cul-de-sac is preferred to a Y turn around. But, the Y turnaround is acceptable if it complies with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. • The proposed street name will need to changed, since there is already a road with that name in Stillwater. 4. Tree Preservation & Landscaping More than 35% of the tree crown coverage on the site is being removed. So, tree replacement will be required. Also, landscaping requirements of the subdivision code call for three trees per lot. The landscaping and tree replacement standards together this development require 88 trees. 76 are shown in the plan set. So, the plans need to be revised to add the 12 more trees. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 9 In addition, the mix of tree species needs to become more varied. The spruce, crabapple, and sugar maple planned represent three of the five most common genera of trees in Stillwater. They are significantly overplanted. To protect the urban forest against tree pests and disease, a greater variety of trees would be helpful. Also, the dwarf burning bush listed in the planting schedule for this project is listed by the MN Department of Agriculture as a noxious weed. It needs to be replaced in the plans with a native shrub option. 5. Park and Trail Dedication The City's Comprehensive Plan shows neither public park improvements nor public trails planned on, or along the perimeter of the property. There is a future trail envisioned along Highway 96 that would provide connections between Stillwater Township and Brown's Creek Trail. However, it is premature to acquire easements for this trail, since it has not been determined yet whether the trail should be on the north or south side of the highway. In addition, the land directly abutting the highway is not owned or controlled by the developer. It is owned by residents living in Stillwater Township on the north side of the highway. Therefore, the most appropriate form of park and trail dedication would probably be cash in lieu of land or improvements. NI Furre Trail in red NCI* Comrnuni Park �� South La k �JS Creek If the Park Commission recommends fee in lieu of land, the park dedication fee would be $2,000 per new home and the trail fee would be $500 per home. For the 10 new homes the total dedication would be $25,000. This fee would be due prior to release of the final plat. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 10 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is requested to review and: 1) decide whether to approve or deny the setback ariance, and 2) make a recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning, Concept PUD and preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, Concept PUD, rezoning and setback variance with the conditions listed below. 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: • Site Plan Sheet C1 dated 2/17/21 • Removal Plan Sheet C2 dated 2/17/21 • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Sheet C4 dated 2/17/21 • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Sheet C5 dated 2/17/21 • Utility Plan Sheet C6 dated 2/17/21 • Utility Plan Sheet C7 dated 2/17/21 • Plan and Profile Sheet C8 dated 2/17/21 • SWPP Sheet C10 dated 2/17/21 • Landscape Plan Sheet L1 dated 2/17/21 2. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 3. The design of the pervious turnaround section of the private street must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Assistant Fire Chief. 4. A minimum of 10 feet must be provided from back of curb to every house foundation. 5. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, a private road easement and maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the City and found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer. 6. The water mains and sanitary sewer lines located within the private road must be private utilities. 7. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, the section of water main that provides a public water loop must be encumbered by an easement found acceptable to the City Attorney and City Engineer and located along the south edge of the project. 8. The "Y" turnaround must comply with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition February 19, 2021 Page 11 9. The private street name will need to be changed on the final plat. 10. The access point for the private road must be shifted southward similar to the alignment shown in Map B. 11. 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. 12. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for any grading or other work within their right of way. 13. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to releasing the final plat for recording with the County. 14. If the Park Commission recommends it, a total of $25,000 shall be paid to the City for park and trail dedication fees. These fees shall be submitted to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 15. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 16. The Developer will be responsible for paying trunk sewer and water fees. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 17. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted together with final plat materials. The revised plan must show a total of 88 trees. The mix of all the tree species should be more varied and found satisfactory to the City Natural Resources Specialist. In addition, the dwarf burning bush must be replaced with a native shrub option. 18. 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. cc Todd Ganz Attachments: Development Plans SRF Traffic Impact Study MnDOT Review Letter Neighborhood Petition Public Comments (3) 7 \ \ E �- OH ���-�� ' E OHE� OHE _ .7"� ) I h^ \I %/ OHE— OHE�` - COSH T GAS1 OH / �� OHE �� HE TGA= T I / Gp E co / i 5' I \ _ OHE OHE OHE �o 0� I GP5 GE GA UGE� UGE /,-/ ' 0- —E- I@° OH__ — — N. OHE �/ ' -iWL 907.7 \ OHE / - OND 1\ W ..:•5.6 G S9RETE \PAKING ,\� <__ $4-2 4 \ \\ J \ \ ^1 \\ \ \ J <v V\ \A \ \LFE90330 �1 I S FFE 9T 1.73 6\ c&GFE J08.50 t8SSCRETE' ACCESS RETAINING --WALL, RETAINING-WA�L — j TOP 907.00 TOP 907.00 BOTTOM j904.Q0 -1307M 9904.00_ \GF 91Q 10 549 E 913 33 LFEE3[50 FFE12.78 4 , G 91.20 910.10 E 913.33 LF19t50 TRUNK HSGNWAV 98 FE 912.91 I GFE 104i_ oFE (910.50 G WALL 908.33 0TT0M 904.3 • MH 125 RETAIN!I TOP 91 BOTTOM CD— w CD OHE \ — RETA♦NING WALL TO,P 910.00 BOTTOM 906.00 2 I I i CB CBMH 23 A 122 120'SETBACK 7 SWENSON,STREET I I/ I\ / / / / / NOTES: 1. SEE RETAINING WALL PROFILES FOR DETAILS 2. RETAINING WALLS BY OTHERS. LEGEND DS DOWNSPOUT LOCATION III I 0 15 30 60 FEET REAR1OF LOT I—i11 plr' I L -I L112i FRONT OF LOT TYPICAL EASEMENT DETAIL LOT WIDTH AT BACK OF LOT LOT LENGTH LOT NUMBER LOT WIDTH AT FRONT OF LOT TYPICAL LOT DETAIL n) GOPNE■ih,STATE ONE Air CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION SITE PLAN DWG: 1908 SITE PLAN DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C1 OF 30 FILE: 35-2-106 DATE REG. NO. DESIGN BY: EL DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC NOTES: r SOG GFE: 907.9 FFE: xxx / /! / �v\ / \ _ \ \/ o \ 1 1 \ \\ \ . \,, � 1 -� \ \ \ SOG GFE: 908\50 FFE: 911.7r3 SOG GFE: 910.20 FFE: 912.78 WO GFE: 910.10` GFE: 910.10 LFE: 903.50 LFE: 903.50 FE: 910.10 LFE: 903.50 11 1. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING OF TOPSOIL TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS DESIGNATED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. COVER OR SEED ALL STOCKPILE AREAS. 3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. *SEE SWPPP AND THE PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION GRADING PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO BEGIN PRIOR TO SILT FENCE PLACEMENT. 5. AREAS USING SEDIMENT LOGS WILL BE PLACED AS THE SECOND LAYER OF PERIMETER CONTROL BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, CLOSEST TO THE PROTECTION AREA 6. SILT FENCE CANNOT BE REMOVED UNTIL RCWD HAS DETERMINED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE FULLY STABILIZED. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CANNOT BE REMOVED. 7. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE EROSION. 8. SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO THE STREET FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL BE REMOVED ON A DAILY BASIS. 9. WHEREVER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT(MUD) BY RUNOFF OR VEHICLE TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A SEDIMENT CONTROLLED DISPOSAL AREA. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. 10. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SILT FENCE AND ROCK EXITS, WHICH SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MADE SERVICEABLE PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING OPERATIONS. 11. ALL EROSION FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS AND UNTIL AFTER TURF IS ESTABLISHED. 12. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF LEGALLY AND OFF -SITE, ALL TREES, STUMPS, BRUSH OR OTHER DEBRIS FROM REMOVALS OR ANY DEBRIS THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS. 13. ALL GRADED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 4:1. