Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-09 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, May 9, 2011 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF April 11, 2011 MINUTES 3. 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 Commission 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 4. 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. 4.01 Case No. 2011-12. A special use permit request for outside music located at 103 Third Street South in CBD, Central Business District. Brent Banchy, American Legion Post No. 48, applicant. 4.02 Case No 2011-13. A variance to the size regulations for garages for the construction of garage units located at 516 Myrtle Street West in the RB-Two Family Residential District. Steve Thron, applicant. 4.03 Case No. 2011-10. A Special Use Permit to allow early childhood education in the RB, Two Family Residential District by special use permit to construct an Early Childhood Education Facility located at 523 Marsh Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District BWBR, Steve Erickson, representing Stillwater Area Public School District. Continued from the April 11, 2011 meeting. 4.04 Case. No. 2011-04. A rezoning of certain properties within the City of Stillwater to make them consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the April 11, 2011 meeting 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.01 Update on pedestrian walkway. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 > WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2011 Chair Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Aron Buchanan, Mike Dahlquist, Eric Hansen, Cameron Kelly, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Anne Siess, Scott Spisak, Doug Menikheim and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Approval of minutes: Mr. Spisak asked that the person representing the applicant in Case No. 2011-05 be identified for the record. Mr. Spisak also noted a typo in the last sentence on page 4. Ms. Siess noted a misspelling of her last name. Mr. Spisak, seconded by Mr. Wolden, moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 2011, as corrected. Mr. Dahlquist introduced new member Cameron Kelly, and thanked Mr. Wolden for his years of service on the Commission. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011-10 A Special Use Permit and Zoning Text Amendment to allow early childhood education in the RA, Single Family Residential District, and the RB, Two Family Residential District, by special use permit to construct an early childhood education facility at 523 Marsh St. W. in; the RB, Two Family Residential District. BWBR, Steve Erickson, representing Stillwater Area School District. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request, including the site, planned programming and number of students/clients to be served. Mr. Turnblad pointed out, that unlike the last request to allow the early. childhood programming at the former UFE site, this request does not include a proposal for commercial daycare to be co -located in the facility. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the criteria for the issuance of a special use permit, highlighted issues related to parking/traffic/traffic circulation and six suggested conditions of approval. He also addressed an issue related to ,the School District property and the rear lot lines of four homes on Hancock Street. Mr. Turnblad said with the six recommended conditions of approval, staff would recommend approval of the special use permitand zoning text amendment as requested. On a question by Mr. Wolden, Mr. Tumblad reviewed setback requirements. On a question by Mr. Spisak, Mr. Turnblad noted there is no issue with pervious coverage and no issue related to height. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that the applicant has not submitted detailed drawings at this time and wondered whether those would be reviewed by staff or would be reviewed by the Planning Commission; Mr Turnblad said the intention is to have the applicant submit detailed renderings to staff prior to the'case being heard by City Council but said plans could be brought back to the Commission if so desired: Mr. Malsam questioned how the condition related to the scheduling of events would be.monitored/enforced. Ms. Siess asked about public notification; Mr. Turnblad stated property owners within 350' of the entire junior high property have been notified. There was a question about the number of entrances; Mr. Turnblad stated there will be one main entrance.. Mr. Hansen asked about bus circulation; Mr. Turnblad reviewed that circulation pattern, noting the exit has been redesigned to facilitate that. Ray Queener, assistant superintendent Stillwater Area Public Schools, spoke of the historyof the search for a site for early childhood education programming and advantages of the 1 CITY QF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2011'. proposed junior high school site. He briefly spoke of hours of programming. In response to j1/Ir Spisak's question regarding scheduling of events, Mr. Queener noted the district does have a taster schedule of events/calendar, but said occasionally events, such as a conference final swim meet, are scheduled which the School District has no control over. He addressed the question regarding the main entrance and service entrance, noting that the trash containers will be concealed. He noted two community meetings were held to review concept plans and to get input regarding architecture/landscaping. He said it is the intent to enclose most mechanical units inside the building to mitigate noise issues. Mr. Hansen asked about scheduling of deliveries and whether those vehicles would just stop on Holcombe; Mr. Queener said most deliveries would be made by district vehicles providing a control over scheduling, and he said trash pickup can be scheduled to the School District's preference. Ms. Siess asked about growth issues; Mr. Queener said the proposal allows significant space for growth, and he noted that the district recently did a boundary adjustment for the junior high schools to deal with growth at that level based on a five-year population estimate. There was a question as to whether growth was considered in the traffic study; Mr. Queener responded in the affirmative and noted the studies were done at a worse -case scenario. Mr. Kocon asked about traffic counts and whether those figures measured the impact of the facility's peak hours of operation versus overall traffic increase. There was a question about the boundary issue with the homes on Hancock and whether the School District might do as suggested by staff move the ECFC playground to avoid changing the long-time residential use of the property in question. Mr. Queener said the playground design has yet to be determined and said the District intends to be good neighbors regarding this issue. Mr. Dahlquist pointed out that when the District changed traffic routing on the campus, the goal was to move more traffic off Holcombe and out to the south and east and said he didn't see anything in this plan that furthers that goal; Steve Erickson, BWBR, reviewed the proposed bus circulation, noting the intent is to keep the ECFC buses moving in the same direction as the buses serving the junior high. Mr. Erickson reviewed some of the features of the proposed building design, keeping the low look of neighboring residences, with a similar eave line, some residential siding material and use of windows.= Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. Robert Dombrowsky, South Seventh Street, expressed concern about the increase in traff. i'c speaking'ofhis experience when the high school was at that site. He questioned the amount of money the District spent in a recent re -grading and redesign of the junior high property. He suggested there are other sites that would have less of an impact on the community. Scott VanMeertan, 501 W. Hancock St., expressed a concern about idling of buses at all times of the day. He said the traffic study didn't address that issue. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist noted that one letter had been received. Mr. Queener reiterated that this program does not operate like a regular school so the traffic will be spread out throughout the day, just as the student population is spread out throughout the week. Mr. Queener said the district would work with the bus company and staff to attempt to address the issue of bus idling. Mr. Buchanan asked if there are any sites in the City that would not require a special use permit for this type of facility; Mr. Turnblad replied that a special use permit would be required in any zoning district. Mr. Kocon suggested that while there are some collateral issues with this site, such as idling of buses, scheduling and parking, those are issues that can be dealt with through scheduling or enforcement. Ms. Siess said she had visited the site during the morning'. and said she was concerned about growth in a residential area. Mr. Dahlquist said he had no issue with\ 2 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2011 the zoning text amendment, but did express a concern about traffic, noting that over the years there have been measures taken in an effort to manage the traffic and reduce the impact; he said he was concerned there didn't seem to be anything in the plans to continue that effort to mitigate the impact of traffic. Mr. Dahlquist also noted that generally the Commission looks at building plans in a bit more detail than it has seen to date. Mr. Spisak expressed concern about traffic and plans for access to the facility; he also expressed concern about the specific siting of the facility on the junior high property in close proximity to residences. Mr. Spisak also spoke in favor of looking at more detailed building plans before approval. Mr. Malsam said if there is something that can be done to mitigate the traffic, he thought the current site could accommodate the facility. Mr. Hansen raised an issue with the circulation around the drop-off location/entrance. Mr. Wolden said he didn't think traffic would be a problem as it is spread out throughout the day, but agreed with a concern about the circulation to the entrance. Mr. Wolden, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to approve the ordinance amendment to allow the early childhood family education use by special use permit in the RB zoning district. Mr Turnblad suggested a condition that commercial day care is not a part of the specially permitted use in a residential district; Mr. Wolden and Mr. Kocon agreed to amend the motion to include that condition. Motion passed 8-0. There was discussion of other possible locations on the junior high campus. Mr. Queener suggested that the traffic impact could be mitigated if people would utilize busing, rather than dropping off children at school; Ms. Siess pointed out that the District does charge for busing service for people living within a certain radius of a school, which might result in more people dropping off their child. Mr. Spisak said his primary concerns are circulation within the site for pedestrians and vehicles and a determination of what the building itself will look like. Mr. Dahlquist noted that while the School District can't control the number of parents opting to drop off students, it can encourage circulation and traffic patterns to minimize impact on the neighborhood and to minimize impact on internal circulation of the site; he said he also would like to see details of the building. Ms. Siess again expressed concern about growth and how that would be accommodated. Mr. Spisak moved to table the special use permit consideration until the applicant submits additional information regarding traffic and circulation, facility growth projections and building elevation/finish details. On a suggestion by Mr. Turnblad, Mr. Spisak changed his motion to indicate consideration be tabled until the next Commission meeting, May 9. Mr. Kocon requested more information regarding how the building is situated within the junior high campus. Mr. Dahlquist asked for more information about how to encourage traffic to flow through the site and out the southeast. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Kocon asked for information about traffic impact/counts during the peak times of the primary programming hours of the ECFC facilities. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion. Motion passed 8-0. Case No. 2011-11 A zoning text amendment to the CTR, Cove Traditional Residential 'District, regarding garages. Alpine Capital, LLC, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff recommendations. He noted there are only 11 properties in this zoning district, all within the Settler's Glen development. He said the request is to exempt side -loaded garages to allow construction of one additional home with a side -loaded garage. Mr. Pogge said although only 11 properties are currently zoned CTR, staff believes that zoning could potentially be utilized elsewhere in the City and therefore recommends additional conditions: that if side -loaded garages are permitted, they be restricted to no more than -2' forward of the house or porch and must meet special design consideration for four-sided architecture. He said the applicant is comfortable with the staff recommendation. Mr. Pogge 3 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2011 provided plans of the proposed house and noted that the plans do provide a cleaner view from the street. Mr. Kocon asked if there is any issue with garage square footage, noting that the front of the garage elevation is actually larger than the house front elevation; Mr. Pogge noted there are garage size limitations in some zoning districts, but none currently in the CTR district, although that could be implemented should the Commission so desire. There was discussion as to what percentage of the side -loaded garages should be allowed; Mr. Pogge suggested there likely won't be a great number of these built should the zoning district be utilized in another development as this design is more costly than a standard house design. Art Pratt, Pratt Homes, briefly explained the impetus for the request. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Kocon moved approval of the proposed ordinance amendment as recommended by City staff. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Mr. Dahlquist asked whether the proposed plans for the new side -loaded design meet the requirements for four-sided architecture; Mr. Pogge said staff would work with the applicant regarding additional detailing to meet that requirement. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011-04 A rezoning of certain properties within the City of Stillwater to make them consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the proposal. He stated 403 properties are currently inconsistent with the future land use map; of those, 303 are parks, open space, trails, which currently are zoned anything from residential to commercial to industrial and leaves open the potential that those spaces could be developed as commercial or industrial. He stated there are nine properties that will need a special use permit when rezoned as recommended. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the new proposed zoning district PROS (Park, Recreation or Open Space), including purpose, uses that are either permitted or allowed by special use permit, and minimum standards related to height, setbacks, lot size and impervious area. Mr. Spisak asked if existing facilities with lighting would be grandfathered or have to obtain a special use permit; Mr. Turnblad said existing facilities would be grandfathered but if there is a change, a special use permit would be required at that time. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the proposed 50' front setback from public right-of-way, suggesting that may impact accessibility to public use in some cases; Mr. Turnblad said staff would look at existing structures regarding that issue. Mr. Dahlquist also questioned the inclusion of public boat launch in this district; Mr. Turnblad stated that could be removed if the Commission so recommended. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing on the PROS zoning district ordinance. Paula Kroening, 213 Pine Hollow Green, asked about a lot they own on Rutherford Road which is proposed to be included in this zoning district. It was noted discussion of specific properties would take place in the next hearing portion. No other comments on the zoning district ordinance were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist moved to approve the PROS zoning district ordinance with staff to reevaluate the 50' setback from public right-of-way and to have public boat launch permitted by special use permit, rather than a permitted use. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion. There was discussion about the 50' setback from public right-of- way issue; Mr. Wolden questioned approving without defining this issue. Mr. Turnblad suggested refining the language to recognize existing setback so as to not make them non- conforming. It was noted the Parks Commission will be reviewing this at its April meeting. After additional discussion, Mr. Dahlquist withdrew his motion. Ms. Siess moved to table pending 4 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2011 additional staff review of the setback issue. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Turnblad stated of the 403 properties that are inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Plan, all but 30 property owners are in agreement with the proposed new zoning, noting that with Ms. Kroening's concern that may be 31 properties. He said in all instances where a property owner requested a parcel be removed from the proposed new zoning, that was done. He explained that the 30 properties in disagreement will be dealt with in one of four ways: left as currently zoned if still consistent with the Comp Plan land use map or if the parcels are unbuildable; change the land use map to reflect the current use; leave the property as currently zoned and change the consistently table of the Comprehensive Plan to make the existing zoning (AP for three such properties) consistent with the future land use classification; or rezone the property to some other zoning district. He said there are 13 properties, including the marina properties and St. Croix Boat & Packet shoreline properties, proposed for rezoning to a different zoning classification, and those will be addressed at a separate public hearing. Regarding the Kroening property, Ms. Kroening reviewed the history of the parcel, noting this is a buildable lot in an area designated residential and is of value to her family. Mr. Turnblad pointed out this parcel is designated as park/recreation in the Comprehensive Plan, so if it is not rezoned, the Comprehensive Plan will have to be changed. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that an outlot, is by definition unbuildable. Ms. Kroening said this parcel was initially zoned residential and noted this is .5 acre parcel, which is certainly buildable; she suggested this is an opportunity to preserve the history of the area if in private ownership. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that this parcel is zoned AP, which if the recommendations are adopted, will have park/recreation use consistent with future land use classification so the parcel could be taken off the list for rezoning to PROS and left as is. Robert Kroening noted this lot is consistent with other parcels along Rutherford Road and said they have an outlot which is a buildable lot. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing on the proposed rezoning of the 372 properties to PROS. Steve Markert, 1272 Driving Park Road, president of the Highlands of Stillwater Homeowners Association, said the Association would like a parcel on the south of Lily Lake it owns to remain residential rather than rezoned to the park classification. All 12 members of the Association voted to request that the current zoning be retained, he said. Mr. Markert said the Association is concerned there may be obstacles with the new zoning if the group wanted to do something with the property in the future. Mr. Turnblad pointed out this parcel currently is zoned RA and is platted as an outlot, which is unbuildable; if it stays zoned RA, he said the Association may not be allowed to have an accessory use such as a gazebo or dock, which would be a permitted use in the PROS zoning. Mr. Turnblad suggested it may be easier to accommodate the Association's possible future uses of the parcel through the rezoning, noting the rezoning doesn't provide any public use or access — it remains private property. Mr. Markert noted this parcel abuts City -owned property and the concern was that might lead to future issues. Mr. Turnblad said the intent is not to force the rezoning on any property owners and suggested this may be a matter of misunderstanding; he suggested that the Commission not make a recommendation on this parcel, 221, pending additional discussion with the homeowners. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Siess, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to recommend the rezoning of the 373 uncontested properties, excluding parcels 221 and the Kroening parcel, 338. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the nine inconsistently zoned properties that require special use permits proposed to be rezoned to RCM, Medium Density Residential. He said currently the properties 5 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2011 have buildings that have less density than the RCM district provides for but are allowed by special use permit. He said the rezoning would not become effective until the City Council approves the special use permit. Mr. Dahlquist opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the process for the issuance of the special use permit. Mr. Turnblad explained the special use permits would be issued by the Council prior to the adoption of the ordinance rezoning the properties. Mr. Spisak asked whether the Planning Commission would review the special use permits and conditions; Mr. Turnblad said a resolution would be prepared for Council consideration covering all nine properties. It was noted that the uses already exist, but need to have a special use permit to be conforming to the new zoning. Mr. Wolden, seconded by Mr. Buchan, moved to recommend the rezoning of the nine properties contingent on the issuance of the special use permits. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of vendor sales draft ordinance — Mr. Turnblad said if the Commission approves the draft, the Commission will schedule a public hearing and forward the ordinance to the Council for possible adoption. Mr. Menikheim asked if there would be a fee each year; Mr. Turnblad said the fee would be an annual one, but minimal to cover paperwork. Mr. Dahlquist questioned the end date for the garden centers, whether that might be too restrictive; Mr. Turnblad said he could meet with the vendors to get input regarding the dates. Mr. Buchanan suggested having a 90-day limit with no ending date specified. In discussion, it was noted the Planning Commission reviews the initial permit application. Once the permit is issued and there are no substantial changes from year to year, renewal is done by staff. Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 on a motion by Mr. Kocon, second by Mr. Wolden. Submitted by, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 iliwater ` H E B A' N a t is t p, M i N N !. , p I ,t PLANNING REPORT DATE: May 2, 2011 CASE NO.: 2011-12 APPLICANT: Brent Banchy OWNER: Stillwater American Legion Post 48 REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Outside Entertainment LOCATION: 103 South 3rd Street ZONING: CBD, Central Business District PUBLIC HEARING:May 9, 2011 PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Stillwater American Legion Post 48 would like to provide its patrons with live music on its deck from Memorial Day (May 30th this year) through Labor Day (September 5th this year). The live music would occur Sunday evenings, on the national holidays (Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day), and on the Saturday of Lumberjack Days. On these days music would be performed for four hours beginning at 4 pm and ending at 8 pm. The only exceptions to these hours would be on July 4th and Lumberjack Days Saturday, when music would begin at 6 pm and end at 10 pm. Commercial outside entertainment is allowed in the CBD Zoning District by Special Use Permit. SPECIFIC REQUEST Brent Banchy is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for Stillwater American Legion Post 48 to provide live music on their deck at 103 S. 3rd Street between Memorial Day and Labor Day each year on Sundays, Holidays and Lumberjack Days' Saturday. American Legion SUP Page 2 of 7 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Zoning Chapter of the City Code states that "commercial outside entertainment" is allowed by Special Use Permit in the CBD Zoning District.1 Since the American Legion site is zoned CBD, a Special Use Permit may be granted for live music on their deck, as long as the following standards are satisfied.2 (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance Outside uses associated with restaurants and bars in the Central Business District are allowed with a Special Use Permit. This applies both to the serving of food and beverages outside as well as any associated music or entertainment that accompanies the use. The primary concern is balancing the volume of sound generated by this type of allowed land use with the desire for periods of quiet by residents downtown and in abutting neighborhoods. At the American Legion's location the primary residential concerns have been the condos at 3rd and Mulberry, as well as directly across 3rd Street. To reduce the amount of sound that reaches them, the band area and speakers will be situation to direct noise eastward. This can be seen in the attached site plan and air photo. With similar SUPs downtown, volume levels are regulated by specifying a time when outside music must stop, and by limiting the actual volume levels to those allowed in Section 38-3 of the City Code. If hours of operation and volume levels exceed those allowed, the SUP can be reviewed and possibly revoked by the City. Comprehensive Plan The Downtown Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan encourages a broad mix of uses downtown. Though not specifically stated, this surely includes a vibrant hospitality industry sector. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Sound Projection and Volume As mentioned above, the primary concern is striking a balance between outside music and quality of life for neighborhood residents. As with the other SUPs for 'City Code Ch 31, Sec 31-325 2 City Code Ch 31, Sec. 31-207(d) lists the SUP review standards. American Legion SUP Page 3 of 7 this type of use in the downtown, a condition should be attached that limits both the hours of music out on the deck and the volume. The volume levels must abide by the limits established in the City's nuisance ordinance, City Code Section 38-3. And the hours of operation should be fairly restrictive given the Legion's close proximity to residential neighborhoods. The standard 10 pm end time for outdoor music with other SUP holders may be too late as a normal end time for the Legion. Moreover, the Legion only requests 10 pm end times two nights a year: July 4th and Lumberjack Days Saturday. Every other night that music is proposed would end at 8 pm. This should be specified in the conditions of the SUP. Miscellaneous All changes to the approved plans and times will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major or permanent changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The music volume and hours could be perceived as a nuisance to nearby residents. This is addressed above. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: a. All changes to the approved plan and times shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major or permanent changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. b. Music volumes shall never exceed those specified in the City Nuisance, City Code Section 38-3. c. Outside music shall be limited to Sundays, holidays and Lumberjack Days Saturdays between Memorial Day and Labor Day each year. The hours that outdoor music is permitted on those days are 4 pm to 8 pm Sundays and Holidays (except July 4th); and 6 pm to 10 pm on Lumberjack Days Saturdays and July 4th. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit. If the Planning Commission decides to deny the requests, findings of fact substantiating the denial must be provided. 3. Table the requests for additional information. American Legion SUP Page 4 of 7 RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval with the conditions presented above. Attachments: Zoning & Location map Neighborhood Air Photo Application Materials cc: Brent Banchy jjllwa 1.1 e1111wft.,1 ES Case 2011-12 American Legion Zoning & Location Map Nt Zoning District Classifications , A-P.Agrlcuttutal Pleservaiton RA.::male Family Residential RB, Two Family Residential TR. T1 adilional Residential LR. Lakeshore Residenial I CR. Canape Residential - TH. Townhouse - CTR. Cove Traditional Residential - CCR. Cove Cottage Residential RCM. Medium Dansty Residential RCM. High Density Residential VC. Village Commercial - CA. General Commercial - CBD. Central Business District IBP.C. Business Palk • Conimaicial - BP-O. Business Park - Office - PA. Public AdmiNmatlon - CRD. Campus Research Development BP -I, BUSine SS Park. -Inds' stile! - 18. Heavy Industrial 1111 PROS - Park. Roc or Open Space I PWF. Public Works Facility Road R-O-IN - Railroad Open Water American Legion SUP Page 7 of 7 103 .South ihir, AMEI :AN LEGION POST NNC... 48 April 41h 2011 LEGION CLUB City of Stillwater Planning Commissio 216 North 4t1' Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Srilhpater, � iuncsata 55082 Phone 4.39-14.3; Re: Stillwater American Legion Post 48 / Music on the Deck Dear Planning commission members, the Stillwater American Legion Post 48 is seeking permission to play live music on our deck from the end of May to the first week of September henceforth. During our brief but savored summer months the American Legion has found that music on the deck has become an instrumental component to the financial success of our overall business model. The financial success of the Legion Post 48 equates to financial success to the community, as a non-profit organization we donate our profits back into the local community. Without music on the deck and the attraction that follows, the Legion would be denied the revenue stream, which supports the community thus drastically limiting the amount of money that it currently donates to cash, strapped organizations situated in the Stillwater area. The impact of this would have an adverse effect on the community. We've enclosed a list of past recipients of our donations in the application. Live music will play during daylight hours only, Commencing on Memorial day May 30th ending Labor day September 5th (see attachment with dates and times) Occasionally the band will be hired for special event, such as, wedding receptions etc. though this will be limited no more than four times per summer season in addition to the scheduled events. The bands music selection is light rock, oldies, the speakers are amplified, facing east towards the central business district of Stillwater and river beyond. The amplification levels will be moderate, controlled by our managerial staff, recognizing the rights and consideration of our residential neighbors. The number of patrons on the deck at any given time is approximately 40, since the deck is not large enough to hold any more than that, restricted by the size of deck of 1,250 sf, combined with tables, chairs and band equipment. We remain mindful of past concerns and believe our community friendly adjustments to our volume a . well as esthetic improvements within the Legion post itself, make positive contribu 'on o Stillwater reputation as an entertainment and social gathering place. We t Sinc Post Ton Robey onsideration of this request. 2. Music Schedule Dates and Times: All music events are on Sundays unless specified otherwise. May 30th (Monday 4-8) June 5th 4-8 June 19th 4-8 June 26th 4-8 July 3rd 4_8 July 4th (Monday 6-10) July 10th 4-8 July 23rd (Lumber Jack Days Saturday 6-10) July 24th 4-8 July 3151 4-8 August 7`h 4-8 August 14tt' 4-8 August 28th 4-8 September 4th 4-8 September 5th (Monday 4-8) SKETCH/AREA TABLE ADDENDUM w 03 D ai-114.1X*Nr, 0 o_ Case No Property Address American Legion Post 48 City Stillwater Borrower Lender/Client American Legion Post 48 Appraiser Name Comments: County Washington State MN 3rd Street South Legion Building Band Stage Mint Oiredton 50.0. Facing East Towards River L/C Address 103 S 3rd Street Appr Address AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Code bescription Size Totals GLA1 First Floor 1250.00 1250.00 File No 11002 Zip 55082 Myrtle Street South Scale: 1 = 14 LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 25.0 x 50.0 1250.00 List of organizations that the American Legion Post 48 has contributed to: SAHS Girl's basketball SAHS Girls Hockey SAHS Boys Basketball Stillwater Fire Department Recognition Lily Lake Elementary school patrol flags SAHS Boy's Soccer SAHS Girl's Soccer Girl Scout Troop Young Life ESR Boy Scouts Croixdale Care National Grant Recognition March of Dimes American Lung Association National fire safety council/fire Education for Stillwater St. Croix Catholic schools/ patrol flags Youth Service Bureau SAHS Girls Nordic ski SAHS Boys Golf team SAHS Boys Lacrosse $orrower/Client Property Addres FXTFRIOR OF SIJR IFCT File No. 11002 Cjty Londe County State Minn Zip Code FRONT REAR STREET SCENE American Legion Post 48 mcs. a o,o,s,en nr AC! oev<m>n,rn, isoot e9v-77ee Planning Report DATE: APPLICANT: Steve and Lynn Thron May 5, 2011 CASE NO.: 11-13 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum allowable garage size in the RB Zoning District. 1,000 sf maximum allowed per the RB zoning district requirements/1,306 sf grandfather based on current garage size/1,832 sf garage requested LOCATION: 516 Myrtle St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR - Low/Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB - Two-family District PC DATE: May 9, 2011 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND Property owners Steve and Lynn Thron own a six -unit apartment building at 516 Myrtle St W. Currently the property has a garage that was built around 1920. The garage has six spaces that are substandard in size for a car today. Additionally the garage has a dirt floor and is in an advanced state of deterioration. The current garage is 1,306 square feet. This size of garage would be grandfathered as long as some type of garage of this size remains continuously on the site without a break of more than one year. The HPC reviewed the garage and approved a demolition permit at their April 4, 2011 meeting. To build the new garage the property owners are requesting a variance to Sec 31-308 (a)(3)i which states "the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall be 1,000 square feet or ten percent of the lot area, whichever is less." They are making this request to construct a new garage that contains six 1-stall garage spaces and one additional garage space for service equipment related to maintaining the site. The size of the requested garage is 1,832 square feet. DISCUSSION The property at 516 Myrtle St W historically was the site of St Paul's Evangelical Lutheran School (also known as the German School). At some point in time, the building was converted to a six -unit apartment building. In April of 1979, City records showed that a six -unit apartment building existed on the site. The exact year that the apartment was developed is not clear. Until September of 2007, multi -family dwelling units were listed as a permitted use with a special use permit (SUP) in the RB zoning district. Even though a SUP could not be located for this use, the long tenure of the apartment building along with the fact the City records listed the unit as a six unit apartment building in 1979 leads staff to find that it is a legal non- conforming use. 516 Myrtle St W Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: (NOTE: Staff is using the "practicaldifficulty" variance, criteria approved by the 1 Legislature and presented to the Governor on May 2nd. As of the writing of Governor has not signed the legislation; however, all indications are that the Planning Cotnmission:meeting on May 9.) innesotathe epert, sin xt �?etore 1. A practical difficulty 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. The property is a 34,654 square foot lot. The current property was developed with a six - unit apartment building around 1894, prior to the current owner who purchased the property in 1994. This is a situation that was not created by an act of the current property owner. The practical difficulty is that the 6-unit garage is no longer usable by the legal apartment building. Replacing the garage with a 6-unit garage that is acceptable to today's vehicles requires more space than the current garage provides. 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. This property is zoned as RB - two-family residential, which allows single family and two-family uses. Prior to September of 2007, multi -family dwelling units were permitted in the RB zoning district with a special use permit. In April of 1979, the City acknowledged that the six -unit apartment unit was in place when three lots were split off the property and developed as single-family homes. While there is no record of a SUP for the apartment building, the long tenure of the apartment building along with the fact the City records listed the unit as a six unit apartment building in 1979 leads staff to find that it is a legal non -conforming use. The commission has recognized that given our winters, a garage is more than a mere convenience. It approached the level of a necessity. Therefore, providing one parking space for each unit along with stall to store equipment to maintain the structure is a reasonable request. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. As presented, this request will not adversely impact the adjoining property owners. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the location and placement of the garage will not alter the essential character of the locality. 516Myrtle StW Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the request with the following conditions of approval: a. All minor revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. All major revisions shall be revised and approve by the Planning Commission. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. b. Per the HPC's approval, the design shall include additional detail related to the saltbox style with emphasis on trim and corner detail to be approved by the City Planner. c. Per the HPC's approval, only Sofit (can) lights shall be used on the garage. 2. Deny the requested since the required findings for a variance were not meet. 3. Continue the public hearing until the June 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The 60-day decision deadline for the request is June 16, 2011. RECOMMENDATION City staff finds that the three variance criteria to be satisfied, and therefore recommends approval of the variance. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Site Plan, and letter. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Special/Conditional Use Permit X Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment" ACTION REQUESTED Case No: `'/d0%/—/ Date Filed: Fee Paid: i1✓ Receipt No.: V &qi Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development* Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application requires City Council review then a total of twenty-eight (28) copies are required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration Application Form for the complete list of required Items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if necessary. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 5i(p n? yrrtIf Si -ref* Usf Assessor's Parcel No. on. 630-070.3- 000(./0 / '� // (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description" (/9 r7Gc, d,V. 030, 026 , 3 / • 6((0 (*Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal descrip ion) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from the county are not acceptable. Zoning District Kg'd vtDescription of Project ge AU; Id nerd q G s '1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I Required ' Property Owner , . ve rbf Mailing Address % e-707 5 i ia-re L&RQ Tr/ City - State — Zip i5fillUa- N 50$10 Telephone No. (o /' / ) ° 75 y( Email iltrpn[ m, /cj y✓rom .mom Signatur (Signature is required) and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of will comply with the permit if it is granted and used," If other than property owner Representative Mailing Address City - State — Zip Telephone No. Email Signature (Signature is required) C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND\L OCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\K6SUFJRY\PLANAPP.DOCX July 22, 2010 Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear applications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing. Check and attach to application. ❑ The application form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authorized representative. O A complete legal description of subject property. O Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies). ❑ The site plan showing exterior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s) location. (See attached site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required). ❑ All adjacent streets or right of ways labeled. ❑ Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, materials and proposed use of all buildings and structures (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) existing and proposed for the site (if the site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required). ❑ Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures. O Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line. ❑ All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site coverage conditions. ❑ Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and proposed marked accordingly). ❑ Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for driveway widths and parking space sizes. ❑ Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street corners. ❑ Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan). ❑ Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site; indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities. ❑ Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement (may not be required). ❑ Letter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use will effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas. ❑ Applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. ❑ Other such data as may be required to permit the planning commission to make the required findings for approval of the specific type of application. ApplicaTrC/owner signature 'z O , 2 1)f Date April 20, 2011 Members of the Planning Commission: We recently were approved to demolish the garages at 516 Myrtle Street and also approved to rebuild at the April 4, 2011 meeting. We were told at that meeting we would need to apply for a variance on the garages. The garages that were originally built, we were told, were used as horse stables and years ago the vehicles were not as large as they are today. They are various sizes with dirt flooring, rotting wood and holes which animals can get into. There are six garage/storage units of various sizes and we, the owners, occupy one of the units to store a riding lawn mower and a riding snow blower along with various lawn and garden tools and tools and materials to perform maintenance on the property. Therefore one of our tenants is without a garage. We have support from our neighbors to rebuild the garages and they understand and do not object to the new garage being larger than what exists today, in order to meet the needs of the tenants and our needs to maintain the premises. Steve W. spoke at the April 4th meeting and Damien Nelson wrote a letter which was kept by one of the members at that meeting. The current garage is on the north property line. Stated in the Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting for April 24t', the current structure is approximately 70' x 18' and the new structure is approximately 92' x 22'. We will be building the new garages three feet off the property lines. We have re -measured the area and are asking to build 5 units at 12' wide by 22' long to allow for vehicle, trash/recycling and miscellaneous storage for tenants. We then will need to reduce one garage to 12' wide by 19' long to meet the required setbacks for the north property line and the east property line for the other tenant. Then we will need one unit 16' x 20' to store equipment, riding lawn mower, riding snow blower for our use in order to maintain the property. We plan to build the garages using the salt box design, currently the design of the existing building. We will have a course of split faced block on the free floating slab, similar to the limestone on the current building, to make it more appealing to the neighbors and our tenants. We will have 8' sidewalis in addition to the course of block. The garage will have steel siding and will be repeating colors we have on the existing apartment building. The garage doors will be 9' x 7' doors and lighting will be pointed directly down onto the garage door entry. By allowing us to build these garages to meet the needs of our tenants, they will be able to put their vehicles in the new garages (currently many only use for storage because of the size and shape the current garages are in). This will clean up the number of vehicles that are currently parked in front of the apartment building, trash/recycling cans can be put away for the tenant that has no storage place. In your packets you will find a topographic view of the property and the property's surrounding (North to South — Rice to Myrtle and East to West Harriet to Martha). You will also see a copy of our survey map showing the existing vegetation. We will also have decorative grasses and hosta's on the north side of the garage building. We thank you for taking the time to review our request. Sincerely, Steve and Lynn Thron 16707 Square Lake Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 Case ,2011-13 516 Myrtle St W NA Current and Proposed Garage location Existing Six Unit Apartment Building 0 37.5 75 1 inch = 75 feet City of Stillwater, MN Feet Community Development Department 150 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8820 — 651-430-8810 fax AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of September, 1991 by and between MSD Company, a Co -Partnership, party of the first part, hereinafter referred to as "MSD"; and DONALD J. MARLING and MARY BETH MARLING, husband and wife, parties of the second part, hereinafter referred to as "Warlings". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, MSD is the owner of the following described real estate lying and being in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota, to -wit: All that part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, T30, R20, Washington County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the west line of Harriet St. as the same is laid outand established in the City of Stillwater, re the north line of the South Half of said Northeast quarter of the Southwest Quarter of ternof Section 28 intersects the same, southerly along the West line of said Harriet St. a distance of 237.35 feet, more or less, to the north line of W. Myrtle St. as the same is laid out and established in said City; thence westerly along said north line of Myrtle Street 251.95 feet to the east line of N. Martha St. as the same is laid out and established in said City; thence northerly along said east line of Martha St. 236.37 feet, more or less, to a point where the north line of said south half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of -Section 28, thenceT.3, R.20, intersects said east. line; easterly along said north line 251.85 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. Hereinafter referred to as description "D". E `raga real. estate lying and Minnesota,: to -wit: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Section 28, Township 30, as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the west line of Harriet t Street a distance of 22.2 feet southhe ofNa:pof the where the north line of the S% of tof said Section 28 intersects said westt line e of Harriet St.; thence south along lineeOf thence westparaaliel distance thecnorth line 71.15 feet; thence west parallel SW; for a distance of of said feet toof aNp% thence north parallel 117.60 a point; with the west line of Harriet east et a lira thence distance of 70.57 feet; 1 of in; e parallel with the north line of said S of SW ; to the west line of Harriet Street -being the point of beginning. ,NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contracted, it is hereby agreed between WHEREAS, Warlings are the owners of the following described being in the County of Washington, State of South =_=• =f of the Southwest Quarter of Range 20, described as follows: 1. That MSD hereby grants ingress and egress to Warlings to follows, to -wit: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Section 28, Township0 as follows, to -wit: g at a point in the west line of Harrieet Street in the City of Stillwater where Hhalf of said the north line of the south elfosaid Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quartersame; thence Section 28 intersects the of aidaHarriet southerly along the west line thence weste Street a distance of 22.2 feet; parallel with the north Quarters of of sthe southaid of the NortheastSouthwest the parties hereto a non-exclusive easement for the real estate described as 2 South Half of the Southwest Quarteibof Range 20, Quarter of said Section 28 for a distance of 75 feet; thence north 22.2 feet to the north line of the S1 of the NE'-, of SW; of said Section 28; thence easterly along the north line of said S1 of NE, of SW; of said Section 28 to the point of beginning. 2. The Warlings grant a non-exclusive easement to MSD for ingress and egress over and across the following described real estate, to -wit: Commencing 22.2 feet south of the north line of the S1 of NE; of the SW# of said 5. ction 28, Township 30, Range 20 at the point where it intersects with the west line of Harriet St.; thence westerly along said line a distance of 77.60 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described: Thence west along said line a distance of 40 feet; thence south parallel with the west line of Harriet St. a distance of 20 feet; thence in a northeasterly line to the point of beginning. 3. The foregoing agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns, and successors.of the parties hereto. ):.'4it;;3:`f�ii,..���?�'s of %,.: >.• R. .BY C.C. T( PARTY OF THE FIRST PART MSD Company, a Co -Partnership ' r..>t;: BY: BY: Ada 131-4.1411 3 bchibi Page 3 Pages. PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART r. • Donald J.`.'`Warling / ? }:yt• I t-t� v` Mary Beta Warling STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS: COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) The foregoing strument as acknowledged before me this --� S- day of , 1991, by '1 - A. and <,. ,-ti•'_->•.,. `'..: i,.; nik._- of MSD Company, a Co -Partnership uridor the laws of Minnesota, Party of the First Part on behalf of said Co -Partnership with full authority so to do. • (Notarial Seaj.) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS: COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) Notary(Public Thy foregoing `nstru t was acknowledged before me this 5 day of , 1991, by Donald J. Warling and Mary Beth Warling, hu n and wife, Parties of the Second Part. mruyRfJy /kAAAMRTMl1Ml NVAMAAM uEC•,: c:lr L July 13. 1 95 'ill6artAgrganvwwwli Notary Public 4 E d bif. 4), Page a of 3 Wages. N ts • • 4 I 1 io-rx • • _ - iudrtitty rno,p te 92`48'58 V" e jok_Oull sfreefS PRODUCT IMAGE Estimate From STORE 3129 5800 KRUEGER LANE NORTH OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN 55082-2176 PHONE: 651-430-9626 FAX: 651-430-2577 SKU DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 OF 1 4/15/2011 QTY ADDITIONAL INFO. 200-0394 USP Special Order Vendor Part Ii:HPAHD22-2P Color:N/A FOUNDATION STRAP Approximate delivery 6 days from order date. This is an es&rnate. It is given only for general price t►fonnation. This is not an offer and there can be no legally bbaling contract between the parties based upon this estimate. The prices stated herein are subject to change dependkig upon he market condiions. The prices stated on this estimate are not firm for any time period unless spectrally vatten ptherwise on this form. The availabi dy of materials is subject to inventory conditions. MENARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE MLALOSS INCURRED BY THE GUEST WHO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE ILITY OF ANY OF THE MATERIALS STATED HEREIN. AI information on this form, other than price, has been provided by guest and Menaids is not responsible for ap epors in tire information on this erase*, Includirt9 MA no! IImited to man*. dimension and qual*y. Please examine this estimate carefully. MENARDS MAKES NO nganFSFNTATIONS. ORAL. WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY _ _-.--_-..-.-.,..,.van of nnl"1CC T CDF AQF Nr) 28 SUB -TOTAL: $389.48 GUEST COPY PAGE 1 OF 1 Jce QTRECO212284 Itruss XT3 -1-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 4-3-3 inns type DUAL PITCH 4-3-3 4x6 3x4 = 5-10-6 Job Reference (optional) 7240 s Jun 18 2010 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 0832:36 2011 Page 1 ID T rBsZVVicU6g.hntbjgeTzr YzdJP4s07NQ4GZQHzOWF 104-10 16.0-0 18-0-0 5-10-8 , 2-0.0 , Scale =1:39.1 16-0-0 10 1 2x4 4.00112 5x8 11 16-0-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y): [2:0-3-8,Edge], [3:0-4-0,0-2-01, [5:0-3-8,Edge1 LOADING (psf) TCLL(root) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 29.3150.0** TCDL 7.0 BCLL 0.0 * BCDL 10.0 SPACING 2-0-0 Plates Increase 1.15 lumber Increase 1.15 Rep Stress Incr YES Code IRC2006/TPt2002 CSI TC 0.57 ! 0.93 WB 0.85 (Matrix) DEFL in (oc) I/defl Vert(LL) -0.38 5-7 >501 Vert(TL) -0.95 5-7 >198 Horz(TL) 0.03 5 n/a Lid 240 180 n/a PLATES GRIP MT20 197/144 Weight 53 b FT = LUMBER TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 WEBS 2X3SPFstud WEDGE Left: 2 X 4 SPF Stud, Right X 4 SPF Stud BRACING TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 4-4-5 oc puriins. 13OT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 2-2-0 oc bract ng. REACTIONS (lb/size) 2=847/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-8), 5=993/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-9) Max Horz2=-114(LC 7) Max Upfdt2 -78(LC 9), 5=-151(LC 10) Max Grav2=904(LC 2), 5=11306(LC 2) FORCES (lb) - Max. CompJMax. Ten. - Alt forces 250 (lib) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-8=-1048164, 3-8 =-1029/89, 3-9=-705/97, 4.9=-79 /89, 4-5=-1482/236 BOT CHORD 2 7=01683, 5-7=14411329 WEBS 3-70/496, 4-7=-728/200 MiTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing be instafted during buss erection, In accordance with Stabilizer Irstaliation guide. NOTES 1) Unbalanced roof live bads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-05; 90mph; TCDL=4.2psf BCDL"6.0psf; h-25ft* Cat. II; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS (low-rise) gable end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MWFRS for reactions shown; Luber DOL=1.60 plate grin DOL=1.60 3) ** TCLL: ASCE 7-05; Pr-3SA psf (roof live load: Lumber DOL=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15); Pg--50.0 psf (ground snow); Ps= varies (nun. roof snovi29.3 psf Lumber D0.=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15) see load cases; Category 11; Exp B; Fully Exp.; Ct 1.1 4) Roof design snow Toad has been reduced to account for slope. 5) Unbalanced snow loads have been considered for this desig;r. 6) This truss has been designed for greater of min roof live load of 12.0 psf or 1.001Ines fiat roof bad of 34.6 psf on 1ContitaglidnithitheitrillinCUffent WW1 Other live loads. QTRECO212284 truss XT3 miss type DUAL PITCH gay m 10 1 Job Reference (optional) 7.240 s Jun 18 2010 NETek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 08:52:36 2011 Page 2 1013bObTJf68l) Tzf VzdJP4s070/Z4GZCHAI MF NOTES 7) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live bad nom:ow:went with any other live bads. 8) * This truss has been designed for a Eve load of 20.0psf on the bottom chord b all areas where a rectangle 3-6-0 tall by 2-0-0 wide will fit between the bottom chord and any other members. 9) One RT7 USP connectors recommended to connect truss to bearing walls due to uplift at jt(s) 2 and 5. 10) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2006 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.102 and referenced standard ANSIftPI 1. LOAD CASE(S) Standard 1) Snow: Lumber Increase=1.15, Plate Increase=1.15 Uniform Loads (pIt) Vert 2-5= 20,1-3=-73, 3-6=-83 Jon QTRECO212284 1 IUSS )(TIE 1-0-00-0-0 1-0-0, 5-10-6 11.00 12 3 24 In type GABLE 5-10 6 8x6 5 6 Lity 1 toly Job Reference (optional) 7.240 s Jun 18 2010 M iTek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 08:48:31 2011 Page 1 1D-13b0bTJ 8tharGAe4KzKS3zQWgd-41uE91kwARp41yUknW4CZgK?RY ,OvIDSQ5K zQWpE 22-0-0 24-60 2-0-0 4.00111 25 3x4 16-1-10 10 11 12 f6, HW1 _ is 3x8 II 0-0-0 23 22 21 20 19 22-0-0 18 5x6 = 17 18 15 13 4x6 = 3x8 II 22-0.0 14i9 Scale=1:57.1 Plate Offsets MY): [2:0-3-8,Edge], [5:Edge,0-3-8], [13:0-3-5,Edgej, [13:Edge,0-1-6j, [18:0-3-0,0-3-0j LOADING (psf) TCLL(root) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 29.3/50.0** TCDL 7.0 BCLL 0.0 BCDL 10.0 SPACING 2-0-0 Mates Increase 1.15 Lumber Increase 1.15 Rep Stress Incr YES Code IRC2006/TP12002 CSI TC 0.39 BC 0.16 W/�f�. /8y0.11 `N/ DEFL In (toc) Vdefl Vert(LL) -0.04 14 nlr Vert(TL) -0.04 14 n/r Horz(TL) 0.00 13 n/a IJd 120 90 n/a PLATES GRIP MT20 197/144 Weight 92 lb FT = LUMBER TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 OTHERS 2 X 4 SPF Stud WEDGE Left: 2 X 4 SPF Stud, Right 2 X 4 SPF Stud REACTIONS All bearhigs 22-0-0. (Ib) - Max Horz2=154(LC 7) Max Uplift PS uplift 100 tin or less at joint(s) 2, 13, 22, 23, 20,19,18, 17,16,15 Max Gray All reactions 250 lb or less at joint(s) 2, 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 except 13=405(LC 2), 22=333(LC 3), 23=266(LC 3), 20=251(LC 4), 15=348(LC 15) FORCES (Ib) - Max. Comp/Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or Less except when shown. WEBS 4-22-292/98,12-1-281187 BRACING TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins• BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling c recf1y applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. MTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing be installed during truss erection, in accordance wfih Stabilizer Installation guide. NOTES 1) Unbalanced roof five loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-05; 90mph; TCDL=42psf; BCDL=6.0psf; hr-251t Cat 11; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS (low-rise) gabto end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical loft and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MMWFRS for reactions shown; Lumber DOL=1 /Xi plate grip DOL=1.60 3) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see M iTek "Standard Gable End Detall" 4)** TCLL: ASCE 7-05; Pr=35.0 psf (roof lire bad: Lumber IXX 1-15 Plate DOL=1.15); Pg=50.0 psf (ground snow); Ps= varies (nin. roof snow=29.3 psi Lumber DO4_=1.15 Plate 00L==1.15) see bad cases; Category 1l; Exp B; Fully Exp.: Ct=1.1 (5)t[reAtadeSIgliftliliw bad has been redid to account for slope. QTRECO212284 I nrss XTIE inns type GABLE Lay 1 FP/ Job Reference (optional) 7240 s Jun 18 2010 RMTek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 08:48:31 2011 Page 2 ID:E31ObT.1168UbaGAe4Kb<S3z0Wgd-4iuE91kwAgp41yUknW4CZgK7RY yOvIDSQSK zQWpE NOTES 6) Unbalanced snow bads have been considered for this design. 7) This truss has been designed for greater of nor roof live bad of 12.0 psf or 1.00 times fiat roof bad of 34.6 psf on overhangs non -concurrent with other five bads. 8) All plates are 1.5x3 MT20 unless otherwiseicated. 9) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 10) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 11) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live Iced nonconcurrent with any other live bads. 12) ` This truss has been designed fora five bad of 20.0psf on the bottom chord in all areas where a rectangle 3-6-0 bit by 2-0-0 wide wits fit between the bottom chord and any other mergers. 13) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb upfift at joint(s) 2, 13, 22, 23, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15. 14) This truss is designed m accordance with the 2006 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.102 and referenced standard ANSUTPI 1. LOAD CASE(S) Standard 1) Snow: Lumber Increase=1.15, Plate Increase=1.15 Uniform Loads (pit) Vert 2-13=-20,1-5=-73, 5-14=-83 JDD OTRECO212284 I FUSS XT1 -1-0-00-0-0 0-0-0 5-10-6 IM SS type DUAL PITCH 5-10-6 uty 30 fly 1 Job Reference (optional) 7.240 s Jun 18 2010 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 08:48:49 2011 Page 1 ID:BbObTJ168UbirGAe4KzKS3z0Wgd YA 1 HpymARU)rMFn2xxzQWoI 5-4-9 11-2-15 5-4-9 16-7 7 22-0-02 4-0-0 ex6 14-0-7 4.0411 14-0-7 7-11-9 22-0-0 Plate Offsets (XY): t2:0-4-0,Edgej, [3:0-4-0,0-2-0], [4:0-3-0,0-3-01, (6:Edge,0-2-2j, [6:0-3-5,Edge] LOADING (psf) TCLL(root) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 29.3/50A** TCDL 7.0 BCLL 0.0 * BCDL 10.0 SPACING 2-0-0 Plates Increase 1.15 Lumber Increase 1.15 Rep Stress Incr YES Code IRC2006/TPI2002 CSI TC 0.81 BC 0.88 WB 0.49 (Matrix) DEFL in (oc) I/defl Vert(LL) -0.11 8 >999 Vert(TL) -0.27 8-10 >978 Horz(TL) 0.07 6 n/a Lid 240 180 rife Scale =1:56: PLATES GRIP MT20 1 97/1 44 Weight: 76 lb LUMBER TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 WEBS 2 X 3 SPF Stud WEDGE Left: 2 X 8 SPF Not, Right 2 X 4 SPF Stud BRACING TOP CHORD BOT CHORD WEBS REACTIONS (ib/size) 2=114510-3-8 (nun. 0-1-15), 6=1299/0-3-8 (min. 0-2-1) Max Horz2=-154(LC 7) Max Uplift2~92(LC 9), 6=-178(LC 10) Max Grav2=1219(LC 2), 6=1315(LC 2) FORCES (Ib) - Max. CompJMax. Ten. - All forces 250 (Ib) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-11-1404/139, 3-11=-1249/169, 3-12=-889/174, 4-12=-1018/161, 4-5=-2031/228, 5-6=-2387/293 BOT CHORD 2-16=0/890, 9-10=-105/1593, 8-9=-105/1593, 6-6=-205/2147 WEBS 3-10=21/686, 4-10=-907/157, 4-8=0/463, 5-8=--359/145 Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 3-6-6 oc puriins. Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. 1 Row at rnidpt 4-10 MiTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing be installed during truss erection, in accordance with Stabilizer Installation guide. NOTES 1) Unbalanced roof live bads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-05; 90mph; TCDL=42psf; BCDL=6.0psf; h=25ft Cat. II; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS (low-rise) gable end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MWFRS for reactions shown; Lumber DOL=1.60 plate grip DOL=1.60 3) ** TCLL: ASCE 7-05; Pr-35.0 psf (roof live load: Lumber DOL=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15)` Pg=50.0 psf (ground snow): Ps= varies (min. roof snow29.3 psf Lumber DOL=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15) see load cases; Category it; Exp B; Fully Exp„ Ct=1:1 4) Roof design snow load has been reduced to account for slope. 5) Unbalanced snow loads have been considered for this design. Continued on Dace 2 JOD �nr rry QTRECO212284 XT1 DUAL PITCH 30 1 Job Reference (optional) 7.240 s Jun 18 2010 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 08:48:49 2011 Page 2 ID:B60bTJf68UbirGAe4KzK53z0W9d-YA 1wvyDx11114WBjsCtiOQHd3 HpymARUYMFnlo¢QWoj NOTES 6) This truss has been designed for greater of train roof live bad of 12.0 psf or 1.00 times flat roof bad of 34.6 psf on overhangs non -concurrent with other live Toads. 7) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord We load nonc oncurrent with any other live loads. 8) * This truss has been designed fora live bad of 20.0psf on the bottom chord in all areas where a rectangle 3-6-0 tall by 2-0-0 wide will fit between the bottom chord and any other nwmbers. 9) One RT7 USP connectors recommended to connect truss to bearing walls due to uplift at jt(s) 2 and 6. 10) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2006 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.102 and referenced standard ANSI/TPI 1. Iris un,ss uype LOAD CASE(S) Standard 1) Snow: Lumber Increase=1.15, Plate Increase=1.15 Uniform Loads (plf) Vert 2--20,1-3=-73, 3-7=-83 Joo QTRECO212284 XT1SE -1-0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 5-10-6 I Was type GABLE 5-10-6 6x6 3 14-0-7 Ley 1 1 Job Reference (optional) 7240 s Jun 18 2010 MiTek industries, Inc. Fn Apr 15 08:4920 2011 Page 1 ID:BbObTJf68UbirGAe4i(zKS3zQWgd-88LRVKgeu 7PU169JS112AsHSIMS9VVUan13)CezOWoi 5-4-9 4.00 12 11-2-15 5-4-9 14-0-7 16-7-7 5-4-922.0-02 24-0.0 7-11-9 22-0-0 Scale =1:524 Plate Offsets (X.Y): [2:0-4-0,Edge]. [3:0-40,0-2-0], [4:0-3-0,0-3-0] LOADING (psf) TCLL(roof) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 29.3/50.0"" TCDL 7.0 BCLL 0.0 " BCDL 10.0 SPACING 2-0-0 Plates Increase 1.15 Lumber Increase 1.15 Rep Stress Inca YES Code IRC2006/TP12002 CSI TC 0.81 BC 0.88 WB 0.49 (Matrix) DEFL in (loc) 1/defl Vert(LL) -0.11 8 >999 Vert(TL) -0.27 8-10 >978 Horz(TL) 0.07 6 n/a L/d 240 180 n/a PLATES GRIP MT20 197/144 Weight: 88 lb FT= LUMBER TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 WEBS 2X3SPFStud OTHERS 2X4SPFStud WEDGE Left: 2 X 8 SPF No.2, Right 2 X 4 SPF Stud BRACING TOP CHORD BOT CHORD WEBS REACTIONS (lb/size) 2=1145/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-15), 6=1299/0-3-8 (min. 0-2-1) Max Horz2=-154(LC 7) Max Uplift2---92(LC 9), 6=-178(LC 10) Max Grav2=1219(LC 2), 6=1315(LC 2) FORCES (lb) - Max. CompJMax. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-19=-14041139, 3-19=1249/169, 3-20=-889/174, 4-20=1018/161, 4-5=2031/228, 5-6=-2387/293 BOT CHORD 2-10=0/890, 9-10=-105/1593, 8-9=-105/1593, 6-8=-205/2147 WEBS 3-10=-21/686, 4-10=--907/157, 4-8-0/463, 5-8=-359/145 Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 3-0-0 ac purlins. Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. 1 Row at midpt 4-10 MiTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing be installed during truss erection, in accordance w h Stabikzer installation guide. NOTES 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-05; 90rrph; TCDL=42psf; BCDL=6.0psf; h=25ft; Cat. II; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS Oow-rise) gable end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MWFRS for reactions shown; Lumber DOL=1.60 plate grip DOL=1.60 3) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see MiTek "Standard Gable End Detail" 4) "' TCLL: ASCE 7-05; Pr=35.0 psf (roof live load: Lumber DOL==1.15 Plate DOL=1.15)• Pg=50.0 psf (ground snow); Ps= Cor#ritlti(6 oseofznor"29.3 psf Lumber DOL=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15) see load cases; Category 11; Exp B; Fully Exp.; Ct=1.1 JOD QTRECO212284 !FUSS XT1SE !nrSS type GABLE 1 m 1 Job Reference (optional) 7240 s Jun 18 2010 Mfek industries. Inc. Fro Apr 15 08:4920 2011 Page 2 ID:BbOb7Jf&8UbirGAe41(71(S3zQWgd-88URVKgeu 7PUk99JSh2AsFISIX0xS9INUanBXezQWo1 NOTES 5) Roof design snow load has been reduced to account for slope. 6) Unbalanced snow loads have been considered for this design. 7) This truss has been designed for greater of min roof live bad of 12.0 psf or 1.00 times fat roof load of 34.6 psf on overhangs non -concurrent with other live bads. 8) All plates are 1.5x3 Mf20 unless otherwise indicated. 9) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 10) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord lire bad nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 11) * This truss has been designed for a live bad of 20.0psf on the bottom chord in all areas where a rectangle 3-6-0 tall by 2-0-0 wide will fit between the bottom chord and any other members. 