HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-09 CPC Packet
~
i
,.
r illwater
~ ~
THE BIRTHPlACE OF MINNESOTA ~
"". . ,",-<
. ~ITY qF STIL.LWATER
P~ANNING GOM)\1ISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MO:NDA Y, FEBRUARY 9, 2009
The City of Stillwaf~r Planning COInmission will meet on Monday, Febrtia'~"9; '2009; at 7 p.m. rfi the Coun'cii
Chambers at Stillwater Oty HElIi, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning ,Commission regular
meetings are held at 7 p.m on the seco"hd Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are
open to the public.
1.
CA~~ TO 9RDER
AGENDA
2. APPROYALOF jA'NUARY 12, 20,09.MINUTES
3. oPeriFORUM TheOpen Forum is ClPortio~ of the c;:ommission meeting to address subjects wn'i'ch are
nota part of the 'm'eetingagenda. The COn1mis,~ionmay reply at the time of the statement or may give
aiFection to staff regarding inv~~ti.gatior(ofthetohc@!rMs exph=ssed. . Out of respect for others in
attendance~ .please'limityour'commentsto 5 minutes or less '
4. :PUBLIG,HEARINGS.!h~ Ch~lt'persdn opens the hearing a'ndwill ask CitY st~ff to provide background
art thEt'proposeditem. TheChqirperson will ask for comments from the aptJlicClnt, after whiththe
'Chajrpe~SpnWi'll~then ask ifthete isanyone':eise,.who wishes to comment. Members Cilfthe'p'ublic who
wishi:o 'speql$ will be given 5 rnjmltesarid will be requested to step forward.,to'thepGlQium arid must
-state their name and address. Atthe conclusion of all public testimony the Commissidn wfllclo'se the
p~q!ic be~ring and willcl~liberate and take action on the proposed item.
4.01
c~se'~o. ()~:-5i. A variahce tothe river arrd bluff setback for Bergstein and. Shoddy Mill located
~at805 SOl;lth .Main Street in the IB, Heavy Inqustrial District. City of Stillwater, applicant.
Continued from tne January 12, '1009TPC Meeting. .
-G~s~ No.,.o9::93~ Aspedal usepermit request for the remodel: andexpansio~ of the mechancial
room locat,~d at 927 West ChurchillStreet(Lakeview Ho?pital) in the RB, Two Family Residential
District. -EWBR :ArchitectS/Shannbn Brambety, applicant.
.'!,
4.02
.<v. .
..~1 Tj.~~ ,~ ~_\
5. OTHER BUS,~NESS: ,., .
5.01 Communication towers.'in residential districts.
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET . STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
PHONE: 651-430-8800 . WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.lIs
I'
.
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
January 12, 2009
Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Dan Kalmon, Mike Kocon,
John Malsam and Charles Wolden
Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge
Absent: Robert Gag
Chair Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p,m,
Approval of minutes: Mr, Wolden, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved approval of the minutes of
Dec, 8, 2008. Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 08-51 A variance to the river and bluff setback for the Bergstein and Shoddy Mill at
805 S. Main St. in the IB, Heavy Industrial District. City of Stillwater, applicant.
Mr, Turnblad reviewed the history of the City's involvement in the proposed relocation of the
historic mill buildings to the site of the former Aiple Towing terminal building, He explained that
two variances are needed to accomplish the relocation - river and bluff setback variances. Mr.
Turnblad reviewed the site plan, noting that the State Historic Preservation Office and MnDOT
want to recreate the context of the two historic buildings to the extent possible and want to put
them in the same orientation as they exist today. Possible uses for the buildings, he said,
include public restrooms, historic interpretation activity, and perhaps vending machines, noting
that the buildings will be located in proximity to the trail system that also is part of the bridge
mitigation plans. He pointed out plans must be reviewed by the Department of Natural
Resources and National Park Service; reports/plans have been sent to those two agencies, but
responses have not been received at this time, he said. Mr, Turnblad suggested that action be
tabled until comments have been received from the DNR and National Park Service.
MS.-Block asked about parking, Mr. Turnblad said no parking is planned for the site, access will
be by foot and bike only, as proposed, but suggested there may be some pervious parking area
in the vicinity sometime in the future. Ms, Block asked for clarification of the 1 DO-year flood mark
and asked who would be responsible for flood restoration. Mr, Turnblad said the City would be
responsible for flood restoratfon, noting the buildings will be located in the flood "fringe" not in
the floodway, There were several questions regarding a possible modification in location to at
least meet one of the slope setbacks; Mr. Turnblad addressed the site limitations and the
advantages of the proposed location. Ms. Block asked why the buildings are being moved from
Oak Park Heights to Stillwater; Mr. Turnblad spoke of the City's commitment to historic
preservation and suggested the City was perhaps the only community that volunteered to
provide a relocation site. Mr, Kalmon asked about the justification of the site in view of public
versus private use; Mr. Turnblad spoke of the proposed open space use and the mitigation
efforts and minimal impact of the use.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing,
Adam Johnstone, 1104 Third St. S" noted for the record that the pointer used during the
meetings does not show up on television for home viewers.
/
,.
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
January 12, 2009
No otner comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr, Wolden, seconded by Mr.
Kalman, moved to table Case No, 08-51, Motion passed unanimously,
Ca$'e No, 09-01 A special use permit request for an accessory dwelling unit at 1004 Sixth St. S.
inthe RB, Two Family Residential District. Ryan and Vanessa Mitchell, applicant.
Mr. Pogge reviewed the request, conditions for accessory dwelling units, and staff findings. Mr.
Wolden asked about the condition of approval regarding windows on the south side of the
"structure; Mr, Pogge stated that condition was made by the Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC) to address a concern by a neighboring property owner, Mr, Wolden questioned the
imposition of that condition noting that this structure meets setbacks. The applicants stated their
original plans did not call for any windows on the south elevation. Mr. Dahlquist noted the
roofline of the new structure is not the same as the former garage in order to match the house,
and that the garage door is to be two single doors as a result of HPC conditions.
The applicants stated they were comfortable with the condition regarding windows and stated
they have fGllowed all setbacks and other conditions.
Mr>Middreton opened the public hearing.
Cyntl9ia Kneisl, 1010 S, Sixth St., explained her concern about windows on the south elevation
and also expressed concerns about privacy, noise, lack of light, and lots of activity so close to
her house,
No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr, Dahlquist noted the request
appears to meet all the requirements for the special use permit. Mr. Middleton and Ms. Block
spoke to Ms. Kneisl's concerns, suggesting the applicants' plans should actually lessen noise
due to the new location of the garage. Mr. Dahlquist moved approval as conditioned, A through
G, and correcting the typo in condition G. Ms. Block seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously,
Case No, 09-02 Determination of a "substantially similar use" and, if found, a special use permit
request for an arts.based preschool at 2000 Industrial Blvd, in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial
District. Tim Luell, applicant.
Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted that day cares and schools are specifically prohibited
uses in the 8P-1 zoning district and therefore staff cannot support a finding tha~ this is in
"substantial" conformance with the BP-I District. There was a question as to why day cares and
school are specifically prohibited, whether it was due to a concern regarding safety, perhaps;
Mr. Pogge explained they are uses that are prohibited by default as not being either a permitted
use or a use allowed by special use permit. Mr. Turnblad explained that mix of uses allowed in a
zoning district is an important consideration, and pointed out that if every type of use is allowed
in every zoning district, then the intention/principal use of that district is diluted. Mr. Dahlquist
asked whether there are any changes to this district proposed in the new Comprehensive Plan;
Mr. pogge stated the use is to remain the same, BP-I, in the 2030 Comp Plan. Mr. Wolden
noted the request essentially amounts to broadening the use of the current facility and doesn't
involve changing any building; he wondered if there was any requirement that day care facilities
2
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
January 12, 2009
have outdoor space, which would require chan~es to the site. Mr. Middleton pointed out there
are several recreational uses in the Business Park, as well as a dog day care business; Mr.
Pogge pointed out those facilities are in the BP-O, Business Park-Office District, not the BP-I
District and also noted that the facilities mentioned by Mr. Middleton both went through the
process of amending the zoning code to allow the use by special use permit, rather than a
determination of "substantially similar use,"
Mr. Luell explained that they have 'operated Valley Dance Academy at this facility for a number
of years, He said they would like to operate in the same facility and thought they were
requesting something that was similar in use, He said the preschool would be a separate entity,
with an arts-based fDcus, including second language, arts, international music and theater. He
briefJyaddressed state licensing requirements for preschools and said they would not be
required to change the facility in any way. He said they are asking to b~tter utilize the' existing
facility.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Kocon said he thought the existing facility and use was good, but said he did not
think it appropriate in an industrial-zoned district; he suggested the request represented spot
zoning, Mr. Dahlquist spoke of the potential for future impact of a school use on neighlDoring
properties. On a question by Mr, Malsam, Mr. Poggeoutlined several options, including a
zoning amendment and Comprehensive Plan amendment, the applicant(s) could follow if they
(Jesire -to pursue their plans. Mr. Kalmon spoke against expanding a non-conforming use. Ms.
Block asked staff for an assessment of the possible outcome of a request for a zoning/Comp
Plan amendment if the applicants pursued that route; Mr. Pogge stated staff likely would not find
in favor, but noted ultimately that is a decision of the Planning Commission and City Council. It
was noted the applicant(s) does have the opportunity to appeal any decision to the City Council.
Ms, Block said she thought the school is a good one and the idea creative, but spoke in favor of
maintaining the ihtegrity of the industrial zoning district. Mr. Kocon moved to deny the use
determination and recommend the City Council deny the Special Use Permit for Case No. 09-02
strictly on the zoning issue, Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS .
Electien' of chair and vice chair - Mr. Middleton and Mr. Dahlquist volunteered to continue in
their cur-rent capacity as chair and vice chair, respectively. Mr, Kalman, seconded by Mr: Kocon,
nominated Mr, Middleton as chair and Mr. Dahlquist as vice chair. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to adjourn at .8:27 p,m. Motion passed
unanimously,
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
3
c5tiJ l~a ter
_m,m ~,
m I' [~, "' T " ? I " " [ f;' M I " N , I, n I ;, j
DATE:
February 5, 2009
CASE NO.: 08-51
APPLICANT:
City of Stillwater
REQUEST:
1) River setback variances
2) Bluff setback variances
ZONING:
Base District: IE, Heavy Industrial
Overlay District: St. Croix River District
Overlay District: Flood Fringe
LOCATION:
805 South Main Street
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: January 8, 2009; February 9, 2009
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
This case is related to the New River Crossing mitigation plan. As you will remember, the
location of the bridge improvements requires the relocation of the Bergstein warehouse and
shoddy mill. The relocation site will be where the former Aiple barge terminal building was.
The new location for the two historic buildings requires a number of setback variances. The
discussion on the variances was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting to allow the
National Park Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) time to
review and comment on the case.
I have received verbal responses from both organizations and they are generally satisfied with
the proposal. The Park Service is interested in having the shoreline return to as natural a
condition as possible adjacent to the two Bergstein buildings, The DNR would like the
impervious footprints of the buildings mitigated with stonnwater treatment improvements. This
can be accommodated with proper sub-soil corrections prior to installing crushed rock in the
"yard" area between the buildings.
Hopefully written comments will be submitted prior to Monday night's commission meeting so
that specific approval conditions can be written. If they are not received in time, we will need to
attach a general condition that as MnDOT does the site work and building relocation, they will
need to incorporate measures to address the DNR's stonnwater treatment concerns and the Park
Service's shoreline naturalization concerns.
~1ill~ate~
!t.t BfJl:fHPI.Al:f Ol MI'I'.l~OIA 'J
Planning Report
DATE:
Janumy 8,2009
CASE NO.: 08-51
APPLICANT:
City of Stillwater
REQUEST:
1) River setback variances
2) Bluff setback variances
ZONING:
Base Dish'ict: IB, Heavy Industrial
Overlay District: St. Croix River District
Overlay Dish'ict: Flood Fringe
LOCATION:
805 South Main Street
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: January 8, 2009
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2005 the City Council agreed to provide a site for relocation of two historic
buildings that are currently in Oak Park Heights. The buildings are located where a
ramp to the new St. Croix River Bridge will eventually be constructed. One of the
buildings, a single story field stone sh'ucture, is tlle former shoddy mill where the
Bergstein Family mattress business had rags turned into shoddy, which was used for
stuffing mattresses. The second building is a two story wood-framed warehouse,
which was used for storage and mattress production.
After agreeing to provide a new location for the historic buildings, the City had an
assessment report completed, which identified the Aiple Towing Company's former
terminal building as the relocation site for the two structures. TIle report was
completed by the 106 Group and SRF Consulting in January of 2006. That report is
attached.
October 31,2006 the City Council adopted Resolution 2006-239 approving the
Memorandum of Understanding for the new river crossing project, including a
confirmation of the commitment to provide the relocation site for the Bergstein
Bergstein Variances
January 8, 2009
Page 2 of 4
buildings. The actual move and its costs will be the responsibility of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT).
Relocating the buildings is planned to occur just prior to construction of the new bridge. The
target date for letting the bridge contract is July 2013. This date was set after the Minnesota
legislature recently authorized funds for Minnesota's portion of the project costs. However, in
an attempt to assemble all the necessary permits for the project, MnDOT is requesting the City
to grant the variances for the relocation site sooner rather than later.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The proposed site for the two buildings is located within the required 100 foot setback area of
the S1. Croix River as well as within the 40 foot "bluff" setback area. Therefore, the following
specific variances are being requested:
A) Warehouse
1) + / - 55 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from the S1. Croix River in
order to allow the warehouse building to be located within + / - 45 feet of the river.
2) + / - 16 foot variance from the required 40 foot setback from the top of the bluffline
nearest the S1. Croix River in order to allow the warehouse building to be located
within + / - 24 feet of the bluffline.
3) + / - 29 foot variance from the required 40 foot setback from the toe of the bluff west
of the warehouse in order to allow the warehouse building to be located within + / -
11 feet of the toe of the bluff.
B) Shoddy mill
1) + / - 35 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from the S1. Croix River in
order to allow the shoddy mill building to be located within + / - 65 feet of the river.
2) + / - 14 foot variance from the required 40 foot setback from the toe of the bluff west
of the shoddy mill building in order to allow the warehouse to be located within + / -
26 feet of the toe of the bluff.
COMMENTS ON REQUEST
The purpose of a variance is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the
zoning ordinance where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or unusual
shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional size, shape, topographic
conditions or the extraordinary condition of the property; the literal enforcement of the
requirements of the zoning ordinance would involve practical difficulties or would cause undue
hardship.
Findings required. A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are
found:
(1) A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists.
Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
Bergstein Variances
January 8, 2009
Page 3 of 4
a. In this instance, "exceptional size, shape, topographic conditions" peculiar to
the property create the practical difficulty. The terracing of bluffs, location of
the trails to be constructed by MnDOT and narrowness of the site all combine
to eliminate all potential building locations.
(2) A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by
neighbors.
a. Of concern here is that granting the variances should not create a precedent
that would be used by other property owners to ask for the same type of
variance. If there are other owners with the same property characteristics,
they should be treated the same, otherwise a "special privilege" claim could
be made. In this application, the use of the buildings will be for passive
public recreational activities. Specifically, there will be signs or plaques for
explanation of the historic significance of the buildings, public restrooms and
likely an opportunity for users of the future trail to rest. This passive public
re-use of the buildings together with the specific set of topographic features
that characterize the site combine to create a very unique situation. Chances
of other property owners claiming" special privilege" are quite slim because
the property and situation are so unique.
(3) The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
a. The residential properties to the west are situated high above the subject
property on top of the limestone bluffs. In addition, the planned passive
recreational use of the site should be compatible with the residential property
to the west.
b. In terms of the comprehensive plan, both the 2020 Plan and the 2030 Plan
show the site guided for park and open space purposes. The proposed uses
of the relocated structures are recreational.
c. The Milmesota Deparhnent of Natural Resources and the National Park
Service both have interest in this project. And they have been involved in the
discussions related to the proposal for a number of years now. None the less,
the specific plans and variance requests will be sent to them for comments. If
they have concerns that impact the building locations, the project will need to
come back to the Plmming Commission. However, since both groups have
been involved in this project, staff does not expect this to happen.
A note on the bluff setback standards: Though generally speakil1g no bluffs are recognizable
within 40 feet of the proposed building relocation site, any 12% slope in the St. Croix River
Overlay District is technically considered to be a "bluff". Consequently, a setback of 40 feet is
required from the top and from the toe of every 12 % slope located between the former railroad
track and the river. There are two such "bluffs" near the subject site. They can both be seen in
the attached exhibits.
Bergstein Variances
January 8, 2009
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the variance criteria to be satisfied and therefore recommends approval of the
variances with the condition that any concerns expressed by the DNR or the National Park
Service that impact the location of the buildings will require reconsideration by the Plmming
Commission.
ALTERNATIVES
The Plmming Commission has several alternatives.
A. Approve If the proposal is found acceptable to the Planning Commission, it could
approve the variances, with the condition that any concerns expressed by the DNR or
the National Park Service that impact the location of the buildings will require
reconsideration by the Plam1ing Commission.
B. Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variances are not advisable, it
could deny them. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given.
C. Table If the Planning Commission feels that there is a likelihood that the DNR
or National Park Service may have serious concerns with the proposal, it could table the
case until the City has received comments from them.
cc: DNR Regional Hydrologist
National Park Service
attachments: Location Map
Site Map
Site Assessment Report
City of
Bergstein Relocation Site
Communit)' Dllvelopment Depar1m~nl
I~'\~\H~~\U ~
~~~ ~~~'
~l~ L- (\.- ~. l?\'~~'
.1 I A ~ \i ~~ \titp\'I\ ~
~ \~'~1 C- ~ ~~~~. ~
11~\ \--\~ ...t 1&_~~\J\ l ~, .~ ..
1.1= :.x ~. l.J(~ V" \t?l W.\::::::1. ~ ~ Relocation site r.