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND CONNECTION POINTS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES, CITY , STATE AND COUNTIES. 15. ALL INFILTRATION AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREA AND THIS AREA IS PROTECTED FROM COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA. 16. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTION TO SURFACE WATER. 17. ALL RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A FILTER MATERIAL OR SOIL SEPARATION FABRIC AND COMPLY WITH THE 2018 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 18. TREE PROTECTION CONSISTING OF SNOW FENCE OR SAFETY FENCE INSTALLED AT THE DRIP LINE SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY GRADING OR DEMOLITION WORK AT THE SITE. 19. GRADES SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS REPRESENT FINISH ELEVATION. 20. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PREFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 21. AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND PRIOR TO TURF ESTABLISHMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DE -COMPACT THE SOILS IN AREAS THAT WERE DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DECOMPACTION SHALL CONSIST OF RIPPING, CULTIVATING, OR SCARIFING THE TOP 12" IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE INFILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOILS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE LOW IMPACT EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS FOR BOTH TEMPORARY AND FINAL GRADING AND SMOOTHING OF THE TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SEEDING. PAYING FOR DECOMPACTION SHALL BE FOR THE PRICE QUOTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 22. SPECIFICATIONS THAT APPLY ARE THE CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNDOT AND BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL DUST CONTROL THE COST SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. 24. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE A AND B WILL BE RETAINED, STOCKPILED, STABILIZED AND USED IN POST CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION BASINS. IF C OR D SOILS ARE FOUND IN THE INFILTRATION BASIN, THEY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A OR B SOILS. 25. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS ROADWAY SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS. 26. DEWATERING IS NOT ANTICIPATED DUE TO GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, IF DEWATERING DOES OCCUR IT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE WATERSHED. DEWATERING AND DRAINING NOTES: • CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SKIMMERS AND FILTERS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. • DEWATERING SHALL TAKE PLACE AFTER SEDIMENT HAS SETTLED. • CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT EROSION AND SCOUR AT DISCHARGE POINTS THROUGH THE USE OF AN ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICE. • DEWATERING MUST AVOID NUISANCE CONDITIONS. 1 0 10 20 40 FEET UTILITIES: n) GOPNE140 STATE ONE Air CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO TI SIO �TF{A3tI AM A DULY REGI R NAL ENGINE +0411 :NESOTA.OF THE 1F15 DATE REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN WEST PLAN DWG: 1908 GRADING 1 DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C4 OF 30 DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-109 kRF To: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director City of Stillwater From: Jeff Bednar, TOPS, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist Zach Toberna, Engineer, EIT Memorandum SRF No. 02114431 Date: February 18, 2021 Subject: Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Introduction A traffic impact study (TIS) has been completed for the proposed Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development in Stillwater, Minnesota (see Figure 1: Project Location). The primary objectives of the study are to review existing operations, estimate proposed site trip generation, complete detailed traffic operations/levels of service analyses for existing and future build scenarios, evaluate access to the site and recommend improvements to ensure safe/efficient operations. This TIS will also address issues such as; a new private road to intersect with Oak Glen Trail, to be built through a developed lot with frontage on Oak Glan Trail, the minimally offset intersection created with Swenson Street causing safety concerns, close proximity to the existing home on the Oak Glen lot (currently owned by the developer but to be resold after development is complete), existing direct access on TH 96, plus proposed/recommended mitigation from any traffic impacts identified. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and study recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline for comparison and to determine potential impacts associated with the future conditions. The evaluation of existing conditions includes peak hour intersection turning movement counts, field observations, corridor/intersection capacity analyses, sight distance observations and a traffic safety assessment. Data Collection Vehicle and truck turning movement counts were collected by SRF during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak periods during the week of February 1st, 2021 at the following study intersections: • TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Oak Glen Trail • Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street • Neal Ave/Oak Glen Trail • TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Direct Access www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 I Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 1763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364 An Equal Opportunity Employer Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 3 Due to impacts in traffic volumes associated with COVID-19, the year 2021 traffic volumes collected at the study intersections were adjusted based on MnDOT available pre-COVID (year 2017) traffic volumes. Note that while February daily traffic volumes may also be seasonally impacted, traffic volumes during the commuter peak hours are not typically impacted significantly by seasonal variation. In addition to the study intersection year 2021 traffic counts, historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes within the study area were also available from MnDOT. The MnDOT year 2017 published study area AADT volumes are; 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd) on TH 96 between Oak Glen Trail and Neal Avenue, 375 vpd on Oak Glen Trail south of TH 96, 690 vpd on Oak Glen Trail east of Neal Avenue, 760 vpd on Neal Avenue south of TH 96 and 1,500 vpd on Neal Avenue south of Oak Glen Trail. MnDOT has not published Year 2019 AADT volumes for the study area, however, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was assumed and applied to estimate year 2019 and other future year background traffic volumes. Roadway Characteristics Field observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic control). TH 96 (Dellwood Road) classified as an A -Minor Arterial (Expander), is a two-lane undivided rural/suburban roadway with right -turn lanes at major intersections and a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph). Neal Avenue classified as a Minor Collector, is a two-lane undivided urban local residential roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Oak Glen Trail and Swenson Street classified as Local Streets are two-lane undivided urban residential roadways within the study area also with posted speed limits of 30 mph. Based on a review of reported crashes in the MnDOT Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT), there is not an existing traffic safety problem associated with the study area roadways. Intersection sight distance at all existing study intersections is generally reasonable. Parking on the existing study area roadways is generally unrestricted on both sides of the roadways. The existing study intersections are all side -street stop -controlled intersections. Existing study area a.m. peak hour traffic volumes (most critical hour), intersection geometrics and traffic control are shown in Figure 2. Intersection Capacity Analysis A detailed traffic operations, capacity and levels of service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the quality of operations at the study intersections under existing commuter peak hour conditions. All intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V.11) and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. Intersection capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A through D are considered acceptable traffic flow conditions. H:\Projects\14431\TS\Figures\Figure2 [kF 02114431 February 2021 Existing A.M. Peak Hour Conditions Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study City of Stillwater Figure 2 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections February 18, 2021 Page 5 LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A <_ 10 <_ 10 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F > 80 > 50 For side -street stop -controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the minor approaches. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side - street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This considers the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, most of the delay is attributed to the minor approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience increased levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side -street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing traffic operations analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate under existing geometrics and traffic control, at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours, respectively. Based on field observations, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in either the field or traffic simulation. The analysis results are based on the HCM methodology to calculate the delay at the existing study intersections which is considered to provide conservative estimates. Table 2. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Study Intersections Level of Service (Delay) A.M. Commuter Peak P.M Commuter Peak TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/0ak Glen Trail (1) A/B (11 sec.) Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street (1) A/A (9 sec.) Neal Ave/0ak Glen Trail (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) WA (9 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Direct Site Access (1) A/B (11 sec.) A/A (0 sec.) (1) Side -street stop -controlled intersection, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst movement LOS (delay). Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 6 Proposed Development The site of the proposed residential infill development (approximately 4.2 acres) is currently occupied by two single-family homes, one with direct access to TH 96 (new Lot 8, approximately 0.6 acres) and one with direct access to Oak Glen Trail (to remain Lot 3, Block 1, Oak Glen 10th Addition, approximately 0.4 acres). The proposed development site plan is illustrated in Figure 3. It was assumed the remaining land (approximately 3.2 acres) would be developed into 10 additional single-family home lots and Outlot A, containing a private road (identified Neal Court), drainage facilities and green space. Access to the proposed development is planned at the following locations: 1. New Lot 7 and Lot 8 (existing home) will share the existing direct access to TH 96. 2. Existing Lot 3, Block 1 (2384 Oak Glen Trail), direct access to remain on Oak Glen Trail. 3. New Lots 1-6 and 9-11 will access Oak Glen Trail via a private road, identified as Neal Court. The private road identified as Neal Court, is proposed to be constructed through the existing Lot 3, Block 1, Oak Glen 10th Addition, north of the existing home, intersecting Oak Glen Trail, forming a close spaced offset intersection, just south of the Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street intersection. Further discussion of the site access/circulation is included in the Site Plan Review section later in this report. Traffic Forecasts Background Growth The proposed development was assumed to be fully occupied by the year 2023. Therefore, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2024 conditions (one year after full occupancy). Based on existing area growth patterns and historical ADT volumes, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to develop year 2024 background traffic forecasts. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the weekday a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hour and daily trips were made for the proposed development based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Il E) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Results of the trip generation estimate shown in Table 3 indicate that the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 10 trips during the a.m. commuter peak hour, 12 trips during the p.m. commuter peak hour, and 112 daily trips (50% in/50% out). Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates Land Use (ITE Code) Size DU A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Trips In Out In Out New Single -Family Detached Housing/Dwelling Units (210) 10 2 6 6 4 94 Existing Single -Family Detached Housing - New Lot 8 (210) 1 0 1 1 0 9 Existing Single -Family Detached Housing- Lot 3, BIk. 1(210) 1 0 1 1 0 9 Totals 12 2 8 8 4 112 02114431 February 2021 H:\Projects\14431 \TS\Figures\Figure3 -- 0N+e- ME `ONE_ 1 ONE 3, GPE 912.54 0 O RET NC • _-' _ ra1N� NreEEwer os _ TGA9 T S -- -- --' III. NL —off ppHNa _ O__ _ _ 02 _onE ; GhE.--- aNY: __ oNE RETAINING WALL,_ TOP 9(14.JT ---ROIIOM- 90A.]1 .RETAINING WALL TOP 906.8E BOTTOM 904.0C k7FC455C RETAINING WALL TOP 910.00 BOTTOM 906,00 129' SETBACK i a"0 /I • 1 /��� 1-1 I. -- L_ A:'4 F/1 ' 1 • \ /1/v/zr // SWISNOON STREET 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1i NOTES: 1. SEE RETAINING WAIL PROFILES FOR DETAILS. 2. RETAINING WALLS BY OTHERS. LEGEND 11 'III 0 15 30 FEET REAR `JF LOT ho l - I10' I i L9:1 I L FROM TYPICAL EASEMENT DETAIL 60 LOT WIDTH AT WON OF LOT LOi LENGTH LOT NUMBER LOT ME. AT FRONT OF LOT TYPICAL LOT DETAIL /R}6 PIC CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 woo., calTuRTH6F ENERGY (763) 710-6.7 GENTERP323 2R50 GSSI IM (952) 603-4005 FRGY (303) 323-426E NGEL ENERGY (612) E26-4506 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CRY SUBMITTAL I MEREST LERPFY THAT THIS FILAR WAS INSECT SSuPODY ERBS RJ .0 THAT AN n DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER ME LAWS OF ME STATE OF MIERIBGTA_ DATE REC.. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Horn Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION SF-FE PLAN OWL. 1908 SITE PLAN DATE. 01/22/21 JOB NUMBER 1008 SHEET, C1 OF 27 DESIGN R!: DAN WM ET: GJM CHECKED BY. RIG FILE. 35-2-108 SRF Proposed Site Plan Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study City of Stillwater Figure 3 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 8 Traffic Assignment The proposed Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development site -generated trips were assigned to the study area roadway network based on an assumed directional trip distribution for the proposed development shown in Figure 4. This directional trip distribution was developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, the regional distribution of employment and households and engineering judgment. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed development for the year 2024 a.m. peak hour (most critical hour) build conditions are shown in Figure 5. Year 2024 (One Year After Full Occupancy) Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis A detailed traffic operations, capacity and levels of service (LOS) analysis was completed using a combination of Synchro/SimTraffic software and the HCM, similar to that of the existing conditions intersection capacity analysis. Results of the year 2024 operations analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate under existing geometrics and traffic control at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours, respectively. Based on observations, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in traffic simulation. Table 4. Year 2024 Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Study Intersections Level of Service (Delay) A.M. Commuter Peak P.M Commuter Peak TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Oak Glen Trail (1) A/B (12 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) Oak Glen Trail/Neal Court (New Private Road) (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) Neal Ave/Oak Glen Trail (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Direct Site Access (1) A/B (11 sec.) WA (0 sec.) (1) Side -street stop -controlled intersection, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst movement LOS (delay). Proposed Site Plan Review A review of the proposed site plan (see Figure 3) was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements in regard to intersection/access spacing, sight distance, traffic control and site circulation. Vehicular access to/from the proposed site is planned at three locations: 1. New Lot 7 and Lot 8 (existing home) will share the existing direct access to TH 96. 2. Existing Lot 3, Block 1 (2384 Oak Glen Trail), direct access to remain on Oak Glen Trail. 