12) One RT7 USP connectors recommended to connect truss to bearing walks due to uplift at jt(s) 2 and 6. 13) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2006 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.102 and referenced standard ANSI/TP1 1. LOAD CASE(S) Standard 1) Snow Lumber Increase=1.15, Plate Increase=1.15 Uniform Loads (plt) Vert: 2-6=-20,1-3 -73, 3-7=83 JOD Q1RECO212284 I NSS XT2 -1-0-0 0-0-0 -0-0,5-0-13 0-0-0 MUSS type DUAL PITCH 5-0-13 6x6 3 6-11-10 19-0-0 um 7 ply 1 Job Reference (optional) 7240 s Jun 18 2010 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Apr 15 08:50:49 2011 Page 1 ID:BbObT 2GEP6xPUgECVa91GtVYZ9x2XZAz7INcywrPA zQWn, 12-0-6 19-04 2 0-0 21 � , 8-11-10 19-0-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y): 12:0-3-8,Edgej,13:0-4-0,0-2-0] LOADING (psf) TCLL(roof) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 29.3/50.0" TCDL 7.0 BOLL 0.0 BCDL 10.0 SPACING 2-0-0 Plates Increase 1.15 Lumber Increase 1.15 Rep Stress Incr YES Code IR02006/TP12002 CSI TC 0.65 BC 0.61 WB 0.67 (Matrix) DEFL in (bc) I/defl Vert(LL) -0.10 5-7 >999 Vert(TL) -0.22 5-7 >999 Horz(TL) 0.05 5 n/a Lid 240 180 n/a Scale: 1/4"=1 PLATES GRIP MT2O 197/144 Weight 63 Ib FT = LUMBER TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 WEBS 2X3SPFStud WEDGE Left: 2 X 4 SPF Stud, Right 2 X 4 SPF Stud BRACING TOP CHORD SOT CHORD WEBS REACTIONS (lb/size) 2=996/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-11), 5=1146/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-13) Max Horz2=-134(LC 7) Max Uplift2=-85(LC 9), 5=164(LC 10) Max Grav2=1062(LC 2), 5=1160(LC 2) FORCES (Ib) - Max. CompiMax. Ten. - All forces 250 (Ib) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-10=-1205/118, 3-10=-942/144, 3-11=-817/144, 4-11=-917/135, 4-5=-1941/210 BOT CHORD 2-9=0/771, 8-9=120V1724, 7-8=-120/1724, 5-7=-120/1724 WEBS 3-9=0/496, 4-7�/294, 4-9-1049/150 Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 3-6-14 oc purlins. Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc tracing. 1 Row at midpt 4-9 MiTek recommends that Stab3¢ers and required cross bracing be installed during truss erection. in accordance with Stabilizer Installation guide. NOTES 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-05; 90mph; TCDL=4.2psf; BCDL�.Opsf; h=25ft Cat. I1; Exp B; enclosed; MWFRS (low-rise) gable end zone and C-C Exterior(2) zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed;C-C for members and forces & MWFRS for reactions shown; Lumber DOL=1.60 plate grip DOL=1.60 3)** TCLL: ASCE 7-05; Pr=35.0 psf (roof live load: Lumber DOL=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15); Pg-- 0.0 psf (ground snow); Ps= varies (nin. roof snow=29.3 psf Lumber DOL=1.15 Plate DOL=1.15) see bad cases; Category it; Exp B; Fully Exp.; Ct=1.1 4) Roof design snow bad has been reduced to account for slope. 5) Unbalanced snow loads have been considered for this design. Continued on Dane 2 QTRECO212284 XT3E .i -0-0 11.00 12 Ines type GABLE 6x6 1 1 Job Re enmce ..;+:•„ ,; 151� ra2�a(1 E 1 1 7240sJm 182011002Mt IndUS1des. " 15 08M.50 ' fJvTzQW1 ID BMIbT 16.0,0 18-0-0 2-0-0_� 11-0-13 Al 368 11 18 15 14 13 12 11 3x8 11 0-0-0 Plate Offsets X,Y): [2:0-3-8,Edge], I4:Edge.0-3-81.19 0.3-8.Edge) LOADING (psf) TCLL(roof) 35.0 Snow (Ps/Pg) 29.3/50.0** TCDL 70 BCLL 0.0 ' BCDL 10.0 SPACING 2-0-0 Plates increase t 15 Lumber increase 115 Rep Stress Incr YES Code IRS LUMBER TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 SOT CHORD 2 X 4 SPF Not OTHERS 2 X 4 SPF Stud WEDGE Left: 2 X4 SPF Stud, Right 2 X 4 SPF Stud 16 0-0 CS1 TC 0.39 BC 0.16 VVB 0.07 (Matrix) DEL in O tide8 Vert(LL) -0.04 10 nlr Venal.) -0.05 10 n r Hotz(fl.) 0.00 9 n/a BRACING TOP CHORD BOT CHORD AA bearings 16-0-0. REACTIONS Max Holz 2-114(I.0 7) Max Uplilt An uplift 100 b or at joint(s) 2. 16, 14, 13, 12, 11 except 9=-101(LC 10) 2,15,14,13.12 except Max Gray All reactions 250 b or less at 11=299(LC 15) 9=395(LC 2),16(t- 3), FORCES (b) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten.- A8 forces 250 (b) or less except when shown. WEBS 3-162821108 16-0-0 Lid 120 90 nla Scats=1:40.1 PLATES GRIP MT20 197/144 Weight 62 b FT = Structural wood sheathing dtrectiy applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins. Rigid ceiling directly appked or 10-0-0 oc braC g- WATek recommends that Stabllzets and required cross bracing be instaued during truss erection, in accordance wall Stabilizer eta ton 1) Unbalanced roof We toads have been considered for this can. incised; MWFRs (tow rye) gable and forces 2) llVatd: ASCE 7-05; 90mph; TCDL=4.2psi; BCDL 6.Cpsf; h=25ft Cat. 11; Exp B; end zone and C-C Extertor(2) zone; cantilever left and d9ht exposed ; end verfical left and right exposed;C-C for members =1.60 b the face), see MfTek & russ for reactionswb shown; Lt of e0 plate grip to wind (normal 3) Truss designed for ward toads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed "Standard Gable End Detail" DO( =1.15 Plate tXk=1_iS); P�50-0 Psf (ground scow): 1.i 4) varies ( n. roof 7-05;o=29.3 psf f l � 15Plate DOL=1.15) see cases; Category II; Exp B; Ray Exp.; (min. gtoad as been to mootedfor sbpe. i Roof loads have been COftsidilred for this design. a. le+m. frt..a.�wl+a• ma ..vnd.n.R, of land __m... iti,y Them should w. c__ no,gym. la a, .®. Scut. {.I)4 -n tan coy SvgOffice a'e O. P.m (651l apens iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OFMINNESOTA Planning Report DATE: April SMay 5, 2011 CASE NO.: 2011-10 APPLICANT: Raymond Queener, Assistant Supt. of Business & Administration ISD #834 LAND OWNER: School District #834 REQUEST: 1) Ordinance Amendment to allow Early Childhood Education by SUP in the RB Zoning District 2) Special Use Permit for an Early Childhood Education facility on the Stillwater Jr High School Property in RB Zoning District LOCATION: 523 W Marsh Street (Stillwater Jr High School) I HEARING DATE: April 11, 2011 [Continued to May 9, 20111 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low/Medium Density Residential ZONING: RB, Two -Family Residential REVIEWED BY: Torry Kraftson, Assistant City Engineer; Mike Pogge, City Planner REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director fKey to edit markings: 1) Underlined and highlighted text has been added to the April 8 report; 2) struck and highlighted text has been deleted from the April 8 report.] BACKGROUND The public hearing for this case was opened on April 11, 2011. Testimony was offered by the public and considerable discussion occurred amongst Planning Commissioners. During the discussion several issues relating to traffic, parking, pedestrian safety and building design required additional information from the School District. Therefore, the hearing was continued to the May 9, 2011 Commission meeting. The Stillwater Area Public School District has outgrown its Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC) at 14480 North 60th Street. Therefore the School District Board conducted a search for property that would accommodate the ECFC program growth. Dozens ofThirty sites were investigated as potential homes for a new facility. In April of last year the School Board EFCE April 8May 5, 2011 Page 2 approved a purchase agreement with UFE, Inc. for property across the street from the School District's administrative offices on South Greeley. After approval of the site by the City Council of Stillwater, environmental issues were discovered that made use of the site for young children unattractive. So the School Board selected their next top site, which is the practice soccer field on the Stillwater Junior High School property. The new 45,000 square foot ECFC facility proposed for construction on the site would provide a home for early childhood family education (ECFE) and early childhood special education (ECSE). In addition, about 4,500 square feet of the total area would be leased to Courage Center St. Croix and Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School District. These two collaborative community partnerships help provide services to children with special needs. Northeast Metro 916 works with school children who have hearing disabilities and Courage Center would provide pediatric therapy services at the site. The ECSE classes and programs are mandated by the State for all public schools. They are required to provide classes and services by licensed teachers to any child with a diagnosed disability that affects their learning and development. As explained in the attached memo from Ray Queener, Assistant Superintendent of Business and Administrative Services, ECFE provides classes by licensed teachers to infants, toddlers, preschoolers and their parents. Parents participate in classes about childhood education and resources related to child development. Young children learn from early childhood teachers who specialize in early learning standards. In a typical ECFE class, parents and children attend once a week. They explore and learn together for approximately 45 minutes and then separate (when age -appropriate) for 45 minutes into classes designed specifically for the children and the parents. Currently about Approximately 400 300 children are served in classes or therapy programs each week,. The new facility would allow growth to a maximum of 400 children per week. Since the children and adult participants are typically in the school for only an hour and a half, no more than with about 85 children and 50 adult participants (135 total) would be in the building at any given time. The Junior High School pr-epci4y is zeroed RB, Twe Fat-1Residential. In this zoning district "public and private primary and secondary scho ls" arc all wed by Special Use Permit. Though thc City Zoning Ordinancc-dees net define either "primary" or "secondary", they arc generally understood to mean kindergarten through 12th grade. Early childhood education is for pre kindergarten aged pupils. T-hcreferc, though thc facility is-Elcarly a public school and substantially similar to public schools that arc allowed by Special Use Permit, a strict reading would not allow early childhood education. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to construct the ECFC facility on the Jr. High property, the Stillwater Area School District has requested: 1) An ordinance amendment to allow early childhood education by Special Use Permit in the RB zoning district; and 2) A Special Use Permit for early childhood education, should the amendment be adopted by the City Council. k EFCE April 8May 5, 2011 Page 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. Ordinance Amendment The ordinance amendment to allow early childhood education by SUP in the RB Residential Zoning District has already been forwarded by the Planning Commission to the City Council. And at their May 3, 2011 meeting the Council approved the first reading of the ordinance. Therefore, it will likely receive a favorable second reading at their May 17, 2011 meeting and be adopted. As mentioned, early childhood education is not specifically allowed in the RB zoning district though by Special Use Permit "primary and secondary" schools arc allowed. Since early amendment request seems reasonable. "Early childhood education" would include both "early c-hildhood family education" and "early childhood special education" as defined by the State. It would NOT include commercial daycare. the new facility. nponcnt. Commercial child care was allowed on the UFE site sidcntially. However, on the residentially zoned Jr. High site d. COxscgttcx#ly, the Scheel Beard has removed that from II. Special Use Permit The City zoning ordinance refers to principal uses as either permitted in a zoning district or not permitted in that district. In addition, some principal uses may be compatible with the permitted uses in a given district if the impact of their use is found acceptable or can be controlled. The zoning ordinance refers to this class of uses as allowed by Conditional or Special Use Permit. In the RB zoning district (if the applicant's request for an second ordinance reading is approved by the Council on May 17, 2011amcndment is approved), early childhood education would be allowed with a Special Use Permit. City Code Ch. 31, Sec 31-207 (d) establishes guidelines for reviewing requests for Special Use Permits. They are: (1) The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance find it acceptable to locate schools within residential neighborhoods, as long as any potential land use incompatibilities can be controlled. EFCE April 8May 5, 2011 Page 4 Setbacks - Required The required minimum setback for the proposed ECFC building is 20 feet from Hancock Street and 5 feet from the eastern property line. Since Holcombe Street South of Hancock Street is n private driveway (owned and maintained by tlue School District with no right-of-way easement encumbering it), there is no required setback from this portion of Holcombe. Setbacks - Proposed The proposed setback from Hancock Street is 50 feet for the majority of the building and 20 feet at its northwest corner. This can be seen in the attached plan sheet entitled "Enlarged Stie Plan". The proposed setback from the east property line is 24.5 feet at a mininruni, 29.5 feet for much of the building, and over 75 feet for a portion of the building. Therefore, the minimum required setbacks are -met or exceeded by the proposed building. (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. This guideline is addressed below through a variety of review standards. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The two issues that have generated the most neighborhood discussion under this guideline are parking and traffic. Parking - One of the advantages of this site for the School District is that there is considerable excess parking on the property and it is in a configuration and situation that would be convenient and safe for the ECFC building. Daytime parking - During the day, there will be ample parking for the simultaneous needs of both the ECFC and SJHS buildings. The Jr. High has 63 classrooms and the parking requirement for a Jr High is 3 parking spaces per classroom. So the minimum number of required spaces for the Jr High is 189. The three existing parking fields (south of the Jr High and north of the Jr High) have a total of 399 spaces. That leaves 210 excess spaces. The ECFC will need a maximuni of 146 spaces during the day. There is no specific parking requirement in the zoning ordinance for early childhood education. The closest comparable is parking for elementary and jr. high schools, which is 3 spaces per classrooni. There are 18 classrooms, so under this comparable requirement only 54 spaces would be necessary. The 146 number is a projection based upon experience with the existing ECFC facility. The new facility would have at any one time a maximum of 48 staff members in the building and 50 parents. In addition there will be a need for peaking when there is turnover. So both the Jr. High and ECFC would have a simultaneous combined need for as many as 335 spaces. There are 399 available. This leaves an excess of 64 spaces. EFCE April May 5, 2011 Page 5 Nighttime parking - Unlike daytime use of the property, evening use may not always have sufficient parking. On occasion the Jr. High will have an evening concert or athletic event (sometimes it even schedules two events are scheduled on the same evening - for example a concert and a swim meet). A double event or even a single very large event has the potential to generate more parking demand than can be satisfied on the school property. When this occurs, parking spreads out onto neighborhood streets. If the ECFC building were also used during these heavy parking demand periods the parking situation would become more difficult. Nearly all of the ECFC classes take place during the day. In the current location there is one class running on Monday nights, one on Thursday nights, and occasional other evening meetings for parents during the month. Any night that there is a class or a parent meeting scheduled, there could be up to 15 cars parked. In addition the Courage Center has late afternoon and evening therapy appointments, which would represent about 4 therapists working individually with children - so there could be as many as 6-8 cars at a time, including staff. Therefore, on any given evening there could be a need for a maximum of 23 spaces. ECFC has the flexibility to ensure that none of their larger events or meetings (creating a larger demand than the standard 23 cars mentioned above) would be scheduled when there is a public event at SJHS. TIT cho r, tt r • Careful monitoring of the Master Schedule refit/ will be needed to reduce the number of nights when two major events get scheduled at the SJHS. To mitigate the worst case parking scenarios the Planning Commission should consider recommending a condition in the Special Use Permit that prohibits scheduling either: larger event at the ECFC when a major event is scheduled at the SJHS. Traffic - SRF Consulting Group, Inc. completed an analysis of the impact that the ECFC would have upon the streets in the neighborhood. And after the last Planning Commission meeting traffic counts were done at both the Stillwater junior High and the current ECFC building to compare hourly traffic volumes. The current traffic is compared to what the entire property would generate if the ECFC were enrolling its niaximuni 400 students per week. TlzotThose studyies tsar(' attached. sTheir conclusion is that all streets and intersections would be able to accommodate the additional traffic and that the internal circulation design is good. • The report identifies a potential turn radius problem for east bound parent;, southward. New eastbound traffic will floe' to the east side of the parking lot and circle bad o the ECFC drop off lane. • Since parents and their children will park in the lot and walk with their young children across the traffic aisle on the north side of the lot, marked the Planning Commission recommended rearranging the lot striping and adding a clear pedestrian EFCE April 8May 5, 2011 Page 6 pathway f r ECFC parents and children to use. The revised site plan incorporates the Planning Commission suggestions. • The ECFC and Jr. High School hourly traffic profiles indicate that there would be minimal overlap of peak hour traffic volumes. ECFC generated traffic will enter and exit the site more consistently throughout the day versus the higher morning and afternoon traffic peaks associated with the Jr. High School. • The ECFC and Jr. High School hourly traffic profiles also indicate that the additional traffic generated by the new site uses are not significantly hi°lu r than the existing Junior High School uses. This can be seen in the attached profile graphs by comparing the projected ECFC maximum enrollment data in red with the existing Junior High School data in blue. • The report concludes by saying the proposed ECFC generated traffic would not result in a significant traffic volume increase on any of the neighborhood roadways or City collector streets. No average daily traffic count increases would be experienced greater than 15 percent with most increases less than 10 percent. Therefore, the proposed ECFC would not represent a significant adverse traffic impact. The City's Public Works Director agrees with this conclusion. MISCELLANEOUS REVIEW STANDARDS Building design The main entrance to the early childhood center will be on the south side of the building. Here busses can cue to drop off and pick up older auditory impaired students from the Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School District. And parents can approach the building with their young children via a dedicated pedestrian way from the parking lot. Two service/emergency access doors will be located on the west side of the building. The exterior materials for the ECFC building have not been submitted for review yet. This was intentional to allow input freix neighhers-4w i g the ncighberhood meeting. Prior to final approval by the City Council, celered rcr erirrgs-ef cicv-atierrs with materials will need to be submitted are predominantly brick. Panels of other materials are used sparingly to break up the building's facades. The view of the building from the residential neighborhoods includes many windows and pitched roof lines. From the school property some portions of the building will have a more institutional look with a flat roof. Visual interest has been added to the building by creating bump -outs and alcoves. The result is that no side of the building has a single continuous facade. Also, every facade of the single story building has numerous windows. The trash will be kept in an enclosure accessed from the private driveway portion of Holcome Street. EFCE April 8May 5, 2011 Page 7 Landscaping Kathy Widin, the City's forestry consultant, reviewed the landscaping plans. Her comments are reproduced here. 1. Eight existing trees along the east side of Helcembc St. are indicated to be relocated. This will not be possible since the trees are tee large to rnnevc successfrlly, even with a large tree f;padc. Six of the trees are ash and shun net be -retained due to the presence in Minncs to of a serious insect pest, -emerald ash-berer. Therefore, she recommends that these trees be 21. On the east side of the proposed ECFC building is a long hedge of lilacs. Beyond the hedge, on private property, are a large silver maple and a multi -stem birch. Care should be taken in this area to prevent damage to the hedge and the root systems of the trees on private property. The plan C5 indicates that "tree save areas" will be enclosed with orange tree protection fencing and signed throughout the project. This fencing should be placed outside the branch spread of the lilac hedge to prevent damage to the above -ground portions as well as the root systems of the hedge and the trees on the adjoining property. The fencing should be up prior to the beginning of construction and remain until all construction has been completed. All grading and soil disturbance should stay outside the branch spread of the lilac hedge. 3. The landscape plan for the facility is minimal and consists only of two types of trees. The build' sit ' h fit from foundation plan; however, even if those are not included, mere -tree -species sh uld be added t the landscape plan to improve diversity. The forestry consultant recommends at least erne ether evergreen species, such as "Black Hills" white spruce, to be interspersed with the white pine. Perhaps a few red pine as well. Since the types of shade or ornamental trees. A few "Autumn Blaze" rrlapies would be fine, but i cr ", lend ,,-. (bas"r. oed er impre v ed ul#�ur su h era Redmond-)- hornless heneyleeust, d resistant flowering crabs -or river birch. With greater d4ersity of plant materials, the ':rues, insects or diseases. -includes-deciduous B&B planting stock. The planting detail around the ro t ball". 