;;!tfID ~ -d \h~~ - ,- '....~ ---,-~
mE t- ~;lU ~I ----\rt~
~.L~.'Tl" {Il'!.-'!!- I!!! oi _ _1_ '1; ~ ~
11.1 I ~I f-I.:~~ 1 =1 11=1:: IH ~\ ~
LLLt:J(f-J- I I 11--+-1' 1 - I 1:= ~ I ~ L \~ ~
lE:t-I= I i 1---11, _I I -'- ~ "'= ~\ ,
~~~~u.w~ II~m-~I=-I-~I- fl~;;;~=:::~' "'~
l'...L 1= I--~ I-'-r'- 1= - f- - = - 'HTl
m~r=1 I-- = 11E~ : : W=-~~I!! .. F\'
,~I=I= 11=='I-j~~IIII'" ~I~ II!-! ~[f;~
1 = ~ ---+--1 I I I liT \'
. =- ---+-- 1 I \
4"\., ... _ _1== ~ "-pi'- ~ II. ... IIL!!!..I
- ,-- - .lJ,I:: II- [-I "-,!!!- =-
. - - f- I-- Ff= I-- I- t<o.'l. _, 1\-\ ~ II
I 1= 1-'- '- E I~I=I ::1=.::l= I-X\, ", \\'1 \'
- '- I- ~ f- It- ,s:; I fI
: 1--1-- I II-f-I ~ = 1- 1= t-I-I III" \\ u.. u
- L I I 1-''-' .. \~
- 1"'1- II III II r--'I \\ "\ III
- = II Ii ~I ~ .. r i c- ;/lll~~ V u
... .. rr ... I ~ u
::r: D IJ 1IIII 1'1 II t---f.'l. I, \ ~~~
~ iii - I l I II I I III I I Jail I t~ ~ \'
-11- Ii I~I "" I-=- 1---1'1 ~ I \ ~
III I ~ II I "\ i\
obloooLI ........ I ~~,r- ,.=.~~d~~ \r
~ . [ - \ r -.~Lm~~~~ \\{
I\,~ I, L1-- ~ 1'\ - . - J.. ~iC~~\ \ \
~I H w=u'f-lA ~ '- =1.\ I. n ~
I- h r I--~ l- I i~U ~ ~ ~~~ Current location II ~
III HI - II I Tn ~I...I~II~ Ff--::= ~li\\~~\)W
_... ... _.. t ... ..'" >- _.... ... _ _ ~
-... ........ ... - , h:r..... -II .. ... .. . ... _ -... I_ '\'" _.. '"
-- --- -- --- ------- r ~
~ U j '~bU .... ~LT LJ ~ IW ~~
W- ~["- ~r.~~'IIIIIII: / iFJJ~r\t~
~I I IIIIIII~ ~ ~I ~ II (~~~\\'
ill
fl-I-- -
I-- -
JiiO:
"-CI=
I-
I?-'\- 1-
1\ .k"'-
K\
"I
Case no. 08-51
D Municipal Boundary
City of
Bergstein Relocation Site
Setback Variances
Case no. 08-51
BERGSTEIN PROPERTY RELOCATION MITIGATION PROJECT
PROPOSED SITE ASSESSMENT
SUBMITIED BY THE 106 GROUP LTD. AND SRF CONSULTING GROUP
TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER
JANUARY 2006
INTRODUCTION
During studies completed for the proposed St. Croix River Crossing, the Bergstein
property (WA-OHC-OOl and WA-OHC-072), which includes a two-story warehouse and
stone shoddy mill, was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). The currently proposed crossing would require the removal of
the Bergstein property. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the St. Croix
River Crossing states that mitigation of effects to the Bergstein shoddy mill and
warehouse may include moving the buildings.
The City of Stillwater has identified a proposed new site within a city-owned parcel
known as the Aiple Property, at the location of the current Terra Tenninal building. As a
resuit of this location choice - adjacent to the St. Croix River and within a flo~dplain -
federal, state and city agencies have an interest in the placement of the historic buildings
and/or have regulatory oversight. These agencies include:
.. The National Park Service (NPS), which has oversight within the St. Croix Scenic
Riverway planning area, where the new location for the buildings is proposed;
II The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which reviews projects
within the floodplain;
.. The City of Stillwater, which regulates construction within the Floodplain and
Bluffland/Shoreland Overlay Districts, and is responsible for the implementation
of the Aiple Property Master Plan; and
· The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnlDOT), which have Section 106 responsibilities
for the project with regard to its historical considerations.
The purpose of this assessment is to document compliance with the above-noted federal,
state, and city requirements for the proposed site, and to detennine to what extent the
proposed site meets the recommended guidelines for placement of the historic structures.
Site plan and cross-section drawings illustrating setting and elevation were prepared to
illustrate the placement of the buildings at the proposed site. In addition, a brief outline
of how the historic buildings would fit into the existing and proposed Aiple Property
Master Plan, with potential reuses, is provided.
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 2
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Bergstein shoddy mill and warehouse have been detennined eligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criterion A in the area of social history - association with the events that
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The following
excerpt from the Minnesota Architecture-History Inventory Form describes the
significance of the property:
The story of the Moritz Bergstein family is both characteristic and
unusual. Like many Jewish immigrants, he engaged in commercial
endeavors invoi'ving used goods and recycled materials. But, in contrast
with typical urban Jewish immigrant activities, the Bergsteins living in a
small town distant from other Jews and Jewish institutions, engaged (for a
time) in light manufacturing, owned property soon after coming to
America, and hired non-Jewish workers. Furthermore, Moritz and Bertha
Bergstein emigrated in 1880 when thousands of Jews fled Eastern Europe,
but it appears they were both in Germany and Bohemia, respectively, as
were their parents.
In the 19th and early 20th century, Jewish settlers were rire in the St. Croix
valley, and properties associated with their way of life are accordingly
scarce. Six bui~dings on two sites are directly associated with the
Bergstein's home and shoddy mill and junkyard and the family's
adaptations to American life. (Minnesota Architecture-History Inventory
Fonn W A-OHC-072).
Although the residence and other domestic structures associated with the property are no
longer extant, the shoddy mill and warehouse continue to exemplify the economic
pursuits of the Bergstein family and remain a rare aspect of local Minnesota culture.
While moving historic properties is discouraged because the relocation alters the
relationship between the property and its surroundings, in this case the removal of the
Bergstein property is considered to be a means of mitigation in preference to the
demolition of the buildings for the construction ofthe St. Croix Crossing project.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Setting
The Bergstein property currently stands on the edge of the bluffs west of the St. Croix
River Valley on the east side of Stagecoach Trail (formerly Main Street) in the City of
Oak Park Heights, immediately south of Stillwater, Minnesota. The property was once
set in a semi-rural location, on the outskirts of Stillwater, although by the 1920s, the
surrounding area was built up into a sparsely populated residential neighborhood. Due to
the demolition of those houses in recent years, the property is once again set within a
fairly isolated area. Stands of young trees and scrub currently obstruct the view of the
river valley, and it is unknown what the nature of the vegetation would have been during
the property's period of significance.
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 3
The extant Bergstein property includes a stone shoddy mill and wood-framed warehouse.
Historically, these two work structures have always been together; they were separated
froni the Bergstein residence and other domestic structures by a railroad and a wood
viaduct (not extant) to the west (Figure 1). The warehouse is rectangular, nmning east to
west, with the mill 25 to 30 feet due south of its center. The warehouse's gable end faces
the road (west) and the mill's primary fayade faces onto the south side of the warehouse
(Figures 2 and 3). Although most of the property where the buildings are located is level,
the terrain drops precipitously to the river valley on the east, exposing the northeast
comer of the warehouse foundation.
Buildings
The warehouse is constructed of timber framing, designed to support heavy loads and
was used in the Bergstein mattress-making operation (Figure 4). The second floor space
provided a room where workers stuffed mattresses. The stuffing was lifted to the second
story through a trap door by a large wooden pulley, moved along a catwalk, and then
dumped into the stuffing room through a canvas chute.
The shoddy mill is a simple, one-story, rectangular-plan building constructed of rubble
stone with liberal amounts of mortar (Figure 5). Access is provided by a replacement
wood door located on the east end of the north (front) fayade. A brick, segmental arch
sets off the window opening on the west fayade. The stone mill housed Bergstein's rag-
processing operation, where rags would be turned to shoddy using a rag-tearing machine,
known as a devil. A wood-fueled engine was located within the structure and had a 25-
foot chimney at the rear.
Source: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, 1924.
FIGURE 1. HISTORIC ARRANGEMENT OF BERGSTEIN PROPERTY, 1924
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 4
FIGURE 2. BERGSTEIN W AREHOUIlE AND SHODDY MILL, FACING NORTHEAST
FIGURE 3. STAGECOACH ROAD AND BERGSTEIN PROPERTY, FACING NORTH
Bergstein Properly Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 5
FIGURE 4. BERGSTEIN WAREHOUSE, FACING NORTHEAST
FIGURE 5. BERGSTEIN SHODDY MILL, FACING EAST
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 6
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The proposed relocation site is subject to various regulatory guidelines or requirements
and would be subject to review an,d approval by the City of Stillwater, the DNR, the NPS,
Mn/DOT and SHPO. Brief outlines of the applicable requirements are addressed below.
Floodplain and BlufflandlShoreland Overlay Districts Regulations
Construction within the Aiple Property is subject to City of Stillwater review under its
Floodplain and Bluffland/Shoreland Overlay Districts ordinances. Under these
ordinances, buildings placed within this zone are required to have a building's first floor
elevations at a minimum of one foot above the 100 Year Floodplain Elevation. In the
case of the relocation site, the 100 Year Floodplain Elevation is approximately 692 feet;
the building's first floor would need to be at 693 feet. In addition, any required fill must
extend 15 feet from the structures at or above 693 feet. The required setback is at least
100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (which is 675 feet) and 40 feet
from any bluffline (slopes of 12 percent or steeper). The building height maximum is 35
feet. Exterior surface colors must be "earth or summer vegetation tones" and vegetative
screening of structures is required from the vantage of the river. Placement of fill is
allowed with a permit. Variances would be necessary for reqUirements that are not met.
Conditional use permits would be necessary for proposed uses of the structures other than
those specified as "permitted uses." Variances and conditional use permits require
approval processes by the City and DNR.
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, administered by the National Park Service
(NP.S), has jurisdiction for properties within its boundaries. Changes to properties within
this area would need to be evaluated under the National Scenic Waterway Act (7 A
Evaluation). A 7 A Evaluation was completed with regard to the St. Croix Crossing
project and specific mitigation measures for the adverse effects resulting from the
crossing were identified. Among these mitigative measures are the removal of the Terra
Terminal building and restoration of the shoreline for the purpose of enhancing the scenic
value of that location. The Terra Terminal building measures approximately 350 by 40
feet, and is visible from the river up to 23,000 feet to the south and 13,000 feet to the
north.
Future development on the Terra Terminal site should not negate the benefits gleaned
from its removal. Effective screening from river vantage points, natural shoreline
restoration, and adherence to the City of Stillwater's Floodplain and Bluffiand/Shoreland
Overlay Districts Regulations would help to make any development on the site less
inconspicuous when viewed from the river.
Other concerns expressed in a conversation with NPS staff included the consideration of
the Aiple Property as a transitional zone for the developed downtown area of Stillwater to
a more natural shoreline farther south. Development and siting plans should maintain
and enhance that transition. The NPS urges the public use of the buildings within a park
setting; use of the buildings as a restaurant or other private facility are discouraged.
Bergslein Properly Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 7
Historical Considerations
With regard to the placement of the historic buildings, the EIS recommends that the new
location must be comparable to their historic location and compatible with the property's
historical significance in terms of:
· Orientation,
· Setting, and
· General environment.
Furthermore, if the new location has other in-place historic buildings that are located
nearby, particular attention will be needed to guard against creating a false sense of
history, while still creating a "natural" setting.
PROPOSED NEW SITE
A new site for' the Bergstein warehouse and shoddy mill has been proposed within a
parcel owned by the City of Stillwater known as the Aiple Property. The Aiple Property
is being developed into a city park, with a trail system and active programming facilities.
The proposed site is approximately one mile north of the existing Bergstein site within a
thin strip of deciduous flood-plain forest running parallel to, and between Highway 95
and the St. Croix River. Historically, several mills and plants lined the shoreline. The
specified new site within the Aiple Property is currently occupied by an abandoned
fertilizer building, known as the Terra Terminal building, and is accessible by a gravel
road off Highway 95.
The proposed site was within the area of potential effect for the St. Croix River Crossing
project for both archaeological and architecturallhistorical resourc~s, and therefore has
been evaluated for hilltoric significance. Archaeological surveys completed in May 2005
by Two Pines Resource Group identified the Terra Terminal building area has having low
potential for intact precontact or post contact archaeological resources. The proposed site
is located within the Stillwater Cultural Landscape District, an NRHP-eligible historic
district. The Terra Terminal building, although never individually inventoried, is
presumed to be a non-contributing property within this district. An assessment of the
effects to that district resulting from the relocation of the Bergstein property should be
completed to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
During the master planning process for the Aiple Property, completed in 1998, several
alternatives for the property were conceived. Within the area of the proposed location of
the Bergstein buildings, plans indicate the construction of a 10-foot paved multi-use trail
east of the existing railroad bed, a river edge promenade and overlook, visitor boat slips,
and the Cayuga barge working river exhibit.. The TelTa Tenninal building would be
removed under the preferred plan. The current proposal for the Bergstein property would
result in the demolition of the Terra Terminal building and the placement of the
warehouse and shoddy mill (Figures 6 and 7).
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 8
FIGURE 6. PROPOSED LOCATION WITHIN MASTER PLAN DESIGN
FIGURE 7. VIEW OF PROPOSED SITE AND EXISTING TERRA TERMINAL BUILDING, FACING NORTHEAST
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 9
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SITE
The relocation of the Bergstein shoddy mill and warehouse to the Aiple Property presents
several challenging requirements to accommodate both the historical considerations of
the two buildings and the zoning and scenic considerations of the riverside site. Graphic
illustrations of the concept plan and cross sections for the relocated buildings on the
proposed site are found in the Attachments.
Floodplain and BlufflandlShoreland Zoning Overlays
The proposed site and necessary building configuration would not meet the Floodplain
and BlufflandlShoreland Zoning ordinances, and would therefore require a City variance
and DNR approval. The Terra Terminal site is entirely within the 100-foot setback of the
OHWM; no buildable sites within the immediate vicinity of the Terra Terminal site could
accommodate the placement of the shoddy mill and warehouse buildings outside of the
setback. As conceived in the concept plan, the warehouse would be placed about 40 feet,
and the shoddy mill about 60 feet from the OHWM. The Terra Terminal site is partially
within the 40-foot blu:ffline setback; no buildable site within the vicinity of the Terra
Terminal site could accommodate the placement of the shoddy mill and warehouse
buildings outside ofthe bluffline setback.
Elevation of the buildings would need to be raised to 693 feet (one foot above 100 Year
Floodplain Elevation) in order to comply with the zoning regulations. This could be
accomplished by placing the buildings on foundations and adding fill to the area. The fill
would be slightly sloped to the east for water run-off and would be 2 to 3 feet deep and
should extend 15 feet from the structures at or above the 693-foot elevation. A permit
from the City would be necessary for the placement of the fill. Not only is raising the
elevation of the first floor above the floodplain important for meeting the zoning
requirements, it would also be important to keep the buildings out of danger from
flooding, thereby preserving and protecting their historic materials. To place the
buildings within a site that would create an undo threat to their material integrity would
be considered unacceptable.
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
The placement of the shoddy mill and warehouse buildings on the site would require the
demolition of the Terra Terminal building, thereby meeting this mitigation requirement
for the St. Croix River Crossing project. The development of the site should not,
however, negate the beneficial effects of the Terra Terminal building's removal.
Although the plan would not be able to meet the shoreline and bluffline setback
requirements of the Floodplain and BlufflandlShoreland Zoning Overlays, the shoddy
mill and warehouse would be a significantly smaller presence on the site than that of the
existing Terra Terminal building. Natural and eJtisting vegetation will offer mitigative
screening between the' shore and the buildings on the east and north side and would
contribute to making the buildings as inconspicuous as possible, Natural shoreline
restoration also would serve to mitigate what potential adverse effects the placement of
the buildings may have to the scenic qualities of the waterway. Care should be taken to
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page J 0
limit the vegetation to areas outside the mill and warehouse compound, to retain the sense
of a working facility. Most vegetation within the historic building cqmpound should be
minimized and avoid decorative and domestic planting schemes.
Historical Considerations
Orientation
The shoddy mill and warehouse would be situated on the parcel to retain an orientation
and spatial relationship comparable or identical to that of its original location. The
buildings would be placed 25 to 30 feet from each other and reconstructed in an
arrangement that would simulate the historic configuration. The buildings would also be
oriented to recreate the approximate original cardinal directions.
Moreover, the presence of a railroad bed to the west of the new site spatially resembles
the historic relationship of the Bergstein property 'to the railroad. Since the presence of
the railroad bed emulates the historical setting of the property, it would not be considered
the creation of a false sense of history, as would the presence of other historical buildings
not associated with the historical setting of the Bergstein property.
Although the site would require the buildings to be placed on a foundation and raised to a
level of 693 feet (one foot above the 100 Year Floodplain Elevation), the addition of fill
into the area would recreate a mostly level setting (the grade would be slightly sloped to
the east for water run-off) that would simulate the historical vertical orientation of the
Bergstein property. The elevation of the buildings at this level would also help to protect
the historic materials from most flood events.
Setting
The proposed new location is on the St. Croix River floodplain, just off the heavily
traveled Highway 95 corridor. ill its new location, the mill and warehouse would stand
adjacent to the river, creating a visual association not present at its historical site.
Screening from the river would not only help to minimize the visual presence of the
nearby river, it would also help to diminish the effects of the buildings from the vantage
point of the river, a national scenic waterway.
The original setting of the property included its placement on four 50-foot-wide lots.
Previous relocation feasibility documentation completed by Claybaugh Preservation
Architecture Inc. in 2005 suggested that a parcel with dimensions of I 50-feet by I50-feet
would be adequate for the new building site. The proposed site does not meet this
recommendation in terms of site depth (east-west), although the parcel would be of
sufficient width (north-south). Other buildings or landscape features constructed within
this zone, such as driveways or structures that emulate the non-extant structures once
associated with the mill and warehouse, should be related to the historical setting of the
Bergstein property.
The historical setting on the bluff above the St. Croix River Valley does not appear to be
significant in the property's setting or to its industrial function. Its adjacency to the
Bergstein Properly Relocation Mitig;\[;on Project
ProJlosed Sile A"sessmenl
Page II
railroad, and the semi-rural location, outside the City of Stillwater, are of greater
relevance. The new site should not significantly alter the setting of the buildings
themselves. The proposed new location saw several industry-related buildings come and
go over the last century and a half; relocated, the shoddy mill and warehouse would be
compatible with the general history of this environment.
General Environment
The general environment of the Bergstein property would be changed from a location on
the edge of a low-density residential community to a city park. The park setting,
however, is not an entirely bucolic, natural setting, but is instead one comprised of
sawmill ruins, railroad corridors, and other features indicating the presence of historical
industry. This type of environment would be complementary to the industrial heritage of
the mill and warehouse, and therefore would be a compatible environment. Care should
be taken in the placement of future park facilities, such as playgrounds, picnic shelters,
marinas or other incompatible facilities; they should not be placed within the vicinity of
the relocated historic buildings.
RE-USE AND INTERPRETIVE POTENTIAL WITHIN A PARK SETTING
The master plan for the Aiple Property includes the development of an events area,
walking and biking thoroughfares, picnic areas and interpretive markers. The shoddy
mill and warehouse would be on display in a public context, and the potential for its
adaptive re-use and interpretation are tremendous. The City of Stillwater has expressed
interest in adapting the buildings as trail head and/or interpretive center facilities or as a
hostel. A Site Plan Concept of the relocated buildings within the Aiple Property can be
found in the Attachments.
The following guidelines are recommended for the reuse and interpretation of the
Bergstein shoddy mill and warehouse:
· Implement re-use options that are compatible with the historic buildings and with
the public park setting.
II Follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings (httjJ://www.cr.nps.gov/hjJs/tps/standguide/index.htm) when
adapting to the new use of the historic buildings.
· Preserve the interior features and structural elements of the buildings that are
unique to, and illustrative of, their historical uses.
.. Preserve and/or restore the exterior fayades of the buildings to their historic
appearance.
· Utilize these industrial buildings as a transition between the urbanized setting of
Stillwater on the north and the more natural areas along the St. Croix Scenic
Riverway to the south.
· Interpret the shoddy mill and warehouse within the context of its Jewish cultural
and economic origins to shed light on a unique cultural and industrial aspect of
Minnesota and Stillwater history.
III Explicitly describe the Bergstein buildings' original site and physical context and
the circumstance of their relocation.
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Page 12
.. Interpret the industrial context of shoddy milling, as well as the other historical
archaeological industrial properties authentically associated with the Aiple
property, such as the Hersey & Bean Planing Mill, the Hersey & Bean Sawmill
and Slab Alley, which together comprise the proposed Stillwater South Main
Street Archaeological District that provides insights into Stillwater's nineteenth
century lumber industry and working-class life. Interpretation should make clear
what is authentic to the site (sawmill ruins, etc.) and what is not (shoddy mill and
warehouse) in order to avoid presenting a false sense of history.
II Other visitor services or general river interpretation may take place within the
buildings.
.. Construction of other structures and landscape features, such as walkways,
driveways, and furnishings within the vicinity of the Bergstein buildings should
be kept to a minimum, should be based on historical precedent, when possible,
and should be expressed as distinguishably modem, yet compatible, fonns~
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Floodplain and BlufflandlShoreland Zoning Overlays
The proposed relocation site would result in the placement of the warehouse and shoddy
mill within 40 and 60 feet of the OHWM, respectively. The proposed relocation site
would not meet the Floodplain and BlufflandlShoreland Zoning Overlay ordinances
requirements because:
.. the proposed site is within the 1 DO-foot setback from the OHWM; and
· the proposed site is within the 40-foot setback from the bluffline.
The proposed relocation site would not exceed the 35-foot height limit, and would
therefore meet that requirement. The buildings would be raised to an elevation of one
foot above the 100 Year Floodplain Elevation, thereby meeting the requirement for
building elevation. Two to three feet of fill with 15 feet of the buildings would be
required. By raising the building to this elevation, historic materials would be protected
from lOO-year flooding events.
The plan, as proposed, would need to seek a variance from the City of Stillwater Planning
Commission, and would require DNR approval. Furthennore, non-compliance with the
zoning requirements may not meet the goals of the NPS with regard to the mitigation
measures for the removal of the Terra Tenninal building if the placement of the buildings
is perceived to negate the benefits of the removal of the Terra Tenninal building. The
proposed plan would also require a pennit for the fill material.
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway .
The proposed relocation plan would not meet the City of Stillwater's zoning regulations
for the property, and therefore may not meet the goals of the NPS, which are to restore
the natural and scenic qualities of the riverway. Vegetative screening and restoration of
the natural shoreline may sufficiently mitigate the effects of the proposed plan on the
scenic qualities of the St. Croix River.
Bergstein Property Relocation Miligation Project
Proposed Sitc Assessment
Page 13
Historical Considerations
The proposed site meets many of the criteria necessary for the historical considerations of
the Bergstein property. The orientation, setting and general environment of the proposed
site would be altered from, although largely compatible with, the property's original site.
II The shoddy mill and warehouse could be configured on the proposed site in an
arrangement that would approximate the historical plan with respect to the
orientation of the buildings to each other, to the railroad bed, and to the
approximate cardinal directions.
.. The shoddy mill and warehouse would be raised on foundations to an elevation of
one foot above 100 Year Floodplain Elevation (693 feet). Two to three feet offill
would raise the surrounding area to appear level and would simulate the existing
vertical orientation of the buildings. Historic building materials would be
protected from 100-year flooding events.
.. The previous recommendation that a parcel measuring 150 feet by 150 feet would
be ideal for a relocation site could not be met at the proposed site. Vegetation at
the river's edge, however, may serve to mitigate for tbe lack of lot depth on the
proposed site and would simulate the current forested bluff setting on the east end
ofthe original lots.
.. The proposed site would be compatible with the historical significance of the
Bergstein property, and would continue to be located within a semi-rural setting
on a site historically associated with industry.
.. The park setting, which is comprised of sawmill ruins, railroad corridors and other
industrial remnants, is complementary to the industrial heritage represented in the
shoddy mill and warehouse. The placement of tbe buildings would not be
considered out of place within this environment.
Because the proposed site is within an NRHP-eligible historic district (the Stillwater
Cultural Landscape District), an assessment of the effects to that district resulting from
the relocation of the Bergstein property should be completed to comply with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Re-Use and Interpretive Potential
The relocation of the shoddy mill and warehouse to the Aiple Property provides an
excellent opportunity to adapt the buildings for use as a visitor and/or interpretive center
within the park's public context. Rehabilitation of the shoddy mill, warehouse and
immediate surrounding landscape should be sensitive to the historical character of the
property and should utilize the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Interpretive materials should include discussion of the shoddy mill and warehouse within
the context of its Jewish cultural and economic heritage, and should specifically describe
the buildings' original site and physical context and the circumstance of their relocation.
Additional interpretation could tie-in with the industrial heritage authentic to the Aiple
Property and environs, which includes both sawmill ruins and working-class domestic
artifacts. Such interpretation would be complementary to the heritage of the Bergstein
family's domestic and economic endeavors.
Bergstein Property Relocation Mitigation Project
Proposed Site Assessment
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS: BUILDING RELOCATION SITE CONCEPT PLANS
,-
Q.
~
.,
b
~
~
q;
~
<S!
<,.;:.
...
.,
n:
;':'-
....~j
F
t
~
'-n
~
0-- .~
:~ ~ :::
,5:: ~-..c
--'.- ~ ~ ~
.S ;.g ~ ~ ,E
::~~..~~
.9 ~"l:l ~ '5
~l~~tIi ~~
;S,::; 5 ~ t:j ~
~ ~~.s.. .g ~
.t: [ou . ~. f"Io to.;.
;:: b ~ s ~~
5 t: ~ g .... ~
~ 1,.'\ ~..:;:: i::.-.c
C R; ~.o Ji ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
l_______ L__
---r- -
SflO!':J:>S _._....._._. J.____
SSO,1:J :J:JS I
o
~
~
,.
.~
\j
~
~ tt~
g~r:,
c'':: '0
'0} ,g l~
0:",'
!:l~
c
"i.i
~
~
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
!
\~ :i '"I' ~~! j~ ~ I ~ i ~
}\~~( k)) 0/ / H f U
I"~ I (<<; ~ 'll ~ ,(
.J\I .' ~-ci::.l~ e.~
\\h : ~ I t g ~
\ .~r:':;; '''n
_tp -=-_ ,J' :t: ~ 5 ~ ~ ,S
r\:\,\1 ' ,ln~~~!
.fiv"1 i \ I / 0 II :! ~l ~ ~I ~I 011; '1"
) \ .{--~I! I
/ \\ (_._.JeT" / i / (} I If Ii;
]--) / I 111}i t J : I II f
I J:i I II l ) J II f
I Iii ~ , -E / L l II III ('
I / II ~ I ~ I ~ l ' 1 I f II 1
100' I ,Ill I Jl ~ II J ! I I j }
~ ~ I' II (t
, II
I I U I l ! I I r f
[I ~lllJ. II III~
~ II I I ~ \ I I I I "
,1 l~tlj( J'I Ii/-
. l ii/It ill '!r
Tt~r - ...-.,f ,1- !-f._.-f--H---.~1{j-
I ' II It)' I I,r
I I \J~llf 3.1'1 ~ ,If~
......J~ '11. J l \ ( II ~ II
I rl' ~ ',I t ,'I i I I(
I, 1\ I [ f I :.; I ~
hi f'/11\1~ 1 / / ~ / if
H-~7 II ,I I ~ I (
N II, I I ~ I, t ,-
III II < I, Ilf(~ g -'1
/) .1 ;~ ~ 1/ I d ~. ~
I, i I ~ I I I I> '"
J1'\ ',,1/ ilt .~
/.11 \ III 11(0 ~
lit \ 1! I' I 11
1 I (I ~ II J ')
fist 1"1/ Ir"
( ". l < I II I I >
II ! I: ~ '\ r~ " I II J
r . . l I I I ~
I I . r i . (, II ( ~
~I Ii [, ,'1\) / / Ii (~1.
II I I I I I
" I !, 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
.~15
1t~
CQ')
tj~
Q/J.'J!:.
i~
,!a
~
...
\:!
S
6
0<::
~ l~ ~
... g ~
I~ .~
.,
o
~
~-
f<'r,\
.......lr'.0V'...111.At:G':\~M'lJr""f'i'l:1\,'I~rl7F'?JVT^.
I
i=
~
w
n.
o
n::
<L
i"l
t-~
:t~
uo
~~
u~
~ c,
..q; <:"
-.1m
0..""
~~
0::;,
i::~
~~
o~
....-
~~
- "'-
t:)~~
~ ~~
Cl is iJ'i
~CJo
::;)O-,=,
1tI ill i3
~c;~
-.
ii
j
.~ ~
j ~:,
I
~ 2'
~.'<'Oii'i
~ u .
''0 !:l >l t:l
lo( ~ e .Q
~ ~ & ~
~ ~ ~ ~
s ~ ~ ~
-~ .:: .~ ~
c:, .2 ~ c
~ ~ .:! ~ ~
~ ....... l.:; ~
~ ~ I': Y. of;!
~ ...... .~ e (,)
-J::"i.!'l.~
.q~'C~Q'
.~ll '" g ~ ~
~.S~g~
';::... "E &.... .... _,
"<:: ~o>-;~~
~. .:;:: C :;:, .:: c
"" i:! <:::> :;:, :c ';f
~ III II
J II/Il
~ f i I 1/ I
lJ / ~ III I ! f
~rh 1'1 )
q1i !I Iq
R/I JII il(
I/I/! i J i I Ii J
h I[ J-+-11--'-'+ri
----1/ ; - rr \! i I :r
\:, 1'1 ) iI' ~ IiJJ
'\/1 j JI~/r
"/ , l' I i II
M(\ II ~ I"~
1/1 ~ 11 ~ ,I i,( <> ~
{I I' '/~'" ~ ~
Jf/i,li! II~ j
P / lit.
I if \ II~~ IF 0 i
J I { \\/ '; ~~ /,( 0 ~
i [~ I If ~ ~ i
I I I l"t. I : .
I t! \ 1/ ~].I / ~ I ~
II { [. I I, ~ UJ l" '~ ~
I 1 Ii>..,..
! I Y II , I.,~_,,~_.
,..
~ ~
'~ /'.:-~.f--t.
..."E (
",>: ~ ti~ "
~!,:';;j
0.. ":~Q
~~ '"
::: ~i:::l (r
;:: r\ r:S ....
t-- \ j
--~ '\ 'i
--......J ,,<
--------,~
.~ ~
~ ~
...... 0
~~ ~
~ ~ e::::
,S ~ ~
s~
ti~ ~
!.::;~ '-.:..
~ <q ~
"t:; ~ .~
F.::!~ c,,;
:s
.~
..
~
...<i) Or1')
... ;;~ ~
.~ "4.... 't:i
'i:1 80-:;:
~ ~~.::tl
.... CUI<.; ~
~ ~s ~ ~
~ <;):I.;o.. ....;
l:: -c E 33' ""
~ "l'~ ~ '0
t"'''l
!!lJ ~-:5 eo
.t:l O~.E
t:l Q ~
{"~ >-. tl .....
a: l::Ig~
?t &l g~
o O,g
1] {.) ,_
~ -!:l~
~ '~"l;:;
~ m
'<:: ~
." <4
Z. G
. . <:)
~Q~~
"" '~<;:, ~
,Sl ,~ '0 S!
.~v ~~
~~" :.!
Ill'::' e
~ '€~ ~
~ ~ :-<:
l!!- i<l
~tj~ .~
~" -....
~~
8 ~
~~
~~
-;E
~
0:;
L_
~.' 6.:'l
'-.
~~
;;
"
I.l
: ~
j L
L
o
N
o
o
N
~
o!J
..
,.
'i>
o
"
."
~"lXJO~\I.I' J,::,l"j.NIS'...Jf".....'",.l:U.,.l.........l'M
oJ::
~
'<:>
==
0)
c:
~
C>
C>
....j
I-
fu
(.)
<::
o
u
::o!:
o
j:::>-
(.)~
~~
tl)O
tl)O::
o~
Ct:lt
u-
<::-<(
o~
i:::o:::
:'El~
~ .(
0''>
-.10
l.U~
n::'"
Qlw
<::~
csg
....,J UJ
S~
m~
tu!E
(I) .~ ~
~...J$
0,:4 ~
::t: ...~
u.a >- ~
a: g-u
~~,i;'
:5iI <n 0
F~
~1
L!iJ1 ~~
I-
fuj;::
t.Jffi
~~
On:
t) n.
~~
0"-
~.:j!
o~
I.tl-,.
(f)(j
Cl)i=
Cl)i3
00
Q:,J
ulg
c:l "'
=Z:W
-:;::>
t::lg
~w
::::l""
lXl~
..Je
~:;:~
:E: .... .-
>--~~
Cl;::~
t::l Co.._
00,,"
:X:~:f?'
CJ'J(I)U
u
'"
~
?
01 r-~
[;J
" a
r; ~ ~~
<> j
L? ~;!
Planning Report
DATE:
February 3, 2009
CASE NO.: 09-03
APPLICANT:
Shannon Bambery, BWBR Architects
PROPERTY OWNER:
Lakeview Hospital
REQUEST: Special Use Permit amendment for mechanical room addition
LOCATION: 927 W. Churchill St.
PUBLIC HEARING: February 9,2009
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development DirectorM I
BACKGROUND
Last year Lakeview Hospital made application to the City for approval of a multiple-phase
campus expansion plan, The hospital board decided during the winter not to proceed with that
plan and withdrew their request. Instead of the expansion plan, the board would like to proceed
with a remodeling plan. At some time in the future, an expansion plan will likely be re-
examined,
The current remodeling project incorporates three main components:
1, Relocate the existing oncology department from 2C into the Greeley Clinic
building (Remodel the vacated space to provide patient rooms).
2, Remodel the existing pharmacy to meet USP 797 requirements and provide
additional storage/work area.
3, Remodel the existing patient rooms in Circles lA, IB, I C.
Remodeling the existing patient rooms triggers a requirement that the air handling units for the
patient rooms be upgraded, This in turn necessitates an expansion ofthe mechanical room in
order to stage construction and keep departments functioning,
The required mechanical space would be approximately 2,500 square feet to accommodate a
larger single air handler, which would replace four smaller existing units. However, with the
potential for future remodeling or expansion, the hospital would like to construct a 5,500 square
foot addition for mechanical equipment. The hospital would likely bid the larger size as an add
Lakevie\v Hospital
Page 2 of3
alternate to the construction documents, but might not construct the ex tra space at this time.
Never the less, the hospital felt they needed to reflect the "worst case" size in this request.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Approval of an amendment to the hospital's existing Special Use Permit to allow the
construction of a 5,500 square foot mechanical room addition.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The hospital site is covered by two different zoning districts, The northem portion of the site is
zoned RE, Two-Family Residential. The southern pOliion of the site is zoned RA, Single Family
Residential. The mechanical addition would be located wholly within the RB district.
Hospitals are allowed by Special Use Pern1it in the RA Zoning District. Each expansion project
since 1976 has been by Special Use Pennit. The proposed mechanical room would need an
amendment to the existing Special Use Permit.
Key Issues
a) Building Height
Buildings in the RA Zoning District are limited to 35 feet or less in height. The
mechanical addition will be 14' 3" tall, which is permitted in the Zoning District.
Perhaps more importantly, the height ofthe addition is largely masked from view by the
, topography of the property and the existing parking ramp, Since it would be located at
the lower south level of the facility, the building as seen from Everett Street would only
be about four to six feet above grade. This can be seen in the attached graphics,
b) Parking & Traffic
Parking and traffic volume should not change with the remodeling. The plan would not
be to increase capacity as much as it would be to reorganize and update space.
c) Impervious cover
The current impervious coverage for the RA zoned portion of the site is 25.12%. The
proposed coverage would be increased to 26,68%. The RA district allows 30%
impervious coverage. Therefore, no variance is required,
The Plam1ing Commission is responsible for making a recommendation to the City Council on
the Special Use Permit.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options available:
1. Recommend approval of the Special Use Permit amendment with the condition that
Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization (WMO) ndes shall be satisfied in
Lakeview I-l ospi tal
Page 3 of 3
terms of stormwater management and erosion control. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the grading plan for the project must incorporate the WMO rules and be approved
by the City Engineer.
2. Recommend denial of the Special Use Permit. Findings of fact should accompany a
recommendation of denial.
3, Table the request for more information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approval ofthe minor amendment to Lakeview Hospital's Special Use Pern1it
with the condition listed in the first alternative.
cc: Shannon Bambery, BWBR Architects
attachments: Plan and elevation graphics (6 pages)
o-om
CD Ql ~_
(')~a
7'--__
::J::J
COco
o
m C)
::e
m . . ~
::a .
~ . -"C ootI m (0 m ~ -.
c:l mOG) m ~ CD a c :-- 5. ~ ~
:r >< Q) -.
;:; < ::r Ci3 -. ~ =CD~ - ::s
ID CD C CD ~ CD ~ 3 a. (0_. ~ c.a
n
.. Ct1o- -. ., g 3 5' CD ~ m
en ::; 2: ~ ~ Cil
---.. c.a (5" C Q) c.a 0 c.a c ~
N II = II < 0 -':I: ootI." Q) -. >)
0 t/) CD CD ~ 0 -
0 J\) II II C.
9J ()) ! - -CD 0 -. :::: 7\ \
"J::......."J::. - - CD -. .... ::s
N 0) c.a ~ rrJ lT1 '
N ~O') ~ m ~ Ci:i ~. CD c.a
0 C2 0) ~ :s: If(
0 Q) I - _
0lS'1I a ..
---.. (') ......
'- ~ 0 :I:lT1~
Ql .. C1I
::J ootIa 0 II 0 ~
C
Ql a .. n
-<
-I. 3a~
.9l o ..
N ootI
0
0
<0
....
o-om
(!) Ill~_
o~~
;1';----
::l::l
(C(C
i C)
. . :D
:D c} ~
~ . S ....m
.. . oc -.
() . r+ fA
=- .... r-:c (1) w= m (1)
~ :D.... n .. a. -
CD o 0 CA) _. a.
() o ~ r- :: ::I. :T CO~ )>
.. o I ~ m i m
en (1) N Q)(Q 'r-'
---- ....CA) ., 0 :I C
N C ~ (1) -- ~6' m -. ::>
0 - r-a (') -
0 (1) .... II a.
ex> (') a m ~ !. m g. -- ::I:~
r+ - I\) ~
-'- tTllI1
N ~3 UI (1) m :D 'tS 0 (Q
N >
(:) .. ->< 0 ::I. I\) ,,<
0 r- UI 'tS 0 ~ .. ~~
---- ~ 0 m 3 r+ I\) ::I:rr1
c- o 0
III ~ II
::l ~ 0 ~
c (1) ~ fA
III ., -. ~
-< 0
r- ~ a.
pl ~ -.
r+
N m --
0 (1) r+ 0
0 :I
(0 -
r+ ..
0
~
~
m
::IJ
:t-
el
::r
:+
CD
2-
CIl
'-
N
o
o
(Xl
-L
N
N
o
o
'-
'-
PJ
::l
C
PJ
-<
-L
Q)
N
o
o
<0
w
OJ
:::0
o
en
m
-<
m
<
m
~
."
:::0
o
s::
en
o
c
-I
::r:
m
~
-I
~
>)
:J:: 7\ \
m_
>- l.LJ
~;::: :,/
::I: m ~~
~ ~
m
~
m
:a
)>
~
::T
:+
CD
2-
en
---.
N
o
o
en
--'
N
N
o
o
---.
L
~
::I
C
~
-<
--'
(J)
N
o
o
<0
oI:ll
~
:xl
o
en
m
-<
m
<
m
::E
."
:xl
o
s::
en
o
c
-f
:I:
~
en
-f
~
>)
:I: 7': \
~111
j ::s II:'
,.J.., 111 ,,~
~ "
en
-i
JJ
m
m
-i
r
m
<
m
r
<
m
~
"
JJ
o
~
en
o
c
-i
:I:
m
)>
en
-i
m
:IE
m
:D
:I>
c:l ..