3. New Lots 1-6 and 9-11 will access Oak Glen Trail via a private road, identified as Neal Court. Based on field observations, engineering judgement and applicable standards, there appears to be adequate sight distance and reasonable geometrics at the TH 96 and 2384 Oak Glen Trail locations. .'ects 14431 T Fi.ures Fi.ure 02114431 February 2021 • '-Siv' erispn,5t • OakiGlen-L-n— _ �? mP Me14u5'Ek n 111 Site -Generated Trip Directional Distribution SRF Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study Y City of Stillwater • • Figure 4 H:\Projects\14431\TS\Figures\Figure5 [kF 02114431 February 2021 Year 2024 A.M. Peak Hour Build Conditions Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study City of Stillwater Figure 5 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 11 However, the proposed site access to be provided by the private road identified as Neal Court, is proposed to be constructed through the existing Lot 3, Block 1 (2384 Oak Glen Trail), immediately north of the existing home (only approximately five foot separation between roadway and dwelling), intersecting Oak Glen Trail, forming a close spaced offset intersection (only approximately 30 foot separation), just south of the Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street intersection.. Concern has been expressed in regard to the minimally offset intersection created with Swenson Street and the proximity of the proposed private roadway to the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. As can be seen in the staff provided illustration below, the combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway (Neal Court) and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail, creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway. The proximity of the proposed private roadway to the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail may create vehicle related impacts (noise, exhaust, visibility, etc.) as well as maintenance and utility conflicts (snow storage, utility and structure exterior access, etc.) for future residents of this home. An alternative configuration for the proposed private roadway (Neal Court) is recommended where the intersection with Oak Glen Trail is located midway between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane (see illustration above). This alternative would have implications as to the viability of the existing home, but it would address the minimally offset intersection and dwelling proximity issues. The design of the proposed private roadway (Neal Court), particularly the "T" Turn at the west end of the roadway, raises concern for emergency vehicle/fire apparatus as well as larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering. It is recommended that design of this private roadway accommodate emergency vehicle/fire apparatus as well as larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development traffic analysis, the following findings, conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 12 1. The study intersections currently operate under existing geometrics and traffic control at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours. Based on observations, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in the field. 2. The proposed development was assumed to be fully occupied by the year 2023. Therefore, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2024 build conditions (one year after full occupancy). Based on existing study area growth patterns, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to develop year 2024 background traffic forecasts. 3. The proposed residential infill development site is currently occupied by two single-family homes, one with direct access to TH 96 and one with direct access to Oak Glen Trail. The remaining land would be developed into 10 additional single-family homes. 4. The proposed development is expected to generate a total of 10 trips during the a.m. commuter peak hour, 12 trips during the p.m. commuter peak hour, and 112 daily trips (50% in/50% out). 5. Results of the year 2024 traffic operations analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue to operate under existing geometrics and traffic control, at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours, respectively. Based on the traffic simulation, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in the 2024 build conditions. 6. Vehicular access to/from the proposed site is planned at three locations: • New Lot 7 and Lot 8 (existing home) will share the existing direct access to TH 96. • 2384 Oak Glen Trail, existing direct access to remain on Oak Glen Trail. • New Lots 1-6 and 9-11 will access Oak Glen Trail via a private road (Neal Court). Based on field observations, engineering judgement and applicable standards, there appears to be adequate sight distance and reasonable access geometrics at the TH 96 and 2384 Oak Glen Trail locations. However, the proposed site access provided by the private road (Neal Court), does raise concerns related to the minimally offset intersection created with Swenson Street and the proximity of the proposed private roadway to the existing home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. 7. An alternative configuration for the proposed private roadway (Neal Court) is recommended where the intersection with Oak Glen Trail is located midway between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane. This alternative would have implications as to the viability of the existing home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, but it would address the intersection offset and dwelling proximity issues. 8. The design of the proposed private roadway (Neal Court), particularly the "T" Turn at the west end, raises concern for emergency vehicle/fire apparatus and larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering. It is recommended that design of this private roadway accommodate emergency vehicle/fire apparatus as well as larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering 9. Based on the findings in this report, it is concluded that the proposed development would generate a very modest level of new traffic, resulting in no perceptible degradation in peak period traffic operations and levels of service. Therefore, the City may consider the proposed Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development, without concern that it would represent a significant negative traffic impact to the supporting study area roadway system. H.\Projects\ 14000\ 14431 \TraffStudy\Reports\Report\ 14431_ Heifort Hills 2nd TIS_210218.docx M1DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION February 18, 2021 Bill Turnblad Community Development Director 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 SUBJECT: Heifort Hills Second Addition MnDOT Review #P21-006 SW quadrant of MN 96 and Oak Glen Trail Control Section: 8211 Stillwater, Washington County Dear Bill Turnblad, Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the preliminary plat and associated documents for Heifort Hills Second Addition, received 2/1/21, in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following: Site Configuration MnDOT supports the alternative site configuration presented by the City in the February 8th meeting, and attached in the follow-up notes. Removing the single-family home's driveway access to MN 96 and reconnecting to the proposed cul-de-sac would create more predictable and safe conditions for MN 96 drivers and conform to MnDOT access management standards. Removing the driveway to MN 96 may also reduce impervious surface area, helping to reach watershed standards. If home #7 were to use home #8's driveway to access MN 96, an access permit will be needed for home #7. Additionally, the portion of the current driveway that parallels within MnDOT right of way needs to be removed if any changes are made, followed by an access permit submittal. Please contact David Kratz, Metro Planning, at 651-234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions. Drainage No portion of any ponding facilities may be located on MnDOT right of way. It is not clear if the facility in the NE corner meets this requirement since water elevations are not labeled on the plans. The plans appear to show the removal of soil material from MnDOT right of way to accommodate the drainage features on the northern property line. Grading of MnDOT right of way is allowed if all stormwater is routed away from MnDOT right of way, as shown. However, removing any earth, gravel or rock from any highway is unlawful, per Minnesota Statute 160.2715. If MnDOT right of way is graded, a drainage permit will be required. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off -site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not An equal opportunity employer Page 2 of 3 increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions, or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234-7539 or jason.swenson@state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of this letter when applying for any permits. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT's Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.craig@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of documents within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. In order of preference, please submit either: 1. Email documents in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. Upload PDF file(s) to MnDOT's external shared internet workspace site at: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us for access instructions and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. You are welcome to contact me at 651-234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Mike Lynch, Right of Way Kaare Festvog, Traffic Jason Junge, Transit Ryan Coddington, Area Engineer Page 3 of 3 Adam Josephson, Area Manager Mackenzie Turner Barger, Ped/Bike Jesse Thomsen, Ped/Bike Lance Schowalter, Design Keith Jakober, Surveys Cameron Muhic, Planning Tod Sherman, Planning Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATEIJITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the creation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS EMAIL Bekh AiUy\ 2MG Oak Ger\ hQblucf. -r Wu 2;3, dctg- Y -)C1,5(Lit C VrCiailV 1, //1h/$ gf,nt4e%L 1 D/cAinl, ki‘ irc col 4f('(/2)b /9r3 wen Soh -\ 311 a 96'h0?( da Qs _ 4 & )9 ( n'1 NAME �- AI i t .�� I( SIGNATURE I �) xx,'� �-�. t✓7 / ADDRESS ? G )to rc k_ cjlF, V u .,, EMAIL O l se Q 0 p , M tice 0 IS6 20,,o 606 Oki l.an_e_ till ICI14_1 QV-4o 44 ( ;14, ( f ✓l J� 2370 Om7 ak ,(sh l Iwo kv ea,; +{ i ray v.0 ��II dckri Dc&(tc O..ti'\ mi 0 jeykisx. Howafd. 02/-/ ow( G/v-► Tek•-1 &.friti.t.uatv,iipt16-st JC,,114t lc tkvalo &4cipillA4,21aviii / dd n (�ulc 6l01 rm.i (I'm iLatkr. frhU rsogj-- v ec Uuc CCYYic Fctitykek CGndpai4 rcvr r lWd H 6/ ` -c_ afiirwR.h..-, L i -1 cs hd'rcr•, aJ Ri_iL _S _ �_k_ j� UuX !�l-w fa.�-c Jt1.// 1 , z rsli.cfcci-7,7L.cv� _SItiiCcbl1L_r1 7 D �0 02tC C�h 3tahe t' tliliva1Gf l.e.19so h 21 to d ,k 0.,„„,, C t 14rALf_T,0 /1 k O O. ►'\4^- Mu (CiA 23'o . iirtwctl-d" (-C OcttGlenfi CA , SicAwt".v( Venusfllw 44 6 C' Y\C& t \11(AL)rCi S1-0,51) ill 0 rdt n si rtzi -j/i/(.01 ,r -,1 A -5-tec" 54i II wcticri ML13-.8z bof Ntq,'i C -. a / 3 S,-(A..ce.7=,-Sf q &ti toa,i, lMN 5923D-- l'-‘ V ('(3,_ -) -, -, / i) f �^ - siil w .e- Ivy bh ry,v 1 pikes' 1 >bc (sue Gl....,. ___VAkij.k„.4,114 N JANet ity i c . eos..,. azt••-ttf nc/ /-- Tt) PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the creation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE 1 l - ADDRESS 2.3 SO b ak. Gt,At C- — Sr‘llWa r., RS%5356y.iut(,cot l 0_411_Ak l sS 049 Gar( 414 rH1zre/ 1Cvict25r?C� EMAIL 1 Bill Turnblad From: Jenn Sundberg Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:02 PM To: Bill Turnblad Subject: FW: Heifort Hills Estate - Proposed Street onto Oak Glen Trail Attachments: img0l.pdf Bill, Beth emailed you regarding CPC 2021-03. Please see her email below. Thanks! Jenn From: Beth Harrison [mailto:beth@blueboat.net] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 11:13 AM To: Planning Dept<planningdept@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Cc: Larry Odebrecht <LOdebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Heifort Hills Estate - Proposed Street onto Oak Glen Trail [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Happy Friday Mr. Turnblad, First, let me sincerely thank you for taking my phone calls, and addressing my questions and concerns regarding the proposed street easement onto Oak Glen Trail. I have truly appreciated your patience and time as we work through this. Below you will find a quick list of issues that we believe this project raises. We will be updating this list as we obtain more information and knowledge about city ordinances. You will also find attached our preliminary petition and signatures from the houses immediately affected by the proposed punched through street. We may be sending out a larger petition to the Oak Glen neighborhood as neighbors have requested that they also be included. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the issues we raise. Again, thank you for your time and service to our city! Have a nice, warm, weekend, Beth Harrison 651-247-9049 Neighborhood Petition: i Heifort Hills Estate — 2nd Addition Issues: 1. Public Opposition. a. See petition 2. Proposed street is without precedent. a. We cannot think of another street (public or private) in Stillwater that would be that close to an existing home. b. The right turn lane onto Oak Glen Trail from this proposed street goes directly into the existing homes driveway. 3. Proposed street does not meet the Stillwater street ordinances: Stillwater code: Chapter 32; subd. 6 https://library.municode.com/mn/stillwater/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeId=CH32SUCOST a. "The arrangement of streets in the new subdivision must plan for the continuation of the existing streets in adjoining areas without promoting cut throughs or short cuts that impact residential neighborhoods." b. "Partial Streets will not be permitted." c. "Private streets and reserve strips are prohibited, and no public improvements may be approved for a private street. All streets must be dedicated for public use." d. "Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than 150 feet are prohibited." e. "Streets may not be arranged in a way that will cause hardship to owners of adjoining property." 4. Permanently change the character, function and livability of our established neighborhood and causes the devaluation of our homes. a. Minimize adverse effects to the neighborhood, this is the opposite. 5. Safety will be significantly impeded. a. There is only ONE entrance and ONE exit into the nine homes. Fire trucks, ambulances, buses will may have great difficulty accessing the homes. b. It appears as though the street/private drive is only 20 feet wide, significantly less than what the ordinance requires. c. There is a "hammerhead" which will serve as the only turnaround on the street. How will school buses, ambulances and fed ex trucks turn around without using a homeowner's private driveway? 2 d. No sidewalk. There is not a sidewalk out of the development onto Oak Glen Trails. This is a significant safety concern. 6. Traffic increase onto Oak Glen Trial. a. With only one access road into the development, this appears to be the only construction traffic road. This is unacceptable in an residential neighborhood. All the dirt, tree removal, construction materials, workers cars, etc., will be entering and exiting on our road. The noise, safety concerns, inconvenience, destruction of our road will create severe adverse impacts onto our daily living. b. With the addition of approximately 18 new cars onto Oak Glen Trail this will significantly change the character and feel of our neighborhood. We have several families with children, and multiple walkers in the neighborhood whose safety could be impacted. c. MNDot has only allowed for two driveways to come from this property. One for the original house and one for a proposed new house. MNDOT believed the load would be too great onto Highway 96. What about the increase of the load for those same cars entering Highway 96 a few feet down the road from Oak Glen Trail? d. With the increase in an additional load of 18 cars, our street will not be able to withstand the weight, causing it to deteriorate faster and needing to be replaced, at an expense to the surrounding home owners. e. Why not create a street to exit onto Neal Avenue? 7. Miscellaneous issues: a. Snow removal. i. Given that the proposed street abuts the 2384 Oak Glen Trail home and there is only a few feet to the other private property. Where will the snow be plowed to? b. Construction easement. i. It doesn't appear as though the developer is requesting a construction easement to the neighbor to the north of the drive. But it appears as though they are going to need access to connect to the water main on Oak Glen Trail. c. Parking. i. Where will residents park overflow of cars? d. Storm water drainage pond. i. What is the proposal for a fence, retaining wall. e. Lack of communication with the owners and developers of the property. i. We as neighbors have not been contacted by the owners or developers as to the initial plans, or address are concerns or questions. ii. There have been issues raised throughout the neighborhood that the developer did not adhere to agreed upon stipulations for Heifort Hills 1st Addition. What will be the course of action allowed to neighbors if that occurs again? 3 f. If the city proposed an alternative design to move the house to allow for a street to be punched through onto Oak Glen Trail, will the developer have to submit a new plan? Will the neighborhood have the ability to respond? 