52 Ti, b + ti bio semc of the plant shcets,heugh not on the landscape plan. Sod is indicated to be planted around the edges of the bio-retention basins. The forestry consultant suggests considering native grasses and wildflowers; as part of the bio retention basin. EFCE April May 5, 2011 Page 8 Civil engineering The Public Works Department reviewed the civil engineering plans and makes the following comments. • The street restoration section shall be 4 inches of bituminous placed in 2 lifts. Pavement restoration for utility connections at the intersection of Holcombe Street and Hancock Street shall be a continuous patch extending north to the north end of the excavation for sewer connection, east to the east end of the excavation for water connection and south to the south radius line of Holcombe Street. New accessible ramps with truncated domes shall be installed on the north and south crossing of Hancock Street. • Concrete curb along West Hancock Street shall be B618. • The sewer service shall connect to the existing Junior High service which comes from the track and field building, rather than directly into the manhole. • Basin #3 at the northwest corner shows a contour with a raised elevation of 906. This contour should be a 904 elevation. To the left of the basin #1 label, the top of curb is labeled 1 foot too high (TC 904.76, GL 903.43). • There are proposed white pine trees shown -along the nortla side of basin 1t3. Two of the proposed trees are shown near the hot -tom of the infiltration basin. The tree locations shall he adjusted te-a location where they wii-1 net be adversely affected by the hvdrology of the adjacent infiltration basin. • Final drainage calculations will need to be submitted along with a completed Middle Saint Croix Watershed Management Organization application. The drainage calculations shall indicate no increase in runoff from the 2,10, and 100-year storm events. This appears to be the intention based on the design of the 3 drainage basins. Some drainage calculations have been submitted, but additional drainage information is needed. Additional required submittals are a drainage boundary map, a calculation summary sheet, and inclusion of 23,000 square feet of proposed drainage area (existing drainage area is greater than proposed drainage area). These additional drainage materials are required prior to final approval. • Prior to construction, an NPDES permit must be obtained from the MPCA. Certificate of Survey There is a bit of confusion over the location of the shared property line between the school property and the rear yards of the four homes on Hancock Street. The confusion arises from an assumption that the right-of-way for Hancock Street is 60 feet wide. Between Holcombe Street and 5th Street it is actually less than 30 feet wide. Since the legal descriptions for the four homes on Hancock describe the depth of the lots as 200 feet from the southerly right-of- way line of Hancock, the assumed extra 30 feet of right-of-way would push the rear lot line of these homes 30 feet into school property. This situation can be seen in the attached air photo. The photo shows the assumed right-of-way line and assumed property lines in black. The actual right-of-way and property lines are in red. The result is that if the School District builds the ECFC's playground and row of buffer trees along its northern edge as proposed, the neighbors will lose areas that they have been maintaining for years as their rear yards. Though the School District may have the legal right EFCE April 8-May 5, 2011 Page 9 to use their property this way, it may be worth considering moving the playground 10 to 15 feet further south and not changing the current residential usage pattern. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approval. If the proposed school is found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should recommend that the City Council approve the Special Use Permit and ordinance amendment with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Planning Department except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Overall Site Plan dated March 22, 2011 • Enlarged Site Plan dated Marchy 224,2011 • ViewsPerspectives dated Marchy 224 2011 • Demolition Plan C1 dated Marchy 22J 2011 • Paving and Dimension Plan C2 dated Marchy 221, 2011 • Grading And Erosion Control Plan C3 dated Marchy 224 2011 • Utility Plan C4 dated Marchy 224_, 2011 • Landscape Plan C5 dated Marche 224_, 2011 2. Civil engineering plans shall be revised and found satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to commencing grading or excavation for the project. 3. The landscaping plans shall be revised -and resubmitted prior to City Council actio eat the Special h er 4. C lorcd renderings of the proposed building's exterior elevations shall be Gubmitted prior to City Council action on the Special Use Permit. 5. Marked pedestrian cressin€sand satisfacto_; e City E, .�__ ,hl be ,s from the parking lot to the ECFC entrance. Their lecatien shall be included Council act the Special Use Permit. 6:3_To mitigate the worst case parking scenarios on the site, the School District shall avoid scheduling a) ' �t major events at he Stilkvat School; and b) a larger event at the ECFC building when a major event is scheduled at the Stillwater Jr. High School. B. Table necessary to forrnulat -a recommendation en the pests, it could table the application until May 9, 2011.The 60 day review deadline for this case is May 17, 2011. Therefore the Planning Commission does not have the option to table the case unless the applicant specifically permits the deadline to be extended or the City invokes its 60 day extension option. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds that the proposal is not advisable, it could recommend denial of the requests. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. EFCE pril gMay .` 2011 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative A. attachments: Zoning and Location Map Ox Bill site plan Enlarged site plan Views of building massingBuilding perspectives Civil engineering plans Landscape plan Traffic Study (Feb 7, 2011) Hourly Traffic Volume Memo (May 4, 2011) Boundary line graphic Neighborhood Petition Emails from Johnson, VanMeerten, Lunzer Branjord Letter Email from Lori Brind re: scheduling for parking purposes School District request letter and program overvi EFCE April &May 5, 2011 Page 11 , -■ `Y •- g- $- t tf 1 ---desert----J--sx+s- 'f -6 I tit _■_ u mom =. I i — — I 1 +ueahR i �� �� ■■IN G 1, 1 I I I �■ ■- S Ft i i 0 l `i 1 HANaK W }-STREET 1-Lll N160674---4Si.. 7 -,-UKT--- 1 J WU wro+rigrr r ---- � � 1--.GUT-- 1 Proposed ECFC Site - # - 1 II -.{k3T � -WREN- -I— ARBT NCEr- 4 kMRene '91RRfi �.1 Stillwater Jr. High School J J 1 i i ' <1, 1 t r (\lV_jl 1 A l I 1EE?4jlllllI • LE - II - _,,.err-""r----� 1 tllima ~ le--urwEa-aa. Alk I I vt -li -eamaws ct New -- UM— 6 1 t -� v--, o . - -«ems,+--- --SNEtiTaw-BMW C}---- l t iTBreaeN-aeaas- —y'i ; ' \ ECFC Proposal Zoning & Location Zoning Districts zoning A-P. Agricultural Preservation RA Single Fondly Residential RR Two Family Residendal TR Traditional Residential LR. Lakeshore Residential CR, Cottage Residential TH. Townhouse - CTR. Cove Traditional Residential CCR. Cove Cottage Residential r; RCM. Medium Density Residential RCH. High Density Residential VC. Village Commercial - CA General Commercial - CBD. Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial - BP-O. Business Park- Office - PA Public Adninistradon ▪ CRD, Campus Research Development BP -I. Business Park - Industrial - IB. Heavy Industrial ▪ PROS - Park. Rec or Open Space I 1 PWF. Public Works Facility Road R-O-W Railroad �.] Open Water 4. ENGINEERS P TANNERS D ESIGNERS Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 0117356 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Murphy, PE, LEED AP, Department Manager LARSON ENGINEERING INC. Early Childhood Family Center, Project Management Team STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS — DISTRICT 834 FROM: John Hagen, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate Jeff Bednar, TOPS, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist DATE: May 4, 2011 SUBJECT: EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY CENTER— STILLWATER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY — HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUME PROFILE GRAPHS INTRODUCTION As requested, we have completed a follow-up traffic analysis related the proposed Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC) co -located on the Stillwater Junior High School Site in the City of Stillwater, Minnesota. This follow-up traffic analysis supplements the ECFC Traffic Impact Study completed February 7, 2011. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS In order to help illustrate the existing traffic on Holcombe and 6th Streets, and the anticipated increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed ECFC facility, a traffic volume profile was prepared for each roadway. Exhibit 1 shows the hourly traffic volume profile on Holcombe Street south of Churchill Street and Exhibit 2 shows the hourly the hourly traffic volume profile on 6th Street south of Churchill Street. The background traffic volumes shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 (shown in light blue) are based on hourly traffic volume counts conducted during the week of April 18, 2011. The additional traffic volumes attributed to the proposed ECFC facility (shown in red on Exhibits 1 and 2) are based on traffic counts taken at the existing ECFC facility in Stillwater, and data provided by the ECFC staff. As shown in Exhibits 1 and 2, the proposed ECFC facility will primarily add traffic to Holcombe and 6th Streets during the off-peak periods (i.e. 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM, 3:00 to 5:00 PM and occasionally 6:00 to 9:00 PM). Therefore, the proposed ECFC facility will not represent a significant adverse traffic impact on the study area roadway system. www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 1 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 l 763.475.0010 Pax: 763.475.2429 An Equal Opportunity Employer N CO Q 0 a) a) a) s a) U c 0 v 0 v v c 0 a, v) r0 CO . ECFC Added Traffic on Holcombe St Holcombe St Existing Background Traffic 1 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ol oo awnion D!HeJ1 AIanoH Wd 00:TT Ad 00:0T W d 00:6 VVd 00:8 Wd 00:L Aid 00:9 Wd 00:5 Ad 00:17 Aid 00:£ Aid 00:Z Wd00:T >. ra Aid OO:ZT 0 WV 00:TT WV 00:0T i WV 00:6 WV 00:8 Wd00:L WV 00:9 WVOO:S WV oo:17 WV00:£ Wd 00:Z WV 00:T Wd00:ZT U rci H O Y v co CG as c X W a t 0 -0 0) -a U 47. LL V W t an 0 N ‘-I 0 s o 0 0) tv t a4 U c 0 U to c 0 rts U fB 0 v 0 oL o oL.r) 0 M M N N e-i r•-I awnIon �i}yeal �l�anoH Wd 00:II Wd 00:0I W d 00:6 W d 00:8 Aid 00:L W d 00:9 Wd 00:S Wd 00:17 Wd 00:E Wd 00:Z Wd 00:i Wd 00:ZI WV 00:II Wd 00.0I INV 00:6 INV 00:8 Wb 00:L INV 00:9 W`d 00:S VW 00:b INV 00:S INV 00:Z INV 00:I Wb 00:ZI r4 0 O a) E H til Consulting Group, Inc. E NGINELRS P LANNERS DESIGNERS SRF No. 0117356 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Gregory A. Buchal, P.E., Project Manager LARSON ENGINEERING INC. Early Childhood Family Center, Project Management Team STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS — DISTRICT 834 FROM: John Hagen, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate Jeff Bednar, TOPS, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist DATE: February 7, 2010 SUBJECT: EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY CENTER — STILLWATER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY INTRODUCTION As requested, we have completed a traffic impact study for the proposed Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC) co -located on the Stillwater Junior High School Site in the City of Stillwater, Minnesota. The junior high school campus site is located north of Orleans Street and west of 6th Street (see Figure 1: Study Area Project Location Map). We understand that the purpose of this traffic impact study is to address the following issues and concerns: • ECFC site generated faculty, student drop off/pick up, visitor and school bus traffic levels, and the distribution of ECFC generated traffic on the supporting roadways once the ECFC is co -located on the Stillwater Junior High School site. • Possible residential neighborhood traffic impacts related to the ECFC generated traffic on the supporting roadways and possible traffic impact mitigation strategies. EXISTING CONDITIONS Morning and afternoon peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM) turning movement counts were collected by Larson Engineering Inc. staff at selected study area intersections on Tuesday, January 25th, 2011. Based on these traffic counts the junior high school related peak hours begin at 7:15 AM and 2:15 PM. Existing roadway and intersection geometrics and traffic control were verified based on recent aerial and street view photography. www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 1 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 1763.475.0010 Fax: 763.475.2429 An Equal Opportunity Employer Pro 'ects\7356 1. ures i.ure Northland Park 110:41 Study Area Project Location Map sfilrv`A A JuniorRP hitifk $drool Fairview Cernetcry,. Consulting Group, Inc Proposed Early Childhood Family Center — Stillwater Junior High School Site — Traffic Impact Study 0117356 February 2011 Larson Engineering Inc./Stillwater Area Public Schools District 834 Figure 1 Gregory A. Buchal, P.E. - 3 February 7, 2011 ECFC, Project Management Team The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes presented in this traffic impact study are estimates based on the City of Stillwater 2009 Traffic Flow Map, the previous study (2008) of the junior high school bus related site improvements and the morning and afternoon peak period turning movement counts collected at selected study area intersections as part of this study. PROPOSED STILLWATER EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY CENTER The new Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC) is proposed to be co -located on the existing Stillwater Junior High School Site (see Figure 2: Existing Site Aerial Photograph). As shown in Figure 3, the proposed ECFC concept site plan is well configured in terms of traffic circulation, and provides good access to the supporting transportation system. The plan takes advantage of existing parking on the Stillwater Junior High School site and provides adequate space for ECFC play areas. The plan also results in locating the proposed ECFC close to an elementary school which may allow integration of other school programs. Based on information provided by the school district, most ECFC clients/students (65 percent) will arrive by passenger vehicle, half of which will be dropped-off/picked-up by parents or guardians with the other half being accompanied by their parents or guardians for the length of their visit. The remaining clients/students (35 percent) will arrive by bus. The drop-off/pick-up area is proposed at the main building entrance and appears to operate as a one-way westbound roadway on the south side of the proposed ECFC building. There appears to be a service access on the north side of the proposed ECFC building on Hancock Street. As passenger vehicles approach this one-way westbound entrance to the drop-off/pick-up from both directions it is recommended that the passenger vehicle turning radius be checked for an eastbound left -turn from the main circulation roadway to the westbound drop-off/pick-up roadway. On -site drop-off/pick-up area guide signing should be considered to ensure clients/students are dropped-off/picked-up on the site and not in the adjacent neighborhoods. A review of the ECFC and junior high school hourly traffic profiles indicates that there would be minimal overlap of peak hour traffic volumes. The ECFC morning peak hour begins at 8:30 AM with traffic entering and exiting the site more consistently throughout the day with the afternoon peak hour beginning at 3:00 PM. According to information provided, there would be minimal programs that run into the late afternoon or early evening hours. Parking for the proposed ECFC will take advantage of existing parking for the junior high school. ECFC clients/students and/or their parents or guardians who park at the ECFC will access the building as pedestrians by crossing the main east/west roadway serving the junior high school and ECFC and the one-way drop-off/pick-up roadway near the building's main entrance. Marked and signed pedestrian crosswalks should be considered at these two crossing locations. Stillwater Junior High School Existing Site Aerial Photograph ► Figure 2 consulting Group, In, Early Childhood Family Center — Stillwater Junior High School 0117356 February 2011 Larson Engineering Inc./Stillwater Area Public Schools District 834 :\Projects\7356\TS\Figures\Fiqure3 Option 1 1 Stnry Building 45,600 SF Parting Ansry/414 EINsIrq .IPti Trral RH.In keg, I JM I1 11b Flog. k t ECFC: 166 berm Perking i e-iTb1e0- Id Skills ONLYta1> Trj1 Skai[ rkwFi o1 6a (r (tr lit tit, eine CO ECFC Stillwater Junior High Site Studio: December ber 2B. 2D10 Consulting Cknuit Iru 0117356 February 2011 Proposed Stillwater ECFC Concept Site Plan Proposed Early Childhood Family Center — Stillwater Junior High School Site — Traffic Impact Study Larson Engineering Inc./Stillwater Area Public Schools District 834 Figure 3 Gregory A. Buchal, P.E. 6 - February 7, 2011 ECFC, Project Management Team TRAFFIC FORECASTS Based on information provided by the ECFC staff, trip generation estimates for the proposed ECFC were developed. The proposed ECFC will generate approximately 490 trips (with 245 inbound and 245 outbound) on an average weekday. For comparison purposes, a trip generation estimate for the proposed ECFC was developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2008 "Trip Generation" Report. Since the ITE "Trip Generation" Report does not contain data for early childhood family centers, trip generation rates for Day Care/Pre-School facilities were used. The resultant ITE trip generation estimate for the proposed ECFC site is 448 trips on an average weekday. Based on this comparison, the ECFC client/student and faculty/staff based trip generation estimate of 490 daily trips was considered reasonable and was the basis for the ECFC traffic volume projections. Based on information provided by the ECFC staff, it is estimated that three (3) trucks will serve the proposed ECFC on an average weekday. These trucks would include a daily USPS mail delivery truck and two of the following possible trucks: UPS/FedEx, solid waste disposal, food service, school supply and maintenance trucks. Many of these trucks may already be on the study area roadways on a daily basis and would not be new trucks in the neighborhood. Based on ECFC staff information, special events will occasionally occur, but not frequently enough to include in the average weekday daily trip generation estimate. There are also existing trips generated by the existing site (which is now an athletic field). However, because this existing site traffic is seasonal and not a daily occurrence it was determined that a trip reduction to the ECFC design weekday trip generation estimate was not required. The 490 ECFC generated daily trips were assigned to the existing study area roadways based on an assumed directional trip distribution (see Figure 4: Proposed Stillwater ECFC Site Generated Traffic Directional Trip Distribution). This ECFC site generated traffic directional trip distribution was based on information related to the geographic distribution of the proposed ECFC client/student and faculty/staff population provided by the ECFC staff. The resulting traffic projections are shown on Figure 5. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed ECFC generated traffic would not result in a significant traffic volume increase on any of the selected study area roadways (no increases greater than 15 percent with most increases less than 10 percent) when ECFC generated traffic is added to the existing study area selected roadway daily traffic volumes. The following are selected examples of the estimated daily traffic volume increases on study area roadways: • Churchill Street west of Holcombe Street: + 275 vehicle trips per day (3.5 percent) • Holcombe Street south of Churchill Street: + 200 vehicle trips per day (6.5 percent) • 6th Street south of Churchill Street: + 105 vehicle trips per day (5.3 percent) • Hancock Street west of 6th Street: + 30 vehicle trips per day (13.6 percent) • Hancock Street east of 6th Street: + 60 vehicle trips per day (14.0 percent) Based on these estimated daily traffic volume increases, and since the majority of these new trips will be scattered throughout an average weekday between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM, it is concluded that the proposed ECFC would not represent a significant traffic impact on the study area neighborhood roadways. a' StiIlwatOr . Fairview Junior F]igh: Cerno School r Note: 5% of the Proposed ECFC site generated traffic directional trip distribution (not shown) is distributed to the surrounding neighborhood streets. Consulting Group, Inc 0117356 February 2011 Proposed Stillwater ECFC Site Generated Traffic Generalized Directional Trip Distribution Proposed Early Childhood Family Center — Stillwater Junior High School Site — Traffic Impact Study Larson Engineering Inc./Stillwater Area Public Schools District 834 Figure 4 H:\Projects\7356\TS\Figures\Figu re5 Daily Traffic Volume Legend Existing = X,XXX Projected = (X,XXX) r%an't' Street IF:1E41 Study Area Daily Traffic Volumes - Existing and Projected Figure 5 Consulting Group, Inc Proposed Early Childhood Family Center — Stillwater Junior High School Site — Traffic Impact Study 0117356 February 2011 Larson Engineering Inc./Stillwater Area Public Schools District 834 Gregory A. Buchal, P.E. - 9 - February 7, 2011 ECFC, Project Management Team CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC) traffic impact study, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for consideration: • The proposed ECFC concept site plan is well configured in terms of traffic circulation and provides good access to the supporting transportation system. • The proposed drop-off/pick-up area at the main building entrance operates as a one-way westbound roadway on the south side of the proposed ECFC building. As passenger vehicles may approach the entrance to this one-way westbound drop-off/pick-up from both directions it is recommended that the passenger vehicle turning radius be checked for an eastbound left - turn from the main circulation roadway to the westbound drop-off/pick-up roadway. It is also recommended that on -site drop-off/pick-up area guide signing be considered to ensure clients/students are dropped-off/picked-up on the site and not in the adjacent neighborhoods. • Parking for the proposed ECFC will take advantage of existing parking available on the junior high school site south of the proposed ECFC building. ECFC clients/students escorted by their parents or guardians who park at the ECFC will access the building as pedestrians by crossing the main east/west roadway serving the junior high school, the ECFC and the one- way drop-off/pick-up roadway near the building's main entrance. It is recommended that marked and signed pedestrian crosswalks be considered at these two crossing locations. • The proposed ECFC site would generate approximately 490 trips on an average weekday. This estimate compares conservatively with an estimate based on the ITE "Trip Generation" Report. • The ECFC and junior high school hourly traffic profiles indicate that there would be minimal overlap of peak hour traffic volumes. ECFC generated traffic will enter and exit the site more consistently throughout the day versus the higher morning and afternoon traffic peaks associated with the junior high school. • The number of trucks serving the proposed ECFC is estimated to be three (3) on an average weekday, with many of these trucks already on the study area roadways on a daily basis. • The proposed ECFC generated traffic would not result in a significant traffic volume increase on any of the selected study area roadways (no increases greater than 15 percent with most increases less than 10 percent). Therefore; the proposed ECFC would not represent a significant adverse traffic impact on the study area neighborhood roadways. H: IProjects17356ITSIReportslECFCFinal Traffic Memo.docx i Early Childhood Family Center — Traffic implications Lily Lake: 605 students. Just off of Pine Street and Co. 5. Oak Park: 380 students. Just off of Orleans and Osgood. Stonebridge: 470 students. Just off of Owens. SJH: 1000 + students. 