::T
~
ClI
n
..
en
"-
N
0
0
())
-L
N
N
0
0
"-
C-
Ol
:J
C
Ol
-<
-L
Q)
N
0
0
co
c.n
,-
i1/
I
I
I
I
'\
\1 \
I I
--~l. ,
i",~ 1
I ,--
I
r
>)
:J:?\
rn _ \
> lLJ
S :s Iff
- rr1 \,
~ ~
en
-I
JJ
m
m
-I
r
m
<
m
r
<
m
~
'T1
JJ
o
~
en
o
c
-I
:J:
m
)>
en
-I
UJ
:e
UJ
::a
Jill ;~ .-
... ,
n
::r :"
::;
(D
n
..
en
'--
f\)
0
0
~
f\)
f\) , ..
0
0 ..
'--
L
OJ
:J
C
OJ
-<
m
f\)
0
0
CD
en
'.,.,
~;.
"
\
\
\
I
_I ,.
1'-- -,- - I
1- ----.I
I
r
~~ i
tti ~
~
(StHl~te~
. .. ,~ B ' ~ ^ A , ~, .. >,', f 0 A ')
Memo
Community Development Department
From:
Planning Commission
Michel Pogge, City Planne~~
Friday, January 30, 2009
Discussion Item: Communication Towers in Residential Districts
To:
Date:
Re:
Message:
Recently, staff has been made aware of several possible communication towers that are now in
the planning stage for the City of Stillwater. Before these towers move from the planning stage
to actual requests, staff thought it would be prudent to review the code with the Plalming
Commission and discuss possible changes.
Future of Communication Towers
A communication h'ade group estimated the number of cell towers in the u.s. is expected to
climb from 175,000 in 2006 to 260,000 by 2010. This represents an increase of 48%, There are
two reasons for this. First, more and more households are" cutting" landlines in favor of
cellular phones. Nelsen Surveys estimated that in June of 200816.4% of households in the u.s.
have become "wireless only" which is up from just 4.2 % in December 2003. Second,
communication technology is becoming more sophisticated and many of the wireless high-
speed internet services require more towers to support the service.
Historically in urban environments, most providers were placing towers at 3 to 5 mile
increments. To meet in-home cellular use and new technologies, such as wireless high-speed
internet, providers require a denser network with towers approximately 1 mile apart. This
change will require some towers to placed in locations surrounded by residences which
previously did generally need to occur in Stillwater.
From the desk of...
Michel rogge, AICP . City PlalU1er . City of Stillwater . 216 N. 41h Street . Stillwater, MN 55082
651.430-8822 ,Fax: 651.430-8810 . email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn,us
Tower Designs
There are four basic tower designs: Guide Wire Towers, Lattice Towers, Monopole Towers, and
Stealth Towers. Attached to this memo are examples of these various types of communication
towers.
City Code Requirements
Currently, the City Code requires monopole towers in
all of our residential districts were towers are
permitted (RA, RB, RCM, and RCH). Stillwater's
ordinance was originally written in 1997 to address
the requirements of the Federal Communication Act.
At that time, monopoles were first gaining wide
spread use in urban setting. Monopoles provided for
both a small physical ground footprint but also a
"cleaner" look over guide wire and lattice towers.
The downfall of a monopole is the amount of
equipment that is still visible on the top of the tower.
Since 1997 stealth towers have been developed and
are becoming a viable option in tower design. Stealth
towers are simply a way to camouflage the real
purpose of a tower. One example of a stealth tower is
the communication tower installed in 2007 on the
Stillwater Golf and Country Club property. This
tower is simply a monopole tower with all of the
antennas installed inside the tower.
Below: Stillwater Country Club
Communication Tower.
.....
Stealth design falls into two general categories: towers
that imitate manmade sh'uctures, and towers that
imitate nature. Towers that mimic manmade
sh'uctures are more deft at achieving invisibility.
Stealth flagpoles and church steeples, for example, maintain their visible identities while
disguising their intended function. These structures are in fact what they appear to be, albeit
with a hidden infrastructure. Unlike the stealth towers that imitate nature, the structural
requirements of these towers and their adopted frames are not in conflict. Even before
communication towers, flagpoles and steeples were talL Nature can be less accommodating.
Consider the stealth palm trees with metal rectangles integrated awkwardly into the false sway
of faux palm leaves. Even stealth cacti outdo their prickly neighbors with their unprecedented
height, width, and stiffness. Rather than creating unseen towers, telecommunication
companies have assembled distinct and noticeable struchues.
The question staff posses is simple. Is the Commission satisfied with our current design
requirements for towers in residential districts or should the City consider adding requirements
for stealtl1 tower designs in residential districts?
From the desk of...
Michel Pogge, AICP . City Planner' City of Stillwater' 216 N, 41h Street . Stillwater, MN 55082
651.430-8822 . Fax: 651.430-8810 . em ail: mpogge@ci,stillwater.mn,us
Types of Communication
1) Guide wire Towers
~"
T'
t(.
I
"I
r1iJI
2) Lattice Towers
II
t' '
.,
"
I I
I., .'J
~, '
,> \,
il! ~
I .
I' , '.\
t ,:,j'...'.'.~
,"j.' I
~. '...~ .\
;( f ~
j"'. J
I -, .. '
\: r'" \
.. '1
t:>> ~.!
, .
3) Monopole Towers
'~"
'11
4) Stealth Towers
Man Made Styles
a) Clock Tower (Also sometimes used as
a church tower)
b) Flag Pole
~
~.
c) Building Mounted
Nature Styles
d ) Tree
I
I
I
I~' f. ~
',!'t~~ -.
. .... ,....... -- .. ..,..
~~\n . ~ ';1m~~ J'
~
.-
ZONING ORDINANCE
~ 31-512
(j) If the building is relocated in the city,
complete within 90 days after removal, all
remodeling, additions or repairs as indi-
cated in the application, in any document
filed in support thereof or in any building
permit issued in connection therewith.
(k) Take all reasonable precautions to secure
the building and to reduce danger of any
member of the public until the building is
set on its foundation and any remodeling,
additions or repairs, described in the ap-
plication, have been completed including,
but not limited to:
(1) Locking all doors and windows;
(2) Providing sufficient support or brac-
ing so as to stabilize the building to
prevent it or any part thereof from
sliding, slipping, falling or moving;
and
(3) Erecting or maintaining a security
fence or wall, the base of which shall
be no higher than four inches and
the top of which shall be at least four
feet above the surface of the ground
and which shall enclose the entire
building as well as the excavation
for the foundation.
Subd, 7. Liability to city. The holder of a permit
shall be liable jointly and severally for any ex-
penses, damages or costs paid or incurred by the
city as a result of the issuance of a permit or the
taking or failure to take any action by the holder
of the permit of the city under this section. The
city may take or cause to be taken any of the
following actions and may retain so much of the
cash deposit necessary to reimburse itself for any
costs or expenses incurred as a result thereof.
(a) If the city, in its sole discretion, deter-
mines that the premises for which or to
which the building is to be moved, if
within the city, or the movement of the
building through or within the city is
unsafe or constitutes any other unsafe
condition, the city, in its sole discretion
may, but shall not be required to, take or
cause such action to be taken to eliminate
sueh unsafe eonditions as it shall deem
appropriate.
Supp, No, 29
(b) If the premises from which the building
has been removed are within the city and
such premises are left in an unsafe or
unsanitary condition or the provisions of
this section with respect to such premises
have not been complied with, the city
may, but shall not be required, in its sole
discretion to take or cause such action to
be taken to remedy such unsafe or unsan-
itary condition and to place the premises
in such condition as to be in compliance
with this section.
Subd. 8. Times specified. No person shall move
any building on any public street or highway
within the city at any time other than those times
specified by the director of public safety.
Sec. 31-512. Regulation of radio and televi-
sion towers.
Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the
communication needs of residents and business
while protecting the public health, safety, general
welfare and aesthetics of the community, the city
council finds that this Section 31-512 is necessary
in order to:
(a) Facilitate the provision of wireless tele-
communication services to the residents
and businesses of the city;
(b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers
and antennas through setting design stan-
dards;
(c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent prop-
erties from tower failure through struc-
tural standards, lot size requirements and
setback requirements; and
(d) Maximize the use of existing and ap-
proved towers and buildings to accommo-
date new wireless telecommunication an-
tennas in order to reduce the number of
towers needed to serve the community.
Subd. 2. Location preferences for antennas and
towers,
(a) Water towers.
(b) Collocations on existing telecommunica-
tions towers.
CD31:133
S 31-512
STILLWATER CODE
(c) Sides and roofs of buildings over two
stories.
(d) Existing power or telephone poles,
(e) Government and utility sites.
(f) School sites.
(g) Golf courses or public parks when compat-
ible with the nature ofthe park or course.
(h) Regional transportation cOlTidors,
Subd. 3. Antenna and towers in residential
districts eRA, RB, RCNI, RCIl). Any person, firm
or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a
residential district must obtain a conditional use
permit and meet the following requirements:
(a) Communication antennas, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) Satellite dishes for television receiv-
ing only are subject to the accessory
structure requirements for residen-
tial districts.
(2) All antennas must be designed and
situated to be visually unobtrusive,
screened as appropriate, not be mul-
ticolored and may contain no signage,
including logos, except as required
by the equipment manufacturers or
city, state or federal regulations.
(3) An antenna placed on a primary
structure may be no taller than 15
feet above the primary structure.
Any accessory equipment or struc-
tures must be compatible with the
design and materials of the primary
structure and not visible from a pub-
lic street.
(4) Monopoles only are allowed in resi-
dential districts.
(5) Minimum land area for freestanding
monopoles site in residential dis-
tricts is one acre.
(G) A tower and any antenna combined
may be no more than 75 feet in
height, or 100 feet in height if collo-
cated.
Supp, No. 29
CD:3l:134
(7) A tower may not be located within
100 feet of any existing or planned
residential structure.
(8) A tower must be setback from a
street line a minimum of the height
of the tower and any antenna; and
towers or antennas may be sited in
preferred locations as listed in Subd,
2 of this Section 31-512 subject to
design permit approval.
Subd. 4. Stillwater West business park districts-
Business park commercial, business park office,
business park industrial (BP-C, BP-O and BP-lJ.
Any person, firm or corporation erecting a tower
or antenna in the Stillwater West Business Park
shall require a conditional use permit and meet
the following requirements of this Section 31-512:
(a) Exception. Communication antennas at-
tached to an existing structure or in pre-
ferred location which are no higher than
15 feet above the primary structure and
are allowed as permitted use,
(b) Conditions. Communication towers and
antennas are subject to the following con-
ditions:
(1) A tower and antenna may be no
more than 75 feet in height, 100 feet
if collocated.
(2) A tower may not be located within
300 feet of the property line of resi-
dentially zoned property.
(:3) A tower may be located no closer to a
street property line than a distance
equal to the height ofthe tower plus
ten feet.
(4) Minimum lot size is 0.5 acre for a
primary tower use.
(5) Towers may be located no closer than
one-half mile to the closest tower or
other collocation PWCS transmit-
ting facility,
(G) If a tower is erected on a site with an
existing primary structure, the site
must have a space of 1,200 square
feet set aside exclusively for tower
use, The tower may not be located in
ZONING ORDINANCE
S 31-512
the front or corner side yard setback
area of the primary structure but to
the rear of the site.
Subd. 5, Central business district (CBD) and
professional administrative (PA) district. Any per-
son, firm or corporation erecting an antenna in
central business and professional administrative
districts shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Towers are not allowed in the CBD and
PA districts,
(b) Antennas are allowed subject to design
review, The purpose of design revie'w is to
protect the historic integrity, natural set-
ting and character of downtown and its
historic buildings and the national regis-
ter historic district.
(c) All support service equipment must be
enclosed within an existing building or
located and screened so as to be hidden
from public view from the street or above,
Subd. 6. St. Croix River overlay district, No
communication antenna or communication tower
may be located in the St Croix River Overlay
District, shoreland or floodplain districts.
Subel. 7. Peljormance standards. All personal
wireless communication towers erected, con-
structed, or located \vithin the city must comply
with the following requirements:
(a) Colocation requirements, A proposal for a
new personal wireless communication ser-
vice tower may not be approved unless it
can be documented by the applicant that
the communications equipment planned
for the proposed tower cannot be accom-
modated on an existing or approved to\ver
or building within a one-half-mile radius
of the proposed tower due to one or more
of the following reasons:
(1) The planned equipment would cause
interference with other existing or
planned equipment at the tower or
building as documented by a quali-
fied professional enf,rineer, and the
interference cannot be prevented at
a reasonable cost.
Supp. No, 29
CD~n:185
(2) No existing or approved towers or
commercial/industrial buildings
within a one-half-mile radius meet
the radio frequency (RF) design cri-
teria.
(3) Existing 01' approved towers and com-
mercial/industrial buildings within
a one-half-mile radius cannot accom-
modate the planned equipment at a
height necessary to function reason-
ably as documented by a qualified
and professional radio frequency (RF)
engineer.
(4) The applicant must demonstrate that
a good faith effort to collocate exist-
ing towers and structures within a
one-half-mile radius was made, but
an agreement could not be reached.
(b) Tower construction requirements, All tow-
ers erected, constructed or located within
the city, and all wiring therefore, shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) Monopoles are the preferred tower
design. However, the city will con-
sider alternative tower types in cases
where structural, radio frequency de-
sign considerations or the number of
tenants required by the city pre-
cludes the use of a monopole. No guy
wires may be used.
(2) Towers and their antennas must com-
ply with all applicable provisions of
this Code.
(3) Towers and their antennas must be
certified by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer to conform to
the latest structural standards of
the Uniform Building Code and all
other applicable reviewing agencies.
(4) Towers and their antennas must be
designed to conform to accepted elec-
trical engineering methods and prac-
tices and to comply with the provi-
sions ofthe National Electrical Code.
(5) Metal towers must be constructed of
or treated with corrosion-resistant
material.
S 31-512
STILLWATER CODE
(6) Any proposed communication ser-
vice tower of 100 feet in height must
be designed, structurally, electri-
cally and in all respects, to accom-
modate both the applicant's anten-
nas and comparable antennas at least
one additional user. To allow for fu-
ture rearrangement of antennas upon
the tower, the tower must be de-
signed to accept antennas mounted
at no less than 20-foot intervals.
(7) All towers must be reasonably pro-
tected against unauthorized climb-
ing. The bottom of the tower (mea-
sured fi'om ground level to 12 feet
above ground level) must be de-
signed in a manner to preclude un-
authorized climbing to be enclosed
by a six-foot-high chain link fence
with a locked gate.
(8) All owners and their antennas and
relative accessory structures must
utilize building materials, colors, tex-
tures, screening and landscaping that
effectively blend the tower facilities
within the surrounding natural set-
ting and built environment to the
greatest extent possible.
(9) No advertising or identification of
any kind intended to be visible from
the ground or other structures is
permitted, except applicable warn-
ing and equipment information
sign age required by the manufac-
turer or by federal, state or local
authorities.
(10) Towers and their antennas may not
be illuminated by artificial means,
except for camouflage purposes (de-
signed as a lighted tower for a park-
ing lot or a ball field) or the illumi-
nation is specifically required by the
Federal Aviation Administration or
other authority.
(11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor
any lines, cable, equipment, wires or
braces, may at any time extend across
or over any part of the right-of-way,
public street, highway or sidewalk.
Supp. No, 29
CD:31:136
(12) All communication towers and their
antennas must be adequately in-
sured for injury and property dam-
age caused by collapse of the tower.
(13) All obsolete or unused towers and
accompanying accessory facilities
must be removed within 12 months
of the cessation of operations at the
site unless a time extension is ap-
proved by the city council. After the
facilities are removed, the site must
be restored to its original or an im-
proved state,
(14) In addition to the submittal require-
ments required elsewhere in this
Code, applications for building per-
mits for towers and their antennas
must be accompanied by the follow-
ing information:
1. The provider must submit con-
firmation that the proposed
tower complies with regula-
tions administered by that
agency or that the tower is ex-
empt from those regulations,
ll, A report from a qualified pro-
fessional engineer shall be sub-
mitted which does the follow-
mg:
a. Describes the tower height
and design including a
cross section and eleva-
tion;
Demonstrates the tower's
compliance with the afore-
mentioned structural and
electrical standards;
Documents the height
above grade for all poten-
tial mounting positions, or
collocated antennas and
the minimum separation
distances between anten-
b.
c.
d.
na8;
Describes the tower's ca-
pacity including the num.
ZONING ORDINANCE
* 31-513
bel' and type of antennas
that it can accommodate;
and
Confirmation by the pro-
vider that the proposed fa-
cility will not interfere with
public safety communica-
tions.
Ul, A letter of intent committing
the tower owner or his succes-
sors to allow the shared use of
the tower as long as there is no
negative structural impact upon
the tower and there is no dis-
ruption to the service provided.
e.
Subel. 8. Existing antennas and towers. Anten-
nas, towers and accessory structures in existence
as of July 1, 1997, which do not conform or to
comply with this section are subject to the follow-
ing provisions:
(a) Towers may continue in use for the pur-
pose now used and as now existing, but
may not be placed or structurally altered
without complying in all respects within
this section.
(b) If a tower is damaged or destroyed due to
any reason or course whatsoever, the tower
may be repaired or restored to its former
use, location and physical dimension upon
obtaining a building permit, but without
otherwise complying with this section.
Subd, .9. Obsolete or unused towers, All obsolete
or unused towers and accompanying accessory
facilities must be removed within 12 months of
the cessation of operations, unless a time exten-
sion is approved by the city council. If a time
extension is not approved, the tower may be
deemed a nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch.
429. If a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the
city may act to abate the nuisance and require the
removal of the tower at the property owner's
expense. In the case of multiple operators sharing
the use of a single tower, this provision will not
become effective until all users cease operations
for a period of six consecutive months. After the
facilities are removed, the site must be restored to
its original or to an improved state.
Supp, No, 29
Sec. 31-513. Landscaping.
Subd, 1. BP-C, BP-O, BP-I, CBD, CA and PA
zoning districts. In the BP-C, BP-O, BP-I, CBD,
CA and PA zoning districts, the following mini-
mum landscaping requirements must be met for
all projects:
(a) Minimum plant size is as follows:
Type Size
Deciduous trees 1112-1 JIa inches cal-
Iper
Deciduous shrubs 18 inches high
Coniferous trees 3 to 31/2 feet high
Coniferous shrubs 1 gallon
(b) Street trees. Trees shall be planted along
all streets. Street trees shall be set back a
distance of ten feet from the street right-
of-way, Deciduous trees shall be planted
40 feet on center, and coniferous street
trees shall be planted 30 feet on center.
(c) Front yards: Non-residential. The mini-
mum front yard on developed commercial
and industrial lots shall be covered with
sod and maintained in an appropriate
manner,
(d) Building expansion areas. Portions oflots
intended to be utilized for expansion of
structures may be seeded with grass seed,
mulched and fertilized according to the
recommendations of the zoning adminis-
trator instead of being sodded.
(e) Parking lot planting islands. Planting is-
lands in parking lots shall be planted
with at least one deciduous tree and at
least two shrubs and shall be mulched
with a minimum of four inches of rock,
wood chips or similar material. All plant-
ing islands shall be treated with a me-
chanical weed inhibiter. One tube for feed-
ing and watering shall be installed in
each planting island.
(f) Warranty for plant materials. All plant
materials indicated on an approved land-
scaping plan that do not survive two grow-
ing seasons shall be replaced with identi-
cal plants during or before the following
season.
cmn:187