4 Jenn Sundberg From: Steve Carter <yompkee@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 3:26 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: CPC 2021-03 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am against the proposed change to the zoning related to the case number listed above. The addition of 10 new homes in the lot currently used for one house will add congestion and additional traffic. In addition, many of the homeowners near 13187 Dellwood purchased their homes with the understanding that the property would be kept as a single unit and not subdivided. This change will have a negative impact on the value of their property. Specifically, the homes that will be directly on the way out of this new neighborhood will now have many headlights shone into their house and all hours of the evening. In short, this will enrich Integrity Land Development and the Jorgensons, and the expense of everyone else left to live in this neighborhood. As such, it should be rejected. Thanks, Steve Carter 2021 Oak Glen Lane i From: Paul Giordano <giordp0l@gmail.com> Date: February 19, 2021 at 10:00:52 AM CST To: Bill Turnblad <bturnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Larry Odebrecht <LOdebrecht@ ci. stillwater. mn.us> Cc: Rose Giordano <fiddlinrose@gmail.com>, Beth Harrison <beth@blueboat.net> Subject: Comment on traffic report [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Traffic report needs to focus on intersection of 96 and Oak Glen Tr. The reason MnDot is so restrictive for exit road to 96? This is a high accident and deadly intersection area. The high point of the valley 96 road is very close to Oak Glen. The traffic on 96 is high speed, this results in a very difficult blind left turn on 96. MnDot obviously knows that is a problem. I am reminded of this every spring as on the side of 96, right at the corner, a family places flowers in memorial to the loss of a family member. I have been in my yard and have heard the incredible sound of a high speed crash at that intersection. This results in a blind left turn onto 96. This backs up traffic on Oak Glen. The traffic coming from the right is high speed, and nobody slows down. Many times I have made that left and have had traffic blowing the horn. How dare I get in the way! This also shows the necessary requirement of the setback for this location as you detailed in your technical Review. This is a safety issue already: Respectfully, Rose and Paul Giordano Sent from my iPad Jenn Sundberg From: Paul Giordano <giordp0l @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:09 AM To: Planning Dept; Ted Kozlowski; Larry Odebrecht Subject: Notice to Planning Commission: Jenn Sundberg, Please Confirm Receiving Document, Respectfully Rose and Paul Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission: Rose and Paul Giordano, (30 Years Stillwater), OPPOSE the development plan proposed for Delwood and Oak Glen Trail. Many reasons: One focus is the total lack of response by the developer and landowner to Director Turnblad's many detailed required recommendations. A few examples: "The access point for the private road must be shifted southward. A safer intersection alignment is illustrated by the crosshatched roadway in Map B. This represents the midway point between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane to its south. The disadvantage of the safer alignment is that the house at 2384 Oak Glen Trail would have to be moved or demolished." The developer submitted a new revised plan, the new plan does not appear to change the private drive and they are continuing to request that the drive be threaded besides the existing house located at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. - the proposed development exit driveway. This exit driveway starts out as a winding 25ft road making a blind left turn into the 15ft exit ramp!! This is nuts. This car demolition derby would run along the entire side of my property. Civil Engineer: All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. The design of the pervious turnaround section of the private street must be, found satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Assistant Fire Chief. Review of the Revised Plan does not show any compliance: Some of the proposed houses are too close to the private road. In order to provide sufficient room for utility work and snow storage, a minimum of 10 feet should be provided from back of curb to every house foundation. The private road will need an easement, since it is in the Home Owners' Association. A private street maintenance agreement will be needed. Due to potential drainage issues, especially for lookouts and walkouts, 15 feet of separation should be provided between each house. 1 Fire Safety: A cul-de-sac is preferred to a Y turnaround. But the Y turnaround is acceptable if it complies with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. Appendix D: as the name implies a 120' Fire Hammerhead requires a 120' T turn at a 28' R corner an alternative 3-point reversal requires a 70' back by 140' L stop. I am not a civil engineer, but I have a digital caliper, what I can estimate from the revised plan is nothing close to a 120' Fire Hammerhead. As Technical Director for the company, I retired from in Vadness Heights, I was also responsible for overall safety. Working with the VH fire department I learned these are serious people. This revised plan is not serious. Yes, backing up a Fire truck is a lot of fun! Director Turnblad recommends: Since the road width for the majority of the project is proposed to be 26' wide, no on -street parking will be possible. Guest parking spaces should be provided elsewhere in the project. And since the amount of impervious surface in the shoreland district area of the project already exceeds 25%, this parking area should be in the east half of the project. The Planning Commission is requested to review and: 1) decide whether to approve or deny the setback variance. Director Turnblad writes. As evident in Map D, none of the homes in the Oak Glen Neighborhood meet the current 100-foot setback. And the home to the immediate east of the PUD has a setback of about 45 feet. This is the setback distance requested for Lot 3. If a patio room is built on this lot, the setback would be measured to the house, which would be about 60 feet from the standardized right-of-way. Depending on the size of the patio room. This is illustrated in the graphic. My understanding of the position is that: If the setback is approved; the PUD setback must be at least 60-75 feet. The townhomes include "A Patio Room" or somehow the city would have to restrict the townhomes to 80% of sale. TRAFFIC/SAFETY: Traffic report needs to focus on intersection of 96 and Oak Glen Tr. The reason MnDot is so restrictive for exit road to 96? This is a high accident and deadly intersection area. The high point of the valley 96 road is very close to Oak Glen. The traffic on 96 is high speed, this results in a very difficult blind left turn on 96. MnDot obviously knows that is a problem. I am reminded of this every spring as on the side of 96, right at the corner, a family places flowers in memorial to the loss of a family member. I have been in my yard and 2 have heard the incredible sound of a high speed crash at that intersection. This results in a blind left turn onto 96. This backs up traffic on Oak Glen. The traffic coming from the right is high speed, and nobody slows down. Many times I have made that left and have had traffic blowing the horn. How dare I get in the way! This also shows the necessary requirement of the setback for this location as you detailed in your technical Review. This is a safety issue already: Respectfully, Rose and Paul Giordano 3 Jenn Sundberg From: Beth Harrison <beth@blueboat.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:56 PM To: Jenn Sundberg; Planning Dept; Bill Turnblad Subject: Planning Commission Meeting TONIGHT - Comments for the Commission Members (Heifort Hills Development) Attachments: Planning Commission Speech.docx [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello City of Stillwater Planning Commission and Department - I look forward to joining you tonight via zoom. I wanted to pass along my thoughts and concerns to you prior to the meting. It is my hope that I will read this tonight (will work on editing to get my time down to 5 minutes or less). However, I thought a paper copy might be helpful. Ms. Sundberg, can you please email this to the planning commission members, I would greatly appreciate it, 1 cannot find their emails on the web site. Again, thank you all for your time and thoughtfulness in regards to my many questions and this project. See you tonight! ! ! ! Beth Harrison Thank you, my name is Beth Harrison and I live at 2389 Oak Glen Trail with my husband and two daughters who are 13 and 9. We have lived in our home for 4 years and we love our home and our Oak Glen neighborhood. Our house is directly across from 2384 Oak Glen Trail property which is part of this proposal. Tonight, I am respectfully asking you to vote to recommend DENIAL of the Heifort Hills preliminary Planned Unit Development and to recommend DENIAL for the private street and Highway 96 set back easement that is being requested. I have limited to my comments to three main points: 1. Codes matter 2. Livability of the neighborhood. 3. Public Opposition 1. Ordinances/Codes matter. Ordinances/Codes deal with maintaining public safety, health, morals, and the general welfare of our community By following ordinances, we create precedent that allows development and life to occur in an orderly way. You making these decisions today not only impacts my life, my neighbor's lives, but impacts future decisions regarding our Stillwater community This proposal asks you to set aside several established ordinances. How many? 9 is what I came up with. The Proposed Access Street i This development is proposing punching through a street onto Oak Glen Trail, approximately 3-5 feet from the house on the property. a. I have lived in Stillwater my entire life, and I cannot think of another street (public or private) in Stillwater that would have a street that close to a single family home. I asked others in City Government employees to point me to another property with a street that close to a house, they could not. i. Just for reference, if you are building a home. Zoning requires a front or exterior lot set back of 30 feet from a street. The developer is proposing 3-5 feet. That is not right. ii. Chapter 32; subd. 6 states of the Subdivision Code of the City of Stillwater reads: d. "The arrangement of streets in the new subdivision must plan for the continuation of the existing streets in adjoining areas without promoting cut throughs or short cuts that impact residential neighborhoods." This plan is creating a cut through that absolutely will substantially impact our residential neighborhood. iii. f. "Partial streets will not be permitted". iv. g. "Dead end streets are prohibited." v. h. "Private streets and reserve strips are prohibited." vi. 7. "Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than 150 feet are prohibited." This proposed street is approximately 30 feet from Swenson street. Substantially less than the ordinance requirement of 150 feet. I understand that alternate road designs can be developed as part of a PUD. But to quote Mr. Turnblad's planning report "the alternative design still needs to be safe and acceptable." The Traffic Impact Study prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer, states this private access road causes concern. "The combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway." This roadway will create four individual street intersections on Oak Glen Trail within 100 feet of our property. This design was so concerning to the Community Development Director that he proposed and alternative intersection alignment. However, the developer is not proceeding with that plan and continuing to go with his original plan of creating a street that is neither safe nor acceptable. vii. j. "Streets may not be arranged in a way that will cause hardship to owners of adjoining property." I believe you will hear tonight how this street will cause hardship. I can tell you that this street will cause hardship with increased traffic, increased risk of injury, decrease our and our children's use of the street, increase in exhaust, lights, noise and decrease our property value. viii. Minor Street are to be 32 feet wide. Initially the plan was for this street to be 20 wide. In the updated plan they increased the width to 26 feet with grass creek bedding (not sure who will cut that) and still doesn't meet the ordinance of 32 feet. ix. According to the city engineer houses are to be 15 feet apart. This is not the case here. The developer was aware of this violation and choose not to correct it. x. Houses should have a minimum of 10 feet from back of curb to every house foundation to allow sufficient room for utility work and snow storage xi. Variance request for Highway 96 to allow a set back of 45 feet when the ordinance requires 100 feet. The current variance does not allow for building within a 100 feet of Highway 96. Just for reference there is a 100 foot set back on McKusick Road, County Road 12, Country Road 15, and it appears as though Heifort Hills 1 adhered to the 100 set foot set back. The city seems to argue that because the houses who butt up against Highway 96 on Swenson street do not meet the 100 foot set back an exception should be made here, I cannot stress what a terrible precedent this is for our 2 town. I could not find what the requirement was for set back when Oak Glen was built but I can guess they were built within the set back requirement at the time given how many houses were built to that specification. Wise people agreed that less than a 100 foot set back might not be a good idea and enacted an ordinance, a 100 foot set back. Why would you agree to allow a variance here. You are opening up for home owners and developers to argue for variances not just on Highway 96, but on other identified roads as well. I ask you to deny this variance and adhere to the 100 foot set back. 2. Livability of our neighborhood: This proposed street will Permanently change the character, function and livability of our established neighborhood and causes the devaluation of our homes. a. The development should minimize adverse effects, and be an asset to the community. This is the opposite. i. Safety will be significantly impeded. 1. There is only ONE entrance and ONE exit into the nine homes. Fire trucks, ambulances, buses, construction trucks, workers vehicles, minimum 19 residential cars, snowplows, and will all be using this one road. a. The exit out of the street crosses into the driveway of the home. 2. There is a "hammerhead" which will serve as the only turnaround on the street. Although the fire marshall said this may be acceptable it is not ideal and a cul-de-sace is preferred. It is also stated in the traffic impact study that this "T" turn raises concern. 3. No sidewalk coming out of the development, and a street that is narrow. This is a significant safety concern. ii. Traffic increase onto Oak Glen Trial. 1. With only one access road into the development, this appears to be the only construction traffic road. This is unacceptable in a residential neighborhood. All the dirt, tree removal, construction materials, workers cars, etc., will be entering and exiting on our road. The noise, safety concerns, inconvenience, destruction of our road will create severe adverse impacts onto our daily living. 2. With the addition of approximately 18 new cars onto Oak Glen Trail this will significantly change the character and feel of our neighborhood. This is approximately 112 daily trips. The traffic report study stated that the proposed private roadway would create vehicle related impacts (noise, exhaust, visibility, etc.) So, will this change the livability of our neighborhood, this would fundamentally change the characteristic of our neighborhood. 3. Public Opposition You received in your packet the neighborhood petition that we circulated. We approached only the houses that boarder or are directly impacted by the proposed development. EVERYONE, EVERY HOUSE signed the petition. Others down Oak Glen Trail and beyond have reached out wanting to sign and participate. I can tell you without a doubt that we as a neighborhood are not supportive of this PUD. 4. In Conclusion The Director of Planning recommended approval of this PUD if the developer adhered to several conditions, one of those conditions being an alternative access road and to tear down the house across the street and put a road in, I am not supportive of that design either; however, the developer in their updated plan did not change their original design, so what you are deciding on tonight is the plan in front of you from the developer. To punch through a street onto Oak Glen Trail, 3-5 feet from a single family home. I respectfully ask you to recommend denial of this PUD and the preliminary plat. I am asking you to deny the variance to punch through a street onto Oak Glen Trial and to deny the set back variance for Highway 96. I am asking you not to set aside at a minimum of 9 established codes. I am asking you not to change the livability of our neighborhood and to recommend denial of this unreasonable request. Thank you for listening and a sincere thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Beth Harrison 2389 Oak Glen Trail 3 4 Jenn Sundberg From: Peter Mayer <peter@blueboat.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:18 PM To: Jenn Sundberg; Planning Dept; Bill Turnblad Subject: Planning Commission Meeting TONIGHT - Letter for the Commission Members (Heifort Hills Development) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello - If possible could you please send this out to the planning commission members? I am planning on reading it at the meeting but thought I would send it along as well. Thank you! Peter Mayer My name is Peter Mayer. I live across the street from the proposed access road for this development. I met June and Gary, the current owners of the property, when they bought the house across the street from me. I went over to introduce myself when I saw them in the driveway one day, and even offered to shovel it for them. They told me they had bought the house for the convenience of having a property they could rent and manage next -door to their current home. It now seems clear to me that the actual reason they bought the house was in order to secure an access point so they could sell their property to a developer. When I heard the news of this proposed road, I felt sick. None of us in my neighborhood want this road. When my wife and I purchased our home, we were buying a house in a settled neighborhood —one that had been here for 25 years. Before we bought the house, I came to the neighborhood several times, trying to get a feel for it. I was concerned about how close it was to highway 96 because of the traffic and the noise. But I was reassured by the feel of the mature trees and the fact that this neighborhood had been here for a long time. There was no open land across the street, only perfectly good homes. We certainly would have thought twice had we known that something like this could happen. Lots of people in our neighborhood, including our family, have kids, go for walks and ride bikes. But Oak Glen has no sidewalks, no parks, no playgrounds or public spaces of any kind. So we use our streets. Connecting this road to an already busy street that wasn't even designed for it, would only ADD to this problem. It would mean even more traffic, and not 3 but 4 traffic intersections within 150 feet of us. It seems to me the only people benefitting from this plan are the ones who don't actually LIVE here. Money will change hands, the sellers will take their profits and move away and the developer will disrupt our neighborhood forever —reduce the quality of our lives and the value of our homes, and then take his money and leave. In the Stillwater ordinance, Chapter 2, Subdivision 6, it says..."the purpose of good subdivision and sight design is to create a functional and attractive development, to minimize adverse impacts....and to insure that a project will be an asset to a community." It also says "streets may not be arranged in a way that will cause hardship to owners of adjoining property." We have shown through our petition that not a single one of us who would have to live with this road want it to be built. Please don't let the profits of the buyer and seller be the only factors here. And please don't practice the idea of development at all cost. I sincerely ask that you take into consideration the well-being of our neighborhood, and say NO to this proposal. Thank you. 1 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2021-05 February 16, 2021 February 24, 2021 Margaret Georgi Margaret Georgi Variance to the exterior side yard setback, in order to construct a front deck. 1002 4th Avenue South RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Mrs. Georgi owns the property at 1002 4th Avenue South, and is looking to construct a 14' X 8' deck off the second story on the front of her house. The house is on a long but narrow corner property, and is setback far from the road, overl000king the St. Croix River. While the proposed deck is outside of the required front yard setbacks, the existing house and the proposed deck are within the exterior sideyard setback; therfore this deck will be an expansion of this existing legal nonconformity. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 10' variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a deck to be setback 10' from the exterior side yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 20 feet. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. CPC Case 2021-05 Page 2 of 5 The property is zoned RB, Two -Family Residential; a single-family house with a second story deck on the front, is permitted in this zoning district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The purpose of the exterior side yard setback is for uniform neighborhood development, to create and maintain "front" yards, and to encourage storm water infiltration around the home. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The existing house is legal nonconforming and already sits just 10' from the exterior side yard lot line. Building a deck will expand this nonconformity but it will not encroach any further into the setback and will remain 10' from the side yard lot line. The lot is narrow but long, making the exterior side yard 132' long; the deck will only span eight of those feet. Also the deck will be second story deck which will not impede or drastically alter the current situation of storm water infiltration. Lastly, this property has a very large front yard and the addition of a small deck in the front yard along exterior side yard will not contradict the purpose of an exterior side yard (or "front yard"). c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A property with single-family home with a front deck is reasonable in the RB zoning district. CPC Case 2021-05 Page 3 of 5 b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? This modest -sized corner lot is 6,614sf, and 4,425sf (or 67%) of this lot is considered to be within a required setback. Additionally, this property is only 50' wide and, with both side yard setbacks combined, there is only 25' wide strip of buildable land that is not within setbacks (even though the house itself is 40' wide). The situation mentioned above is exemplified in the image on the right. In conclusion, the setbacks on this small narrow corner lot, make requiring a variance. Ott= 744 . sej ids } = kwt,aks it difficult to add a deck onto the house without c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The existing house, which was built in 1875, is legal nonconforming and the house's western -most 10' is already within the setback. The circumstances on this property were not created by the landowner. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negatives impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The addition of a deck will not bring development closer to the side yard than the structure already is. Additionally, the properties in this area face the St. Croix River, and many houses here have second story front decks. As an example, the image below shows the two properties to the north of #1002, both of which have second story decks. 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 seeking to construct a deck that overlooks the Saint Croix River. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. CPC Case 2021-05 Page 4 of 5 There are no conflicts with any other City department's requirements or codes. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2021-05, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 3. 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 variance. 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 deck meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties have been established, such as the property being a small and narrow corner lot that is dominated by setbacks. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-05 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map CPC Case 2021-05 Page 5 of 5 Applicant Narrative Site Plan Setbacks Image Plans (Three Pgs) cc: Margaret Georgi 502 510 809 E . HUD§O N S T _° C/q w -r. ,� y .Sjillwater - 901 906 _ 907 , i1 911 r 911. �910ia ' = § 914 919 ,l 92"P _ 923 � �19 .� s 926 924 0 �- D 927 925- ,; _ 0 r 23 93U) ' 1931,;"" !1- ;9M ' "` �..3.. ;;! #�� y �' The Birthplace of Minnesota N W &E Site Location 1002 4th Ave S 935 935 518 937 DUBUQUE STREET 1001 — _ 9 y h' �J,f -1005 , 1002 1003 1001 I 1002 yesrw :� 1006 w 0 ;7 009 M. 4-968'rF: IJ,f'' 1009 y - ° 100 1006 F.. , > 1015 0 105 210 420 Feet a ,# 1014f ". , 1015 1 1f > > 1 J 1010 y- General Site Location r , ` 1 ' , _ 1019 _ , , 1019, , 1017 �Gi� ,. �' _ �1014 .V 11291024 - 11 1T:t1 `, i*�. III 1 Illlhm ► d ♦ � �� ..� • .• ILL I— � 1105 1032 .�, O ,. 1,•113 - 1 _ �.. 1036 ' 50- ♦1' LLB. 1 4��* i .!_n..i. .�I�/r�����nL�%l�� 4';, '��`' �r n► ®®® ® rail �ATi i / • EAST BURLINGTON STREET 4, x� �• _ ,►t�',�,c� .��i aL ■ � r ®., 11 lrn ®� ,�;.�� . \, ' .. rwrw s 1 . _ . r tit- 1204 w �— _ �d 1203 ` 12n54 1264 �I I �_'�Nair 7:�������': hn■ ...w.f....rek 'r 1 �� ■ r 7`+ L", `• 121 1209� 1213 p I``� e�,r`� ��� � F. tn.....„, ..� " , BUILDING REMODELING SIDING INC. PO BOX 450 1905 STATE HIGHWAY 35 SOMERERSET, WISCONSIN 54025 To whom it may concern: Margaret Georgi is applying for a variance to build a 14'x8' raised deck, previously there had been a deck in this ►ocation 2' above grade, it has since been removed. We are proposing to build a new 14' x 8' deck 8' above grade now to accommodate the use of a bedroom patio door, this deck is to be built in same location of old deck on front of home. This is however on a corner lot and setback is 33 , the home is set back from side lot at 33° and the end of the new deck would line up with side of home, we do not want to be any closer to lot line. The proposed new deck will be completely finished with composite decking exterior with posts being finished in prefinished manufactured wood to blend into match color of home, this in now way compromise integrity of the home or homes around the neighborhood, but actually look more appealing to all neighbors. Thank you Brian Smith/ president BRS Inc 6U/L.-C7 't ti <-,avj 5 1±t rc), tc, L'S .i0=ori/p/zie z I fir,#,67/4/ /armZ V0,57e 564 frfeefr rT" #444, 'Ct'/C6s 1f'>7um 4 ,id/a<% � f Aco J g -a 0v Proms >r74.Fai riff/Pier Xelete- s'a4 *ale- cl eeu v�v( leo z ST/e ge•Ar-TeK 1,A7F/ 5-Sot 2_ r 3'4" Ao. T.028 z76- T## T� r �f3 f;e„4r/iAf�,hz x/ 3 -rile/ #1x/o Pos.