2 blocks from Churchill if taking Holcomb. Alternatives: Hancock; Marsh; 6th St. None of which have sidewalks. Orleans doesn't have a sidewalk either, but that is N/A as proposed ECFC wouldn't use that access route. Summary: Proposed ECFC is adding 400 students and their families to a site that already has more than 1000 students, with access more limited than the other schools in town. More than 1400 students, and the added factor that the ECFC kids will be going in and out continuously all day, and after normal school hours. Adding 400 students to any other school listed above would still only bring their student population up to what the SJHS neighborhood already accommodates. Space required for ECFC Building: 45,000 square feet —1 acre proposed. This is more than 4 times larger than the existing site. Questionable, considering that the School District stated they had outgrown the current site and need approximately 22,000 square feet — twice the amount of current site. Playground: A playground that is 109 ft. X 100 ft. = 10,900 sq. feet. This is .25 Acres - Plenty big for disabled children under 5. Parking: .5 Acres would accommodate 136 cars. (160 sq. ft. per ave parking space.) Figures obtained using 43,560 sq. ft. = 1 Acre. TOTAL: 1.75 acres would accommodate the 1 acre building; a 10,900 sq. foot playground, and parking for 136 cars. cep, c7, d4 &tc,/ a(' Summary: School District Proposal states 5 acres are needed for ECFC. Where does this figure come from? The above figures leave 3.25 acres remaining. The building isn't getting bigger. A playground over .25 acres is excessive. Would there need to be more than 136 parking spaces (.5 acres) at one time? Highly doubtful. Alternatives: What about adding onto existing schools that have better traffic access? The district has several elementary schools and 2 junior highs —is it absolutely necessary to have just 1 ECFC? The answer is clearly "no." Is it tragic to ask parents to sometimes have to drive across town between sites if not every single resource was made available at one site? And to possibly have to do this for a maximum of 5 years? This seems like a one-stop-shop/Walmart proposal. Yes, it's ideal to be able to get everything one wants at one location, but sometimes that's not possible or feasible. The SJHS neighborhood is already doing its part supporting more than 1000 students. PLEASE DON'T PILE ON! Adding this site onto any other school in town would only bring those neighborhoods up to what the SJHS already accommodates. r Petition to STOP Construction of New ECFC Building on the current Stillwater Junior High athletic practice field located to the north of the main parking lot on Holcombe street 15-Apr-11 Considerations: 1. Additional bus traffic coming and going. (12 arrival and departure times per day and averaging 3 to 4 buses at a time) These numbers were provided by District #834 Transportation Department at the current facility and will certainly grow. Current Junior High Bus traffic Is only twice per day. The ECFC will have bus traffic all day long. 2. Additional personal vehicle traffic all day long. (490 additional trips per day) 3. The Athletic field was just updated with sprinkler system, new sod, cyclone fencing and backboard for lacrosse and soccer players a couple of years ago at a significant cost to taxpayers, yet the new building will throw that money down the drain. The field is also extensively used for athletic events during the spring, summer and fall. 4. Oak -Land Jr. High property was also considered. If District property is the only option being considered, this location seems to warrant further study since It would not interfere with a residential area at all. 5. Property values for those of us in the immediate area would most certainly be driven down. Going from an extensively used athletic field to a 45,000 square foot building is like throwing a factory into the middle of a park. Name(Print) Signature Ste ¢ COnciy rn 4 t \*gc: �'t -rr+ A TN, l� tUa tN1N A5k, 1'wtc 440 • Address u) -Ia.-, cock + - qi 422/ a s Ioocf 411h s - s. Phone # Y9 / Oo$ ' 65/ V76 Tdzff �►�a� �6�� tea-' 9S2--1415 1°' t k? , C1) --i- Z1 c ."'Z • .e.r- Cq t Xj t \ .: 1 k 'C °) '• (1) C4 I i\ PrIA s;J 1 E!it? --1 r -- ------ a- !_ -2/ a' .. V 7 il, 12 .- -_-; 6- .,- Fa -,g,ce rVHr r ' A icc\A'-'-• .,3 ':'"s ��i 1 E _ • '("1°' C. i i 1 ..1.'- r At *6t:',.. g*. f I jt..,'.,1„,. .. i a 1\ 6 31,5." ISignaturA * ' 1 1 . 4 N a `At:2g- t . b,,\ ..,‘ 7 - . i C \ -:t. ,u a 5 R.. —1141 1 \; CI pa--: P per, i 1 1 ? L.,‘ g" N e).- `,,o (e a . v ‘ i--tAtet--‘.$1 0, -(14- 6' %./4 ___ NJ��P -1-s _ 'If\ i W,.0 r p ? 1/41‘ oo P -ty-, 4 0 • 4- c t. � ,j, ').. -� r,- 114 tt g., G- ,4. r Address * ‘:z1) a '-'4 ok8IC74 , . c . 7 I 0 \is) (1-` `11 t A) -1 i � ‘\ 1 Z,S 4 � �I ' kiSio, CAI G)fJ`"9e. % 1 (.1 c.l. '4 t 'aN c,‘ t63\ '`. \O 1:;„ 0 .6.� g 0 ,_. ©`0 1 1 c„,, W -Jo ---......., E tJ .(I _..., --I' i I .., `oi.-E r rt.. 4 0 I, J Phone # 1 _ _ _ S' i az* • • • • 1k4z: '''‘'. jffli&Vf " rflrU '-e-4( 3 .Th 0 r C}:\ ic XI (II"' ft::1."-"Z) VI _, :er t 2. V-% -..''t".: • _, N 61 . ' ik i bra . __, . Signature � N N C \I E' Cam, z?c)to t _ 4 � ti Q 3._ rtr473 t fi W ZL p W IN oQtr..O(`�A t) ° a. D t•`1 ,[ _t S 4fil D N %1 :r .• L‘ 4 \,. t ut �i ^ t L 1 ) o% ‘. -3- \, ... n •c , \. k /1 N t c 1 w two • tr. /- [.s7 --A+g —I 3 72,__ 11 w 1�"„J .< 1 k .. w - . _ .i � (Phone # t 2 3 `(-\\(\ts ck e Petition to STOP Construction of New ECFC Building on the current Stillwater Junior High athletic practice field located to the north of the main parking lot on Holcombe street January 16th, 2011 Considerations: 1. Additional bus traffic coming and going. (12 arrival and departure times per day and averaging 3 to 4 buses at a time) These numbers were ;provided by District #834 Transportation Department at the current facility. 2. Additional personal vehicle traffic. (unknown number) 3. The Athletic field was Just updated with sprinkler system, new sod, cyclone fencing and backboard for lacrosse and soccer players a couple of years ago at a significant cost to taxpayers, yet the new building will throw that money down the drain. The field is also extensively used for athletic events during the spring, summer and fall. 4. Oak -Land Jr. High property was also considered. If District property is the only option being considered, this location seems to warrant further study since it would not interfere with a residential area at all. 5. Property values for those of us in the immediate area would most certainly be driven down. Is the school district going to compensate homeowners for the reduced re -sale value? Name(Print) Signature Address Phone # 0.1 VAW EVIE.i:,C4S44 „ ta-- , Jp,l 4.. V‘ANic.ce4. �'. C6 1-4-41-oCs'58 Z--ekric.4 g DOA& f 10,90 54 1401CalKLdda 651 — 4-30 - 9156 ' i 1 ki- O.- ii 04z- 'Qom b'V .J5 1 °,�.. w .. t j .i` : i , ff � an January 16th, 2011 g Bill Turnblad From: Bill Johnson [BiII.Johnson@word-wizards.comj Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:18 AM To: Bill Turnblad; Michel Pogge Subject: Notice of Public Hearing, Case No. 2011-10 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Dear Mr. Turnblad and Mr. Pogge, I am writing in regard to Notice of Public Hearing, Case No. 2011-10. The potential relocation of the ECFC to 523 Marsh Street West is of great concern to me. For me, this is not a NIMBY issue. Rather, my main concerns are traffic infrastructure and pedestrian safety. I live and work out of my home on 6th Street S., just a half block up from the Junior High parking lot, so I have a firsthand perspective. Already, the local streets are heavily used for school purposes, primarily parents picking up and dropping off their children from the Junior High School. Many of these vehicles cut through narrow side streets — Hancock is a prime example — which were not meant to accommodate this traffic. Moreover, I have observed that a number of these vehicles do not obey the stop signs at the intersection of 6th and Hancock, creating even greater danger. With the ECFC relocation to the Junior High property, this situation will only get worse. More importantly, I believe you are putting Junior High students and other pedestrians (including me) at risk. Significant stretches of streets in the neighborhood do not have sidewalks: 6th street south of Hancock, all of Hancock, 5th Street, Anderson Street and others. Bottom line: How can we be talking about adding more traffic to local streets when we don't have the sidewalk infrastructure for students and other walkers? I'm afraid that this is a tragedy in the making. Thank you for considering my thoughts on this. Sincerely, William A. Johnson 1015 6th Street S. Stillwater, MN 55082 651-351-9385 i Bill Turnblad From: Dahlquist, Michael S MVP[michael.s.dahlquist@usace.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:47 PM To: Bill Turnblad; Michel Pogge Cc: Doug Menikheim Subject: FW: ECFC Plan I thought you should have this for your records and information. Thanks - Mike Original Message From: Scott & Cindy Van Meerten [mailto;cvsv@comcastnet] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:39 PM To: aron.buchanan4co.ramsey.mn.us; Dahlquist, Michael S MVP; mrgallick@comcast.net; eric.fsc ,gmail_com; mikekoconaaol.com; jsmalsam@yahoo.com; afsunberg@yahoo.com; sspisak@mac.com; jcwolden@apro-ns.net Subject: ECFC Plan THANK YOU ALL for pulling through and questioning the things we here in the neighborhood around the Junior High have been questioning for months! After all the work that was done two years ago to re-route the traffic to and from the school, the school board now wants to take two steps back. We had over thirty signatures back in January that were presented to Mr. Queener in opposition of the project, but apparently we gave the list to the wrong person because they've been conveniently moved under the table. Before last night, we had pretty much resigned ourselves to the building going through. That's why there was such a poor showing. We were given the impression from our focus group and all of the architect renderings that the building was a "done deal". Along with the traffic study being re -defined, I believe we should also be asking for a revised bus schedule to and from the current ECFC. If any of you have a chance, please stop by and watch the traffic coming and going at the current ECFC. Big Buses are coming and going at all times. That along with shuttles from the Courage Center and 916 will also need to be added to the mix. I also think the school board is being rather short-sighted when estimating future needs and growth. They've planned for growth in the building itself, but not for additional parking needs and bus traffic. Parking along our city street will most likely be inevitable. If you park cars on both sides of Hancock Street, good luck getting emergency vehicles through. The way they've set up the main entrance only «image00l.png» adds to the congestion. You would almost need to add another entrance -one for bus drops and one for pedestrian, and I don't see the room for it at this site. I've also done a basic search of the ECFC in Cottage Grove. Please review the attached satellite photo. They have theirs located along highway 61, where it is easily accessible for traffic in a light commercial zone, not in a residential area that is already maximized. Sorry to ramble on but I have one last thought, please consider the ability for those of us along Hancock Street and surrounding area to sell our homes when the time comes. We've gone from having an immaculate green space to having a huge building surrounding us? 1 Which location would "you" rather live in? We will again be pounding the pavement for signatures that we plan on presenting at the May 9th Meeting. Again, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH!!! Scott & Cindy Van Meerten 501 West Hancock Street Stillwater Bill Turnblad From: Mary M. Lunzer [lunze001@umn.edu] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:37 AM To: Bill Turnblad Subject: Re: Traffic report for ECFC site On 4/1/2011 9:23 AM, Bill Turnblad wrote: Mary, It was nice to talk with you this morning. I have looked at the civil engineering plans to see whether Hancock would be effected by water or sewer connections. Water would be a single trench from the curb directly to the middle of Hancock right in front of the ECFC building. Sewer is in Holcomb near its intersection with Hancock. So, in neither case would Hancock be effected for long. And when it is, it will only be a small portion of the street near the intersection with Holcomb. I have attached the traffic study that we spoke of. However, I have not reviewed it yet. As the planners and engineers here review the proposal, we will make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on how to minimize the impact upon neighborhood parking. If you have questions or other comments, please feel free to contact me. Bil Turnblad Community Development Director City of Stillwater 651.430-8821 (direct) Thank you for sending me the information. The data for the traffic flow was from the older studies: The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes presented in this traffic impact study are estimates based on the City of Stillwater 2009 Traffic Flow Map, the previous study (2008) of the junior high school bus related site improvements and the morning and afternoon peak period turning movement counts collected at selected study area intersections as part of this study. The other statement: According to information provided, there would be minimal programs that run into the late afternoon or early evening hours. If you check out there website: http//ecfc.stillwater.k12.mn.us/Parent_. ChildClasses_html you will see that they have classes that run until 7:45 in the evening. The majoirty of the classes in the evening are only one - tow hours so you will have more traffic going in and out of that area through out the evening. Sincerely, Mary Lunzer 4/8/11 Re: 523 Marsh Street West. Applicant: BWBR, Steve Erickson — representing Stillwater area school district. Dear Mr. Mike Pogge: As a resident of the Stillwater Junior High neighborhood, I am very opposed to the proposed Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC). As is every neighbor I've spoken with about this. Our neighborhood already accommodates the largest school in town (the H.S. is on the edge of town and not totally bordered by houses), at more than 1000 students (next largest is Lily Lake at 555). To add another 400 families whom are going to be coming and going all day is far too many for our neighborhood to handle. I have more details on the attached sheet that I also gave, to no avail, to the school district. They've wanted the Jr. High site from day one, which became obvious in late January when they informed residents of their intentions. The fact is that we would lose a green space that we will never get back; a place where thousands of kids play soccer, La Crosse, and other activities. It will undoubtedly lower property values at a time when they've already been reduced. There is a reason why this was zoned as it was —it's obvious that no one would ever want such a large, 48,000 square foot building right across the road from their home. Lastly, stating that the junior high is an ideal site because it will save money, as the school owns the land, is ludicrous. This absolutely does not need to be on 5 acres, as the district maintains. In fact, if that were so, why did they propose $4.2 million to buy the UFE building? It's a much smaller setting; obviously not nearly 5 acres. The Jr. High project is proposed at $11 million. How is going from $4.2 million to $11 million saving money? Per the district, UCFC is for children under five who will most likely only be there for an hour or two for various therapies. How does this warrant 5 acres and $11 million? I'm just pleading in desperation that this doesn't get shoved down our throats. I've been disturbed during this process, with just how little say us residents have had. I'm just asking that more time be given to searching for alternatives. The school district, in my opinion, has been disturbingly closed -minded about this project. Thanks for whatever time you've taken to read this. Sincerely, Joel Branjord 1006 7th St. S. 651-430-8051 Proiected Early Childhood Family Center *School District 834 is stating they need 5 acres for this project. The proposed building is 48,000 sq. ft. An acre = 43,560 sq. ft. Therefore, the building = 1.1 acres, leaving 3.9 acres for a playground, parking, and perimeter space needed (entry drive through, etc.). *The District estimates that 80 families would use the ECFC at any one given time. Per Wikipedia, the average parking lot space is 160 sq. ft. 43,560 sq. ft. (acre) _ 160 sq. ft. = a 272 vehicle capacity per acre. It is assumed that 272 spaces will never be needed at one time. In fact, % acre would still hold a very reasonable 136 vehicles. *Even if providing an enormous playground 1/2 the size of a football field, that would be 28,800 sq. feet or .66 acres. (But this would be far too large to effectively monitor young children.) *To summarize land useage: 1.1 acres "needed" for the building + .66 acres for a very large playground + .5 acres that could accommodate 136 vehicles at any given time = 2.26 acres. Even if rounded to 2.5 acres that would be half the size of the District's need projection. This figure implies that the savings to the community by building on the Jr. High site is greatly exaggerated. **Counter recommendations for this proposed facility: Given the current facility is 12,000 sq. ft., and the District is stating they need between 21,000 and 23,000 sq. ft., a generous compromise from the 48,000 sq. ft. could be 30,000 sq. ft. This would be an expansion of 2.5 times the current site. Acreage would be .69 acres for a 30,000 sq. ft. building. **Parking lot: .5 acres would provide for 136 parked -cars at any one given time. Considering the District has stated that around 80 families would be visiting at a time, and presumably many families would actually be dropping off their children, .5 acres appears entirely reasonably. **Play ground: .25 acres for a playground would be 10,890 sq. ft. To put that into perspective, the size of a major league baseball diamond is 8,100 sq. ft. % acre would be a 100' X 109' space, for example, for children up to the age of 5, and with staggered usage. This also seems reasonable, and safer, for small children who need very close attention. **Total Acreage of this proposed alternative: .69 acres for facility + .5 acres for parking lot + .25 acres for a playground = 1.44 acres total. **In summary, couldn't up to 2 acres be acquired at a reasonable price at a site near the Courage Center and Stillwater Medical Group? With greater convenience to the nearby stores, hwy 36, right off a 4 lane road (Curve Crest)? And wouldn't a smaller, but still 2.5 X larger -than -the -current facility greatly save money in construction costs, ongoing maintenance, and utility costs? And couldn't adjacent parking lots be shared also? Bigger doesn't always mean better, and in an age of down -sizing, 5 acres seems very excessive. From a Neighborhood Home Owner's Perspective *School Figures: There are 9 elementary schools in the district, but per the District, they are proposing only one site for the ECFC. The District states that it is ideal to house all the teachers and therapists in same building. This assertion cannot be accurately weighed without knowing the number of staff personnel vs. if there are enough to house the needed combination of them in more than one facility. Such as smaller, pre-existing facilities/vacant businesses, etc. *Oak Park Elementary holds 400 students; Lily Lake 555; Stonebridge 457. Stillwater Jr. High has more than 1000 students (all figures provided on School district website). In essence, the part of the community that already accommodates nearly double the student population of the largest elementary school in Stillwater, is being asked/potentially forced to accommodate yet another 400 families per week (the District estimate). *Even though family visits are said to be staggered, this will add to a continuous flow of traffic in an area that continues to see increasing traffic as it is. It's no secret that due to growing suburbs and drivers searching alternative routes to avoid bridge traffic, this neighborhood is seeing more and more through -traffic. *In summary, the downside for neighbors of this proposal includes: 1) increased traffic; 2) Toss of green space and related aesthetics (i.e. having a lawn across the road vs. a 48,000 sq. ft. building); 3) loss in property values at a time when they have already plunged dramatically; 4) loss of an area used by children of all ages for soccer, LaCrosse, and misc. activities; and 5) there is virtually no buffer between the proposed site and residents. In comparison, the neighborhood near the Courage Center has a large park as a buffer. Not to mention Oakland Jr. High Area, or other possibilities such as Lake Elmo. Bill Turnblad From: Lori Brink [brinkl@stillwater.k12.mn.us] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 2:31 PM To: Bill Turnblad Cc: serickson@bwbr.com; Ray Queener Subject: Scheduling at New ECFC Hello Bill. I was told that it would be helpful for you if I would further clarify the issues surrounding scheduling at the proposed Early Childhood Family Center on the Stillwater Junior High Campus. 1. All of the programming offered by ECFE and ECSE is scheduled cooperatively and the building's weekly operational schedule is managed by Community Education, The start and end times of these classes and programs are within our control and not dependent upon any other outside agency. Classes and events would be scheduled so that they would be staggered and not overlap with the arrival or dismissal times at Stillwater Junior High. 2. The programs offered by District 916 and Courage Center St. Croix have start/end times within their control as well and would be similarly scheduled. 3. All "outside of school time" events that use our school buildings or athletic fields are scheduled through a master - scheduling system in Community Education. This includes both internal events (concerts, plays, parent -teacher conferences, track meets) as well as community rentals and public use (dance recitals, 4-H events, caucus meetings, etc.). All events scheduled must run through this same system so that conflicts can be avoided and so that we are not scheduling multiple "large" events at the same time due to parking/traffic concerns. As mentioned in a prior meeting, all of the above is within our control. The only events beyond our control would be swim/dive competitions that may be re -scheduled by our athletic conference. This is a rare occurrence, but we would need to shift schedules to accommodate it. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you need further information. I would be happy to respond to questions about this issue at the meetings as well. Thanks. Lori Lori Brink Director of Community Education and Community Relations Stillwater Area Public Schools Phone: 651-351-8322 Fax: 651-351-8401 1 STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 834 March 17, 2011 Mr. Bill Turnblad Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Turnblad: 1875 South Greeley Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Tel: 651-351-834o fax: 651-351-8380 tdd: 651-351-8338 www.stillwater.k12.mn.us Stillwater Area Public School District is requesting a zoning text amendment to include early childhood education as a part of K-12 schools zoning text. Additionally, the district is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct an early childhood education facility on the Stillwater Junior High campus, located at 523 West Marsh Street, in Stillwater. Stillwater Area Public Schools is submitting this request to support our plans to build a new facility to accommodate expansion of the Early Childhood Family Center (ECFC). The district's current ECFC is located at 14480 North 60th Street in Stillwater. This location has been leased for 17 years and the growth of our programs necessitates a new larger facility. The proposed facility will be approximately 45,000 square feet and will contain approximately 20,000 square feet of educational classroom space; 20,500 square feet of office, common and shared support space; and 4,500 square feet of rentable space to be leased to our community partners. These partners include Courage Center St. Croix and Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School District. These collaborative partnerships will help to better serve the needs of families and children in the community, especially those children with special needs. The facility will take advantage of the existing parking lot adjacent to the building site, and the district will make use of existing storm water solutions to meet the requirements of the new facility. A traffic study (included) indicates that the increased visits to the campus show minimal traffic volume increases on surrounding streets. Hours of operation will be staggered with the start/end times of the Junior High School so that there is no increase of traffic during peak volume times for the neighborhood. If you have questions regarding this zoning request, please contact me at 651-351-8321 or queenerr@stillwater.k12.mn.us. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Sincerely, J_--7 L Uti C %V___h,,l LQ+;ti k.: Raymond C. Queener Assistant Superintendent of Business and Administrative Services Afton -Lakeland Elementary, Andersen Elementary, Early Childhood Family Center, Lake Elmo Elementary, Lily Lake Elementary, Marine Elementary, Oak Park Elementary, Oak -Land Junior High, Rutherford Elementary, St. Croix Valley Area Learning Center, Stonebridge Elementary, StillwaterArea High School, Stillwater -Junior High, ValleyCrossing Community School, Withrow Elementary S'pLI,WATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS MEMO TO: 13i11 Turnblad, Community Development Director FROM: " Ray Queener, Assistant Superintendent of Business and Administrative Services DATE: March 17, 2011 RE: Zoning Text Amendment and Special Use Permit Request Stillwater Area Public Schools' service to the children of our community does not just begin at kindergarten. In addition to its school buildings, the district also operates an Early Childhood Family Center that serves children and their families from infancy through age five. Classes are taught by licensed teachers who rnaintain the same standards and receive the same training as teachers throughout the K-12 system. Early Childhood Program Overview There are two main programs housed in the Family Center; Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) and Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE). Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) provides classes and services for children with a diagnosed disability that affects their learning and development. These services are mandated for all public school districts and are free to families with a child who qualifies. Children receive services from licensed early childhood teachers and several other specialists, such as a speech pathologist, physical therapist, adaptive physical education teacher, occupational therapist and other health professionals. From birth through age three, these services are provided primarily in the home of the child. From age three to five, these children are served in the Family Center and participate in specialized programs designed to prepare them for kindergarten and beyond. While parent involvement is a strong component of ECSE, most classes and therapies are provided in children - only classes, with transportation provided to and from the child's home on a school bus. Stillwater Area Public Schools believes strongly in an integrated model of service for young children. To the degree possible, children with special needs and typically -developing children learn together in classrooms designed for children of all abilities. Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) provides classes for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, as well as their parents. Parents participate in classes taught by licensed parent educators who provide education - and resources about child development. Young children learn from early childhood teachers who specialize in early learning standards. In a typical ECFE class, parents and children attend together once a week. They explore and learn together for approximately 45 minutes and then separate (when age - appropriate) for 45 minutes into classes designed specifically for the children and the parents. ECFE receives categorical funding through the state to be able to address barriers to learning. Participation fees are on a sliding fee scale based on family income and for those with the most need, fee waivers are provided. Other support services include sibling care, where a parent can register for class with one child and ECFE child care staff provides care for the sibling while the parent is in class. Early Childhood Screening is a developmental screening for children from 3-4 years old. All children must participate in screening prior to entry into any public school in Minnesota. The purpose of screening is to provide parents with information about how their child is growing and developing, as well as identifying any delays in their development. Screening professionals are able to refer children and families for further services through ECSE as well as other community agencies. Approximately 400 children are served in classes and therapy programs at the Family Center each week, with about 85 children and 50 adult participants in the building at any given time. Early Childhood Family Center Project Partners Two organizations will be providing integrated programming within the Early Childhood Family Center, both of whom have exciting, well -established partnerships with Stillwater Area Public Schools. Courage Center St. Croix will be locating their pediatric therapy services at this site, which will be a great benefit to the clients we already share. Intermediate School District 916 will also have programming located in the building that serves young children who are deaf or hearing impaired. Both organizations will lease some dedicated space (in total, less than 10% of the building square footage) and will share common spaces like conference rooms, large muscle activity space and the playground. In prior project plans, there was a space designated for a licensed child care tenant to lease a portion of the building. The scope of the project has been scaled back and there are no longer plans for a private child care component. As described above, child care services are already provided on -site for children whose parents are in the building participating in a class. These support services would continue to be provided to families enrolled in our programs. �— — Class WEST Class -ooms Class Cla Conf. Class Lobby 1W I:■■. di mu mum ■■MIsI81 MEM voistmeeetemomemonummimm ra ng"' �i/ice.....: , • Roof Overha (Dash Line) rooms HANCOCK i IS NI *** * * Recessed Lighting @ Doors (Dot) STREET Bus Route (Blue Arrows) Playgroun Area -s- INI IN IN VM/Nii IN Le end • • TOProperty Line (Bold Phantom Line) O20'-0" Right -Of -Way Setback (Thin Phantom Line) O5'-0" Side Yard Setback (Thin Phantom Line) NTH A s El • w w F— N 2 WATERMAIN PER AS-BUILTS STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Stillwater Early Childhood Family Center Enlarged Site Plan May 4, 2011 BW B R ARCHITECTS STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Stillwater Early Childhood Family Center Perspectives May 4, 2011 BWBR ARCHITECTS LL co MEt uJ J Ce OIN II FOUND I/2. IRON PIPE PO 5' wrTED PLAT CORNER ET1/16T SORN°ER� E1HEDNE 1/4 of sec. o3 Ili .ill 1- ;;Vh In 666.10 (DES` . "'") WEST' a`aSEF THE HANCOCK 389.5'01'W 66e3aaRE 32 280. 20 - , - 100,0 DEsc �I- I, TN LINE of WEST I „ Sarni STREET PER EASEMENT PER BOOK LEI F — 6 8.52051 EASEMENT PER Doc. NO. 22. P E 1aa kb 04 DASHED LINES ARE IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FROM LARSEN ENGINEERING s On` SHRUBS OVERLAP o 1ic°' 0E5 OVERLAP SO THn� rPTENISMAaDIITNNE2 {ci.10.4D4OINING. PARCEL DESHEO LENTS AEE FROMLCONSTRUCTION PLANS SCHOOL DISTRICT 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Property Report by Land Title, Inc (File Number 355665, dated January 19, 2011) was relied upon for matter of retard. (Legal Description Per Book 182 of Deeds, Page 407) All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 33, and running North on the West line of South 6th Street a distance of 439.62 feet to an iron pipe, thence West parallel to the South line of West Hancock Street a distance of 385.8 feet to an Iron pipe thence North Parallel to the West line of South 6th Street. a distance of 200.00 to the South line of West line of Hancock Street, thence West on the South line of West Hancock Street. a distance of 280.2 feet to the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, thence South on the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33. a distance of 632.81 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, thence East on the South of Sold Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, to the point of beginning. LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOTES: THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAKES REFERENCE TO "IRON PIPE" CALLS IN TWO SEPARATE LOCATIONS. IRON PIPES WERE FOUND THAT WERE SET BY JOEL ANE2, LAND SURVEYOR, ON JANUARY 25TH. 2003. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG, Gopher State One CaII TWIN CITY AREA: 651-45a-0002 TOLL FREE: I-800-252-II66 STREET s I o wl 0' oL 3p ON EPAR EL LINE O.00'IESC PJNE LEGAL ALONG DESCRIPTIONLINE SURVEY NOTES: CHAIN LINK HNC,' THIS IS A PARTIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE NORTH DNE OF THE DESCRIBED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY AS SHOWN. FIELDWORK WAS PERFORMED JANUARY I2TH, 2011. THE LOCATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS COMPLETED IN 2006 THRU 2008 BY CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. DASHED LINES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FROM CONSTRUCTION PLANS FROM LARSEN ENGINEERING AND HAVE NOT BEEN FIELD VERIFIED. THE FENCE LINE A5 SHOWN IS AN ENCROACHMENT. THE CURB LINE ON WEST HANCOCK STREET IS A MINIMAL ENCROACHMENT. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. 122.'PAETWg 184 BOOK II LINE PARALLEL WIK ME Zn SOUTH LINE RIGHT PAEW tee EASEMENT PER BOCKPER 122. A 589.51'01"W 385.80 .T6s6o D1/EIR ON PARCEL LNE 00D WALL C VICINITY MAP: D 3/0" IRANE 2 ON PARCEL UNE, FOUND 1/IRON PIPE MARKED EAST h 0.1' CORNER PARCEL MErN.s E a CONSTRUFROM AR NN PLANS LEGEND: a . 6TH STREET 6" WATERMAIN PER AS-BUILTS O OTES MONUMENT SET AND MARKED RLS 257. • 9A DfONOTFS FOVNO UMENT A5 MARKED WATER VALVES HYDRANT CATCH BASIN: STORM MH SANITARY MANHOLE 0 30 60 1 — I a UTILITY POLE u LIGHT POLE WATER LINE STORM R SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE FENCBE —CU c0NCRET5 NORTH STI LLWATER JR.HIGH SCHOOL STILLWATER, MINNESOTA CONTACT: MIKE MURPHY LARSON ENGINEERING 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110-5100 Phone: (6S1)481-9120 4 COUNTY: WASH I N GT-ON C O IL -I N TY SEAL: HE STATE OF tiINNESOTA DOES NOT REQUIRE A SEAL. REVISIONS DATE REVISION I-I9-II BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTIFICATION: hereby <rtl, gnat tills by rne. or under my direct td land Surveyor 6 that I under ne la,s peestatte or A. 'Daniel L. v,m<. Renl,han no. zulB PROJECT LOCATION: 4 5 MARSH STREET WEST Suite 143100 200 East Chestnut Street Stillwater. MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dune na rye CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC FILENAME SURVLE26C-BOUND PROJECT NO. .006020C BOUNDARY SURVEY Stillwater Area Public Schools ECFC BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul. ]IN 55102 651.2223701 Is Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 www.larsonengr.com Fan peel MlchaelA Murphy, P. Re Darn Thisaneatmp — Reducetl CODY� ireDrawing inoScalesop*toF°ISines Bye a1. Oak 05,104111 nKBKBK C 3.2009053.00 Sheet Title BOUNDARY SURVEY N„- CO Copyright R\C RR Architects sas 51'01' W _> WEST 280.20 HANCOCK 5B9J6E STREET L OI.UN UNK FEN 385.80 6TH STREET SYMBOL LEGEND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION DEMOLITION NOTES 0 SAWCUT, REMOVE, AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. O SAWCUT,REMOVE, AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION. 0 SAWCUT REMOVE, AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION. OREMOVE AND SPOSE OF EXISTING FENCE FABRIC, POSTS, ANp FOOTINGS.DI 5O REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CATCH BASIN AND STORM SEWER PIPE. © REMOVE AND DISCARD EXISTING TREES. O REMOVE AND DISCARD EXISTING LIGHT POLE. O REMOVE AND DISCARD EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE. 0 DO NOT DISTURB POROUS PAVEMENT AREA DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 411) NORTH 0 15 30 60 Stillwater Area Public Schools ECFC BWBR ARCHITECTS 4w , Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Smut, Suite 600 Saint Pau6MN 55102 651.222.3701 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (0 651.481.9201 wweLlarsonengr.00m Michael A. Murphy, P.E. Dare 0606.11 Rey No. 92806 'R'evzet may Be a The Par shove is ,"long on a Full She Sheet Draw ng Scales apply to Fug She Sheets. Drown KBK Comm. No Chccke0 3,009053.00 MAN Shoot Title DEMOLITION PLAN Cl Copyright. 00811 Architects • ACCESSIBLE RAMP 0 DEC. s NEAS) WEST 58 280aD.20'N z.zo CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYPICAL) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYPICAL) CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 6" PERV OUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT • "o o"o"o o"oJo"o o"o?o" "o o"ood og' el:EEi0, ry o PERVIOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT DETAIL 4" PERFORATED RIGID PVC WRAPPED WITH FILTER FABRIC 30" CLASS A COURSE FILTER MATERIAL NON -WOVEN SOIL SEPARATION FABRIC APPROVED SUBGRADE PROPOSED BUILDING C SIDEWALK SIDEEWALK (TYPICAL) sZto Iz, at 427 er aOr I = w I n 4'JIM v~i I— HANCOCK STREET SHRUBS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER L _ _ — _1_ — _ _ PNe AFT NEW PLAYGROUND PERVIOUS CONCRE 589°51'01"A 385.80 7 —WOOD WALL BACKFILL WITH NEW GOOD QUALITY TOPSOI AND SOD 1, •r_��'�,� !JE 'itItiorits_ 4Y ottt s'4�fA S Is4ttat l NEW 4- BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PLACED IN 2 LIFTS NEW 8- BASE AGGREGATE EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL LIGHT -DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION SLOPE 90" PER FT. NOT 10 SCALE w ec 40 NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ACCESSIBLE RAMP DETAIL WITH TRUNCATED DOMES NEW BASE AGGREGATE SYMBOL LEGEND NEW 4" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER NEW 6" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE NEW 6' PERVIOUS CONCRETE OVER NEW 30' CLASS A COURSE FILTER AGGREGATE BASE NEW CRACK SEAL AND AGGREGATE SEALCOAT NEW 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVER NEW 6" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE WHERE APPLICABLE. DIMENSIONS ARE FROM BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB OR BACK OF CURB TO END OF STALL LINE. NEW 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE NEW 6' BASE AGGREGATE EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL NOT TO SLUE NEW AGGREGATE SEAL COAT ROUT. STERILIZE AND SEAL WITH HOT APPLIED ELASTOMERIC CRACK SEALANT 0''o UO' MINIMUM EXISTING PAVEMENT LMX.W.a.lak\NRIkk%,.."Ve.'0‘. EXISTING BASE AGGREGATE EXISTING SU9GRADE SOIL CRACK SEAL, AND AGGREGATE SEAL COAT DETAIL BACKFILL WIh1 NEW GOOD QUALITY TOPSOIL AND Soo NOT TO SCALE 2' NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT XISTING SUBGRADE SOIL B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NEW BASE AGGREGATE BACKFILL WITH NEW FOOD QUALITY TOPSOIL AND SEED 0 NOT TO SCALE NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT NEW CLASS 5 BASE AGGREGATE EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NORTH 0 15 30 60 Stillwater Area Public Schools ECFC BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 580 So Pete, Street, Suit. 600 Saint Paul, IIV 55102 G51 222.2701 Flq Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Lahore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 www.larsonengr.com beet ertlN um, nls vna,sver.M.suo an aawv kensea Parepao=r p,am MkMael A. Murphy, P.E. LP, 05.05.11 Heg. N.r 42800 TNIe666ea Reduces 00084.Copy. aboveThe bar Is 1"long on a i N Sloe SlleeSheet Drawing Scales epgA.Fu6 Sey 05/0,11 OASK 3.2009053.00 CFcd cd MAM Shea Tole PAVING AND DIMENSION PLAN C2 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE Copyright B\'GNR —hirer—re Sgasi01"W WEST 280.20 903 4 1 I it BASIN 42 v "`9 'HANCOCK ,; STREET F ri 'SILT FENCE (TYPICALI WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT (OPTIONAL) ENGINEERING FABRIC METAL WOOD POST OR STAKE. 8' MAX. SPACING. 2' INTO GROUND. FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH. BACKFILL WITH TAMPED NATURAL SOIL NATURAL SOIL PROPOSED BUILDING FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION =905.20 10ILTCR ARCA OVERFLOW AREA 5 G5 rTk 0.42 Rt MAXIMUM OVERFLOW *ATE '71.AV) MAXIMUM OVERFLOW RATE (0 I0 NGO) BASKET WEIGHT (EMPTY) 1 99 0.9 2,29 Cr9 I LB BASKET WEIGMT (1UL1..AFPR03,1 45 L09 PLAN 904.70 G ROCK- CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 400 MICRON FILTER BAG IN EACH BASKET NOTE: DEPENDING UPON CONFIGURATION. ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH WITH HOG RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH WIRES, OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES. SILTATION FENCE INFRASAFE INLET E. INSTALLATION DETAIL - PROTECTION DEVICE (OR EQUAL) SHRUBS NOT 10 SCALE 2 BASKETS WITH 400 MICRON FILTER BAGS. TO BE CHECKED PERIODICALLY AND CLEANED OUT AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT FITS NEENAH 1642 AND 1732 FRAMES OR EQUAL PROFILE NOT TO SCALE S89°51'0rw 385.80 ... ..-. ... .... .. SILT FENCE (TYPICAL) INLET PROTECTIO (TYPICALI FILTER AREA OVERFLOW AREA MAXIMUM OVERFLOW RATE!. 7 HEA01 14A%0MUM OVERFLOW RATE ON IS' READ/ 040*0t WEIGHT MYMr1Y) 3,00 Cr9 4.00 CPS I LB BASKET WEIGHT lrut4 APPROX 1 TO LDS SIDE NEW FRONT VIEW REUSEABLE 400 MICRON INFRASAFE INLET FILTER BAG IN EACH BASKET PROTECTION DEVICE (OR EQUAL) NOT TO SCALE EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. Owner and Contractor shall obtain MPCA-NPDES permit. Contractor shall he responsible for all fees pertaining to the permit. The SWPPP shall be kept endue at all times. 2 Install temporary erosion control measures (inlet protection. salience, and rock construction entrances) prior t0 beginning any excavation or demolition work at the site. 3. Erosion control measures shown on the erasion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shall Install temporary earth dikes. sediment traps or basins, additional siltalom fencing, and/or disk the soil parallel to the contours as deemed necessary to further control erosion. All changes shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 4. All construction site entrances shall he surfaced with crushed rock across the entire width of the entrance and from the entrance to a point 50' Into the construction nine. 5. The toe of the silt fence shall be trenched In a minimum of 6'. The Trench backfill shall be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. 6. All grading operations shall be conducted Ina manner to minimize Me potential for site erosion. Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters before any up gradient land disturbing activities begin. 7. All exposed soil areas must he stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but In no case later than T days after the construction activity In that portion of Me site has temporarily or permanently ceased Temporary stockpiles without sign ficanl sill day or organ* comperrenh (e.g.. clean aggregate stockpiles, demolition concrete stockples sand stockpiles) and the constructed base components of roads parking lots and similar surfaces are exempt from this requirement 0. The normal wetted perimeter of any temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swab that drains water from any portion of the construction site. or diverts water around the site, must be stabilized within 20011neal feel from the property edge, or from the point of discharge Into any surface water. Stabilization of the last 200lineal feet must be completed within 24 hours after connecting to a surface water. Stabilization of the remaining portions of any temporary or permanent ditches or wales must be complete within T days after connecting to a surface water and construction In that portion of the ditch has temporarily or permanently ceased. 0. Pipe outlets must be provided with energy disslpalon within 24 hours of connection to surface water. 10. AI Oran shall be Installed with a niter material or soil separation fabric and comply with the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. 11. All storm sewers discharging Into wetlands or water bodies shall outlet al or below the normal water level of the respective wetland or water body at an elevation where Me downstream slope is 1 item or flatter. The normal water level shall be the Invert elevation of the outlet of the wetland or water body. 12. A11 storm sewer catch basins not needed for site drainage during construction shall be covered to prevent runoff from entering the storm sewer system. Catch basins necessary for site drainage during construction shall be provided with inlet protection. 13. In areas where concentrated lows occur (such as swales and areas In front of storm catch basins and Intakes) the erosion control facilities shall be backed by stabilization structure to protect Mose farfilles from the concentrated lows. 14. Inspect the construction site once every seven days during active consllud on and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 Inches In 24 hours. All Inspections shall be recorded In the SWPPP. 15. All sill fences must Pe repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches 1/3 of the height of Me fence. These repairs must be made witMn 24 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow access. All repairs shall be recorded in the SWPPP. 16. If sediment escapes the construction site. off -site accumulations of sediment must be removed In a manner and at a frequency sufficient to minimize off -site Impacts. 17. All soils tracked onto pavement shall be removed daily. 18. All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activity is reaching the infiltration area and these areas are protected from compaction due to construction equipment driving across the infiltration area. 19. Temporary sail stockpiles must have sill fence or other effective sediment controls, and cannot be placed in surface waters, including stormwaler conveyances such as curb and gutter systems. or conduits and ditches unless Mere is a bypass In place for the dormwaler. 20. Collected sediment. asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper, plastic. fabric, construction and demolition debris and other wastes must be disposed of properly and must comply with MPCA disposal requirements. 21. 04. gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must be properly stored, inducting secondary containment. to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to storage areas must be provided to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be In compliance with MPCA regulations. 22. External washing of trucks and other construction vehicles must be limited to a defined area of the sites Runoff must be contained and waste properly disposed of. No engine degreasing Is allowed onska. 23. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout operation must he conMlnetl In a leakproof c0ntalnmenl facility or impermeable liner. A compacted day liner that does not allow washout liquids to enter ground water Is considered an Impermeable liner. The liquid and solid wastes must not contact the ground, and there must not be runoff from the concrete washout operations or areas. Liquid and solid wastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with MPCA regulations. A sign must be Installed adjacent to each washout facility to inform concrete equipment operators to utilize Me proper fadllles. 24. Upon completion of the protect and stabilization of all graded areas, all temporary erasion control fadlilles (silt fences. hay bales. etc.) shall be removed horn the site. 25. All permanent sedimentation basins must be restored to their design condition immediately following stabilization of the site. 26. Contractor shall submit Notice of Termination for MPCA-NPDES permit within 30 days alter Final Stabilization. HARD SURFACE/ PUBLIC ROAD 1'-2" WASHED ROCK GRADING NOTES I. Grades shown In paved areas represent finish elevation, 2. Restore all disturbed turf areas with 4' of good qually lops.. and seed, 3. All construction shall be performed In accordance with state and local standard specifications for construction. 4. Existing storm sewer pipes shal be cleaned and rip rap added to existing flared end sections. 6'MINIMUM SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND B =BITUMINOUS C=CONCRETE TC=TOP OF CURB GL=GUTTER CURB •FIELD VERIFY i ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE NORTH 0 15 30 60 Stillwater Area Public Schools ECFC G BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, 'MN 55102 651.222.3701 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Lahore Road While Bear Lake, MN 55110 651,481.9120 (0 651.481,9201 www.larsonengr.com �urMv lw Michael a Murphy, P. m,speuAvaum Dvo 05.o4.1 f R.c No_ 42808 06*01 *000. be e Redueetl Copy. The bar above Is 11io119 on a Full Size Sheet. Drawing Scales apply m FuX Size SM1aets. 05/04/11 KBK Comm No 3.209°053.00 Clukki MAN GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C3 Cnpytight BWBR Architects LF. 4' PVC - @ 0.5% SLOPE ET TAP 6' D1P WATER SERVICE TO WM ("SC. MEAS.) WEST 280. 20 44 LF. 6" DIP WATER SERVICE -058.iQ 35 LF, 4" PVCSLO@ (.0 % MIN PE CONNECT 4" SAN TO BLDG STUB @ 5' OUTSIDE BLDG WALL @ INV. 899,00 STMH RIM = 904.70 INV = 898A4 27 LF, 8" PVC @ 0,5% SLOPE CBMH6 RIM = 903.70 INV =898.300 C4 STMH5 RIM = 902.80 INV= 897.95 PROPOSED BUILDING LF. 4. PVC @ 10.0% SLOPE STMH 10 RIM = 903.30 INV = 893.07 37LF, 15"RCP @ 0.85 % SLOPE 901,90 "'24 LF, 15" RCP INV=893,38 775/SLOPE-• - N.H W HANCOCK j STREET 2 BMHRIM= 84 INV = 99.4399.43 ISCIP RIM = 902.60 STMH1 `� RIM =902.80 ( INV= 89720N C1) INV 7895.75 EW F 1 1 L 43 LE, 4"PVC (§ XX%SLOPE 589°51'01"M 385. 80 mx- -WOOD WALL -S. 6TH STREET STMH 3 RIM = 903.80 INV= 898.55 goeo oo 282 LP 4" DRAINTILE @ INV = UTILITY NOTES 1. It Is the responsibility of the contractor to perform or coordinate all necessary utility connections and relocations from existing utlldy locations to the proposed building, as well as to all enslte amenities. These connections include but are not limited to water, sanitary sewer, cable TV, telephone, gas. electric, site lighting, etc. 2. A0 service connections shall be performed In accordance with state and local standard specifications for400S14ction. Utility connections (sanitary sewer, watermaln, and storm sewer) may require a permit 3. The contractor shall verify the elevations at proposed connections to existing 8 199s prior to any demolition or excavation. 4, The contractor or shall notify all appropriate engineering departments and utility companies 72 hours prior tocons4ucllon. All necessary precautions shall be made to avoid damage to erdsting utiIftA6. 5. Storm sewer requires testing in accordance with Minnesota plumbing code 4715.2820 where located wlthIn 10 feel of waterlines or the 5414ng. 6. HOPE storm sewer piping and fittings must meet materials and Installation standards per Minnesota plumbing code 4715.0420.6C(4) and 4715,0540.0 Including ASTM D3212 joint pressure test and ASTM C2321 Installation practices. 7. All RCP pipe shown on the plans shall be MN/DOT class 3. 8. Maintain a minimum of 7'/.' of cover over all water lines and sanitary sewer lines. Install water lines 18' above sanitary sewersWhere the sanitary sewer crosses over the water line, install sewer piping of metedais equal to watermaln standards far 9 feel on both sides and maintain 18" of 9. Where /L of covers not provided over sanitary sewer and water lines, Install 2. rigid polystyrene insulation (MN/DOT 3760) with a thermal resistance of at 1eas15 and a compressive strength of al least 25 psi. Insulation shall be 4' wide. centered over pipe with 6" sand cushion between pipe and insulation. Where depth is less than 5'. use 4" of insulation. 10. See Project Spe0idcallons for bedding requirements. 11. Pressure test and disinfect all new watermaln. In accordance with state and local requirements. 12. Sanitary sewer piping shall be PVC. SDR-35 for depths less than 18, PVC SDR-26 for depths he0Ween 12. and 26', and class 52 D.I.P. for depths of 26' or more. 0 BASIN# BOTTOM OF SAND 885.00 898.00 12" TOPSOIL/SAND/PEAT MIX AS SPECIFIED CLEAN SAND NON -WOVEN SOIL SEPARATION FABRIC "MIRAFI 170N OR EQUAL" 4 PERFORATED PE PIPE (CONNECT TO CATCH BASIN) BIO RETENTION BASIN PLAN SECTION STORM SEWER JUNCTION MANHOLE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PRECAST INVERT SHOULD BE 1/2 DIAMETER OF PIPE AND BENCHES SLOPED 2" TOWARD INVERT. MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE PLACED SO THAT OFFSET HOLE IN TOP SLAB IS FACING DOWNSTREAM. NO BLOCK STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED 7 MANHOLE FRAME 8 COVER: CB: NEENAH R-2501, TYPE C GRATE MH: NEENAH R-1642. TYPE B LID MINIMUM OF 2, MAXIMUM OF 5 CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT RINGS WITH FULL BED OF MORTAR BETWEEN EACH AND A 4' COLLAR ON THE OUTSIDE. NO SHIMS OF ANY MATERIAL ALLOWED. 6' PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. SEAL WITH 2 BEADS OF RAM-NEK. ALL JOINTS IN MANHOLE TO HAVE '0' RING RUBBER GASKETS, MANHOLE STEPS, COPOLYMER POLYPROPYLENE PLASTIC. WITH 52' GRADE60 STEEL REINFORCEMENT OR EQUAL. 16" O.C. PRECAST CONCRETE SECTION PIPE SHALL BE CUT OUT FLUSH WITH INSIDE FACE OF WALL. WATERTIGHT CONNECTION (BOOT, TYPICAL) MINIMUM SLAB THICKNESS IS 6" FOR 14' DEPTH. INCREASE THICKNESS 1"FOR EVERY 4' OF DEPTH GREATER THAN 14', AND REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR @ 6' E.W. NOT TO SCALE 41) NORTH 0 15 30 60 Stillwater Area Public Schools ECFC BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 St, Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, TN 55102 651 222.3701 Conanlmrnn Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Labore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201 www,larsonengr,corn am,e. 9 stint Michael A. Murphy PE 11.111. ZuSeael copr. may be d The bar above Is M long on a Fail Size Sheet Dmp 05/04/11 KBK 3.200005300 MAIN UTILITY PLAN C4 Copyright Whit Architects MSC. A MEAS, WEST 509'51'01"M 280.20 TOPSOIL/SAND/PEAT MIX AS SPECIFIED PROPOSED BUILDING TOPSOII/SAND/PEAT MIX AS SPECIFIED HANCOCK "R"". F2 SHRUBS J STREET TREE PROTECTION FENCING L 7 389'51'01"M 385.80 --" :-WOOD WALL 7 L-____-'i • S. 6TH STREET LEGEND TREES TO REMAIN (PROTECT WITH § ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE) RELOCATED TREES(S TREES) B' HIGH CONIFEROUS PLANTING DECIDUOUS PLANTING (2' CALIPER) NOTES TREE SAVE AREAS SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITH ORANGE TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND SHALL BE SIGNED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A ONE-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE WARRANTY BEGINS ON THE DATE OF INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIALS SHALL ALSO HAVE A ONE-YEAR WARRANTYCOMMENCING UPON PLNATING. USE A MINIMUM OF 12. LOAM PLANTING SOIL ON TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY- PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE. OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE ONLY AFTER WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. TREES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO THE SITE. PROPERLY HEEL -IN MATERIALS TEMPORARILY, IF NECESSARY. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH 4" DEEP SHALL BE PROVIDED AROUND ALL INSTALLED TREES. TREE LIST: Site Plantings KEY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME BHS NRO AL THL RB -8' STEEL STAKE BLACK HILLS SPRUCE NORTHERN RED OAK ERICAN LINDEN THORNLESS HONEYLOCUST RIVER BIRCH SNOWDRIFT CRABAPPLE PICEA GLAUCA VAR. DENSATA CUERO, RUB. TILT oTrc MENTOSA IA TRIACANTHOS INERT. BETULA NIGRA MALUS 18" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL. 1-I/2" WIDE STRAP TYP_) DOUBLE STRAND 14 CA. WIRE - 3' ®120" INTERVAL (TYP.) TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH TURNBUCKLE WITH DOUBLE STRAND M14 GAUGE WIRE - 3 PER TREE 4'-B" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN SAUCER -EXTEND PAST STAKE FINAL GRADE OF PLANT TO EQUAL ORIGINAL GRADE 2'92"430" STAKES SET 120" APART OUTSIDE THE BALL AT ANGLE - 3 PER TREE BEFORE BACKFILLING REMOVE TOP OF BURLAP COVERING THE ROOT BALL; REMOVE TWINE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE TRUNK; REMOVE THE TOP RUNG OF WIRE BRACKETS, IF AROUND THE ROOT BALL. BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL MAINTAIN PEDESTAL OF UNDISTURBED SOIL NOTES: TWO ALTERNATE METHODS a TREE STAKING ARE SWAN. IT 15 THE CONTRACTORS OPTION TO STAKE TREES: HOMEVER. THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERI00. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF WAX PRIOR TO PLANTING TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NORTH 0 15 30 60 Stillwater Area Public Schools ECFC B W B R ARCHITECTS Tarrson Covuuans 380 St Peter Stteet Suite 600 Saint 040). ➢IN 55102 651.222.3 01 Larson Engineering, Inc. 3524 Lahore Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.481.9120 (f)651.481.9201 www,larsonangr.com nN pNv eirar�� Michael Dui ,T,Z teelmay"a eE copy. ar above Is 1' lonq on a ftAl Slza Sheet Orewing Scales apply to Fu1151Ee Slleats. 05/N/11 KBK 3.2009053.00 card HMO LANDSCAPE PLAN C5 Cop0night BW BR Archltcct atel THE BIRTHPLACE OF MI NNESOTA PLANNING REPORT DATE: April 4, 2011 CASE NO.: 2011-04 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Create PROS (Park, Recreation or Open Space) Zoning District PUBLIC HEARING: May 9, 2011 (Continued from April 11, 2011) REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Dave Magnuson, City Attorney; Mike Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND On April 11, 2011 the Planning commission opened a public hearing regarding an ordinance to create a new zoning district to be known as PROS (Park, Recreation or Open Space). While the Commission was in support of the proposed ordinance, there was a question on front setbacks for park buildings. Moreover, the Park Commission had not yet reviewed the ordinance. Therefore, the Commission tabled the hearing until May 9. SPECIFIC REQUEST Recommend adoption of an ordinance establishing the PROS (Park, Recreation or Open Space) Zoning District. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Currently public and private parks, athletic fields, golf courses, nature preserves and miscellaneous recreational and natural open spaces are zoned residential, commercial, or industrial. They are all proposed to be rezoned to the PROS district. This rezoning would add another layer of protection further guaranteeing that existing parks and related open space uses would not be converted into residential, commercial or industrial uses as their current zoning would allow. Before any property can be rezoned to PROS, the zoning district must first be created. Attached is a draft ordinance that, if adopted, would create the zoning district. As with every zoning district in the Stillwater Zoning Code, this district would have three elements: purpose Comp Plan Rezoning Page 2 of 6 statement, list of allowable uses and massing regulations. The proposed language for each element is included here. Purpose. Private and public parks, recreation and natural open spaces are essential to support community health and wellness, connecting the individual resident to natural and ecological stewardship and appreciation, promoting cultural resources, and fostering the economic vitality of the community Allowable uses. Use Permissibility) P Parks Trails P Park Structures2 P Playgrounds P Nature Preserve P Athletic Fields with lights3 SUP Outside tennis courts with lights4 SUP Outside basketball courts with lights4 SUP Outside hockey rinks with lights4 SUP Athletic Fields without lights3 P Outside tennis courts without lights P Outside basketball courts without lights P Outside hockey rinks without lights P Recreation Centers SUP Multiple Purpose Park Building SUP Golf Course6 P Golf Course Club House SUP Dog Park SUP Public boat launch SUP Other passive recreational or natural open spaces P Parking lot ACC i P = Permitted; SUP = allowed by Special Use Permit; ACC = allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the site. 2 Gazebo, picnic shelter, playground equipment, rest rooms, band shelter, and substantially similar park structures; but not including multiple purpose park buildings or recreation center buildings. 3 6 acre minimum site area. 4 3 acre minimum site area. s 10 acre minimum site area. 6 80 acre minimum site area. Comp Plan Rezoning Page 3 of 6 Massing regulations. Minimum lot area NA Maximum structure height Single story, 20 feet or less Structure setback from all property lines 50 feet' Maximum impervious area 25% of site8 RECOMMENDATIONS Park Commission - The Park Commission unanimously recommended approval of the version of the ordinance presented above. It differs from the version seen by the Planning Commission April 11th in several regards. 1. "Dog Park" was added by SUP to the use list. 2. To address the Planning Commission concern regarding the 50 foot front setback for buildings, the Park Commission combined front, side and rear setback items into a single line item and added a footnote that any building setback can be less than 50 feet by Special Use Permit if the building location will not negatively impact neighboring properties and where the closer proximity is reasonable. For example, if a building like a gazebo has to be next to a front sidewalk for some reason, the setback could be less than 50 feet with a SUP. 3. The word "maximum" was added to the impervious area line item of the massing regulations table. City staff - City staff suggests the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached PROS ordinance. Attachment: Draft Ordinance 7 A setback of less than 50 feet is allowed by Special Use Permit where: 1) location of the structure will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and 2) the closer proximity to a property line is necessary for proper and reasonable use of the structure and its surrounds. 8 For Park, Recreation or Open Space uses including public boat launches, pocket parks and public recreation centers where customary usage would require more than 25% impervious area on a site, a Special Use Permit may be issued by the City Council for greater than 25% impervious cover. Comp Plan Rezoning Page 4 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE BY CREATING A PARK, RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE (PROS) ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. Chapter 31, Section 31-301 of the City Code shall be amended by adding the following: (w) PROS — Park, Recreation or Open Space district Section 2. Chapter 31, of the City Code shall be amended by adding Section 31- 324.1 as follows: Sec. 31-324.1. PROS park, recreation or open space district. The PROS, Park, Recreation or Open Space District is regulated as follows: (a) Purpose. Private and public parks, recreation and natural open spaces are essential to support community health and wellness, connecting the individual resident to natural and ecological stewardship and appreciation, promoting cultural resources, and fostering the economic vitality of the community (b) Allowable uses. (1) See Table in Section 31-325 for the allowable uses within this district. (c) Massing regulations. Minimum lot area NA Maximum structure height Single story, 20 feet or less Structure setback from all property lines 50 feet9 Maximum impervious area 25% of site10 Section 3. Chapter 31, Section 325 of the City Code shall be amended by adding a column to the use table for the PROS district containing the following: 9 Less than 50 feet is allowed by Special Use Permit where: 1) location of the structure will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and 2) the closer proximity to a property line is necessary for proper and reasonable use of the structure and its surrounds. 10 For Park, Recreation or Open Space uses including public boat launches, pocket parks and public recreation centers where customary usage would require more than 25% impervious area on a site, a Special Use Permit may be issued by the City Council for greater than 25% impervious cover. Comp Plan Rezoning Page 5 of Use Permissibility1l P Parks Trails P Park Structures12 P Playgrounds P Nature Preserve P Athletic Fields with lights13 SUP Outside tennis courts with lights14 SUP Outside basketball courts with lights4 SUP Outside hockey rinks with lights4 SUP Athletic Fields without lights3 P Outside tennis courts without lights P Outside basketball courts without lights P Outside hockey rinks without lights P Recreation Center15 SUP Multiple Purpose Park Building SUP Golf Course16 P Golf Course Club House SUP Dog Park SUP Public boat launch SUP Other passive recreational or natural open spaces P Parking lot ACC Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after publication according to law. Section 5. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. 11 P = Permitted; SUP = allowed by Special Use Permit; ACC = allowed as an accessory improvement to an allowed use located on or adjacent to the site. 12 Gazebo, picnic shelter, playground equipment, rest rooms, band shelter, and substantially similar park structures; but not including multiple purpose park buildings or recreation center buildings. 13 6 acre minimum site area. 14 3 acre minimum site area. 15 10 acre minimum site area. 16 80 acre minimum site area. Comp Plan Rezoning Page 6 of 6 Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2011. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk