HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-14 CPC PacketAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
-City of, Stillwater
(Official Publication)
Notice of Stillwater Planning Commission
Meeting Change
From Monday, November 12, 2012 to Wednesday, November 14, 2012
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the Stillwater Planning Commission, due to
a holiday, will conduct their regular meeting on Wednesday, November 14,
2012 at 7 p.m, in Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North
Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082, rather than Monday, November 12,
2012, at 7 p.m.
Dp not hesitate to contact the Community development Department at
office (651) 430 8820 if you have any questions or need further information.
Oil -Tumbled
ommunity Development Director
(Nov. 9, 2012) Planning Commission Meeting Change
Julie Athey,
being duly sworn on oath, says: that she is,
and during all times herein states has been,
Clerk of Sun Newspapers
Publisher of the newspaper known as the
Stillwater Gazette, a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of
Stillwater and the County of Washington.
That the notice hereto attached was cut from
the columns of said newspaper and was
printed and published therein on the
following date(s):
9th of November 2012
Newspaper Ref./Ad #1135966
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
9th day of November 2012
Mark Berrima
NOTA ' # : IC
Washington County, Minnesota
My commission expires January 31, 2016
MAR; E BERRIMAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2016
iliwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
7 p.m.
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 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 October 8, 2012 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. 2012-34. A request for a special use permit and a variance to the parking regulations for an event
center located at 214 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Judd Sather, applicant.
4.02 Case No. 2012-35. A variance request for the installation of a 3rd stall on an existing garage located at 2978
Marine Circle located in the RA, Single Family Residential District. James and Jean Tansey, applicant.
4.03 Case No. 2012-04. A request for: 1) annexation of an 18.92 acre property; 2) rezoning of the property from
AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 3) zoning ordinance amendment to allow armories and fire
stations in the RB Zoning District by Special Use Permit; 4) Special Use Permit for the National Guard armory; and 5)
Special Use Permit for the City of Stillwater Fire Station; and any related variances, for the construction of a new National
Guard Armory and City Fire Station facilities located immediately northwest of the intersection of Myrtle Street and
Maryknoll Drive in the 13000 Block on County Road 12 (aka 75th Street). Dennis Arntson, State of Minnesota, DMA,
applicant.
4.04 A public hearing on the proposed enlargement of and proposed adoption of a Modification to the Development
Program for Development District No. 1, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.124 to 469.134, inclusive, as
amended, the proposed Modification of the Financing Plan of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (a "Redevelopment
District "), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as
amended. City of Stillwater, applicant.
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission October 8, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 8, 2012
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Dahlquist, Commissioners Buchanan, Hansen, Kelly, Kocon,
Lauer, Siess
Absent: None
Staff: City Planner Pogge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Hansen pointed out corrections needed in the minutes of the September
10, 2012 meeting: in Case 2012-21 the motion was made by Lauer rather than Hansen.
In Case 2012-31, identities were switched throughout, so anytime it says Hansen, it
should say Lauer including the seconding of the motion.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the
September 10, 2012 meeting minutes as corrected. All in favor.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2012-32. A request for an amendment to a previously approved variance
(Case No. 90-73) and consideration of a special use permit for an accessory dwelling
unit located at 115 Harriet Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark
Balay Architects, representing John and Maddy Macindoe,applicants.
City Planner Pogge reviewed the request. In 1990, the previous property owner
constructed a garage with a variance conditioned upon the second story of the
garage being used only as a playroom or storage with no water or sewer services
and electric heat only. The current owners would like to convert the garage to a
secondary dwelling unit. Ten conditions are recommended by staff, who believe the
request is reasonable and recommend approval.
Commissioner Kocon asked about parking for the dwelling unit.
City Planner Pogge responded there are a minimum of five parking spaces available
so parking should not be a problem.
Page 1 of 3
Planning Commission October 8, 2012
Architect Mark Balay explained that his client wants to install a bathroom to allow
guests to stay in the second story of the garage.
There were no public comments.
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Siess to approve the
request with the ten conditions recommended by staff. All in favor.
Case No. 2012-33. A variance request for the installation of a swimming pool and
associated retaining wall located at 745 Liberty Court in the LR, Lakeshore Residential
District. Michael and Peggy Eiselt, applicants.
City Planner Pogge explained the request and the site plan submitted by the
applicants. They propose to grade, remove trees and add retaining walls to allow
construction of a pool. They will not be impacting the conservation easement which
is a "no -cut" area. He informed the Commission that Section 31-303(b) of the
Lakeshore Residential District states that a) no retaining walls may be constructed to
create yard areas or sites for swimming pools; and b) no accessory building or use
that results in the cutting of trees or clearing of vegetation are permitted. It would be
nearly impossible to construct a pool on the property without a variance to the above
standards.
City Planner Pogge informed the Commission that staff recommends denial of the
variance since it does not meet the practical difficulty standards of the code nor the
criteria required for granting of variances. He showed a map indicating Eiselts'
property and the no -cut, no -mow line. The ordinance is designed to minimize
impacts to the Oak Savannah.
Mike Eiselt, applicant, thanked the planning staff for their assistance. He explained
that he and his wife have five children and see the pool as an opportunity to
entertain not only their children and friends, but also clients as his local company
continues to grow. He said the whole lot is "no -cut" so the "no -cut, no -mow" line is a
moot point. The trees proposed to be removed are 75 to 125 feet away from the no -
cut, no -mow area and are 400 feet away from the lake. He plans on replacing some
of the trees in other areas once the project is underway.
Commissioner Siess asked about retaining walls planned for the pool.
Mr. Eiselt responded the plan is to move the existing retaining walls a bit further from
the house in two areas. They will be the same basic size and will not exceed the four
foot maximum height. He presented a letter from a neighbor who was unable to
attend the meeting, stating that they support the proposal.
Debra Charpentier, 725 Liberty Court, stated there are a lot of trees in the area that
should be replaced. She feels the applicants have done an unbelievable job on their
landscaping and have a good size lot, so she supports the project.
Page 2of3
Planning Commission October 8, 2012
Commissioner Kocon stated he sees this as a case of the needs of the individual
versus the law of the land. The arguments for the proposal are all sound, but zoning
and comprehensive plan regulations prohibit it. Oaks are sensitive and are protected
in this district. He feels the comprehensive plan must prevail.
Commissioner Hansen agreed, stating it's not a practical difficulty. He respects the
applicants' desire, but not every lot is suitable for every use; the restrictions in that
area are there for a reason.
Chairman Dahlquist added that whether the lot itself is suitable or not is part of the
question. Some lots in the PUD were larger than others.
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen to deny the
variance based on the presentation by staff. All in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Dahlquist mentioned there are openings on the Planning Commission;
applications are on the City web site or available by calling City Hall.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Siess, to adjourn at 7:47
pm. All in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
Page 3 of 3
illwatei
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Planning Commission
DATE: November 8, 2012
CASE NO.: 2012-34
APPLICANT: Judd Sather, Judd Sather Photography
PROPERTY OWNER: Barbara Lynskey
REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for an Events Center
2) Parking Variance
LOCATION: 214 Main St S
ZONING: CBD, Central Business District
PUBLIC HEARING: November 14, 2012
REVIEWERS: Community Development Director, Assistant Fire Chief, and
Building Official
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planne
BACKGROUND
Judd Sather has recently started using the second floor of the space he rents at 214 Main
St S as an event center. This has been done without receiving approvals from the City
(fire, building, liquor control, or planning) or Washington County Public Health.
The event center occupies 4,500 s.f. and uses the entire second floor. The plan is to hold
private parties, small weddings, birthday parties, and concert events with a capacity of
around 175 to 250 people. Previously the second floor in this area was underutilized
and used for storage.
Event Center
Page 2 of 6
SPECIFIC REQUEST
1. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. Within this zoning district
events centers are not specifically listed. Both restaurants and commercial
recreational uses are allowed by Special Use Permit. Staff feels that an event
center is similar to restaurants with a commercial recreational use thus if the
commission also finds that it is a similar use they could issue a Special Use
Permit for an event center.
2. The proposed use requires 83 on -site parking spaces. As storage (the previous
use) they were required to have five on -site spaces; therefore, as an existing
nonconforming use they receive a credit of five spaces thus reducing the
required on -site parking to 78 spaces. Consequently, a variance has been
requested for the 78 deficient spaces.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Special Use Permit
Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the
Planning Commission finds that:
(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
Parking:
One of the Zoning Ordinance's performance standards that is related to
the proposal is a minimum amount of on -site parking. As mentioned above,
83 parking spaces are required for the proposed use. Currently there are no
on -site parking spaces available on this site. Previously the second floor was
used as storage thus they receive a credit of 5 spaces since that use was
grandfathered thus reducing the required parking to 78 parking spaces.
Since the required spaces cannot be provided on site, a variance has been
requested and is discussed below.
Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Downtown
Mix Use. An event center would be consistent with this classification.
Event Center
Page 3 of 6
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
Architectural design
Remodeling will be restricted largely to the interior of the building for now.
Consequently, exterior architectural review is not applicable at this time. In the
future if exterior changes are proposed, including any signage or exterior
building painting, plans will need to be submitted to the City and review by the
HPC may be required.
Miscellaneous
• Fire Department and Building Review - Applicant shall secure all
required approvals from the City's Building Official and Fire Marshall
prior to operating the event center. This includes, but is not limited to,
installing required exiting and meeting ADA requirements.
• Health Department Review - The applicant shall receive all appropriate
Washington County Health Department approvals prior to allowing
liquor and food to be served on the site.
• Liquor License - The operator has indicated that they will allow guests to
bring their own liquor to the site for consumption along with licensed
caters to serve liquor. This will likely require both a "consume and
display" license along with a "bottle club" license. The operator will need
to work with the City Clerk's office to secure the required liquor licenses
and carry all required insurance prior to allowing alcohol on the site.
(3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community.
• Noise - There is concern that this use could impact an adjacent residential use
located over the Mad Capper since the two share a common hall way. The
operator will need to insure that the event center guests and entertainment does
not impact the adjacent residential use. Additionally the applicant has verbally
indicated to staff in the past that the common stairway would be used as the
required secondary emergency exit and not as the primary exit. Therefore, staff
recommends that alarmed panic hardware be installed on the door leading to the
common stairway.
• Other than concerns over possible noise, staff finds this criterion to be satisfied.
An event center is a desirable use in the downtown district. Additionally,
finding a way to use an underutilized area not only benefits the downtown but
helps insure that our historic building remain viable over the long term.
Event Center
Page 4 of 6
Variance
As mentioned above, the proposed use would need 83 parking spaces to meet the
Zoning Code standards. However, there are no on -site parking spaces available on this
site. Previously the second floor was used as storage thus they receive a credit of 5
spaces since that use was grandfathered thus reducing the required parking to 78
parking spaces. Consequently a variance from the parking requirement has been
requested.
It has become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re -use of existing
space as grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for variance requests. Obviously,
the existing set of circumstances prevents the new business from creating the required
number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31-510,
Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative
provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has
established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such "alternative
provisions". Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the
construction of new parking spaces. About the only consistent "alternative provision"
that the City has applied under these circumstances is that the business owner is
required to either lease excess and available spaces from an adjacent property owner or
purchase monthly parking permits from the City.
In this case, the Mr. Sather has reached an agreement to lease the adjacent US Bank
parking lot and its 38 parking spaces. Since the event center will generally be open only
during hours that US Bank would be closed this arrangement will work well. This
leaves a deficiency of 40 parking spaces that can be satisfied by purchasing monthly
parking permits from the City or securing a lease from another private property owner.
In keeping with past practices, staff finds the variance review criteria to be met and
would recommend approval of the variance with the condition that property owner or
operator either lease private spaces parking space or purchase monthly parking space
equal to 78 parking spaces.
Event Center
Page 5 of 6
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve. If the Special use Permit and variance requests are found to be
acceptable, they could be approved with the following conditions:
a. All changes to the approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director. Any major changes will also need to
go to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance
of any building permits.
b. All signage and exterior changes shall be reviewed by the HPC.
c. Applicant shall secure all required approvals from the City's Building
Official and Fire Marshall prior to operating the event center. This
includes, but is not limited to, installing required exiting and meeting
ADA requirements.
d. The applicant shall submit a SAC determination letter prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
e. The applicant shall receive all appropriate Washington County Health
Department approvals prior to allowing liquor and food to be served on
the site.
f. The operator shall secure 78 off-street parking spaces. These spaces can be
either be in a public or private parking lot or a combination of the two. If
the spaces are in a private parking lot then the operator shall provide a
copy of the lease to the City. If they are in a public lot then the operator
shall purchase monthly parking permits equal to the number that they are
deficient to compensate for deficiency in on -site parking.
g. The operator shall secure the required liquor license(s) for the City and
carry all required insurance prior to allowing alcohol on the site.
h. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an exterior deck, the
applicant will need to received approval on an amended Special Use
Permit and a design review permit from the HPC.
i. Since full building plans on the elevator addition were not submitted, the
elevator shall be internal to the existing building. A design review permit
from the HPC and any other city or state requirements shall be met prior
to the issuance of a building permit for an addition to house an elevator.
j. To reduce possible noise impacts on the adjoining residential use, the
common stairway between this site and 224 Main St S Main Street shall
only be used as an emergency exit. Alarmed panic hardware shall be
installed on the door leading to the common stairway.
k. The applicant shall follow the City noise regulations for commercial uses
as outlines in Section 38-3 of the Stillwater City Code.
1. This special use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission
and City Council for possible revocation or amending of the conditions if
substantiated complaints, safety issues, or violations of the conditions of
this permit are received by the Community Development Director.
Event Center
Page 6 of 6
2. Deny. If the proposal is to be unacceptable, the Planning Commission could
deny the requests. A denial motion requires substantiating findings of fact.
3. Table. the requests for more information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the conditions found under Alternative 1.
cc: Barbara Lynskey
Judd Sather
attachments: Zoning Map
Neighborhood Map
Applicant's materials
Location Map
2012-34 - 214 Main St S
Special Use Permit for an event Center
N
A
City of Stillwater, MN
1 Feet Community Development Department
0 20 40 80 216 North Fourth Street
1 inch = 40 feet Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8820 — 651-430-8810 fax
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
X Special/Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
ACTION REQUESTED
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid: /CY/
Receipt No.:
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 he 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.
Address of Project d `i ��+�� (S,
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
So I
r'
Assessor's Parcel No.
Complete Property Legal Description" '' i�� sk�I
(*Required —Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from
the county are not acceptable.
O3 j,cO `/ oOS-G
Zoning District
Description of Project
rev 1,
(GEO Code)
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. i further certify i will comply with the permit if it is granted and used.''
Property Owner
Mailing Address
City - State — Zip
Telephone No.
Email r';, L
Signature
(Signature is required)
C.ADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \SWIEGAND'vLOCAL SETfHCs\TEMPOIVA„
FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\K6SUFJRYIPLL.NAPP.DOCX J+.;I°y 22, 2010
If other thanproperty owner
Representative `< acj/< ,.t'tie
Mailing Address
City - State — Zip
Telephone No.
Email v c,
Signature
NTERNET
(Signature is required)
S t lTO GRAPHY
0
October 11, 2012
Dear Stillwater Planning Commission,
Thank you for your time in the consideration of our proposal for a special use permit of a
unique event center in downtown Stillwater. I live with my wife and three boys in Grant
just off HWY 96 and have been a teacher and coach in North St. Paul since 1995.
We are now a photography company that has been in business for 11 years and won
numerous awards. We shoot out of 214 Main Street South in approx 2000 sq ft in the
lower level. Currently we are leasing the upstairs as well from Mike Lynskey. The
upstairs is approx 4500 sq ft of space that we would like to use as an event center
hosting one to two events per month.
These events would include private parties, small weddings, birthday parties, and
concert events with a capacity of around 175 people or up to 250 people in
concentrated audience seating. Generally these events will occur after the businesses
Our Shop and Fun Sisters are closed, eliminating noise concerns below the space.
If this special use permit is approved, we would also apply for a "consume and display"
permit for alcohol, which would allow for BYOB and licensed caters to serve food and
liquor on site after we have provided adequate furnishings according to the health
department. We realize that we will have to add an elevator and make other
improvements.
Thanks again for your consideration of our proposed event center; we look forward to
bringing many people to downtown with this space!
Judd Sather, Owner & Photographer
Judd Sather Photography & Studio J, Inc.
Web: <http://www.JuddSather.com>
2008-2011 "Best of Weddings" award winners, 2011 "Best of Stillwater" Gazette Winner
Studio J, Inc. www.JuddSather.com, 214 Main St. South, Stillwater, MN 55082; 651-342-1476, i/FoG ud a.corr
2:4
ILid Li I. ULU LI 1 I I 1 iu
14.
6) i
i -----
'0 Ii
,14:0614
0
illwatei
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Planning Commission
DATE: November 8, 2012
APPLICANT: James and Jean Tansey
REQUEST: A variance for the construction of a three stall garage
LOCATION: 2978 Marine Cir
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: LDR - Low Density Residential
ZONING: RA - One -family District
HEARING DATE: November 14, 2012
REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planne
CASE NO.: 2012-35
SPECIFIC REQUEST
A 6.8 foot variance to the required 30 foot side yard setback to allow construction of a third stall
to an existing two stall garage.1
BACKGROUND
The property owners would like to add a third stall to an existing two stall garage on their
home at 2978 Marine Cir. Currently at its closet point, the edge of the garage is 35.2 feet from
the property line with another 10.8 feet to the back of curb for Marine Circle for a total of 46 feet.
The proposal calls for adding a single stall addition that measures 12 feet wide by 22.3 feet
deep. If approved the garage will encroach 6.8 feet into the required setback and leave only 23.2
feet between the garage and the property line and a total of 34 feet between edge of the garage
and back of the curb with Marine Circle.
In their application the property owners noted three homes in Croixwood that have a third stall
on their homes that encroach into the required setback. They include 600 Northland Ave, 2496
Hidden Valley Lane, and 2871 Woodridge Lane. All three were granted variances by the City in
the 1990's for these garage additions that also encroach into the required side yard setback.
' City Code Section 31-305 requires garages to be setback 30 feet on a comer lot.
Tansey Variance
Page 2
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria
below.
1. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical
difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute a "practical difficulty".
a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner?
The purpose of the code requirement is to require a 30 foot
setback for corner lots in order to reduce the visual impacts of the homes
and garages on the adjoining streetscape and to make sure that visibility
at intersection is maintain to traffic prevent conflicts .
At its narrowest location, the garage will sit 23.2 feet from the
property line and as you move toward the intersection the garage will be
as much as 26.5 feet from the property line. There is an additional 10 plus
feet between the property line and back of curb with Marine Circle. Staff
finds that the visibility at the intersection will not be impacted by the
proposed garage. Additionally the landscaping along the road will help
screen the garage from the adjacent roadway. For these reasons, staff find
the request to be reasonable.
b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property?
A majority of the corner lots in Croixwood have their garages
oriented toward the interior lot line and not along a street frontage
similar to this property. This allows the owner of this property to actual
add a third stall were many properties physical cannot do the same. This
creates a somewhat unique circumstance.
c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner?
The home was built in 1975 and the current owners purchased the
property in 1993, therefore the landowners did not create the lot or home
configuration.
d. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?
Since the proposed garage will be at the same front setback as the
existing garage, is landscaped on the east side of the property, and that
the overall variance is less than a 25% variance staff does not believe that
garage addition would be larger would alter the "essential character" of
the locality.
e. Is the lone consideration an economic one?
While the garage addition will increase the value of the home, the
applicant's desire for a third stall garage has more to do with their
needs/ desires for more garage space than economic considerations.
Tansey Variance
Page 3
2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan.
a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested?
The front yard setback has a number of purposes. They include
creating safe situation were visibility at the intersection is maintain and
avoiding garage dominant streetscapes.
b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning
Code?
The new garage addition will still be a minimum of 23.2 feet from
the property line and 34 feet from the actual roadway minimizing any
impact to visibility at the intersection. Additional since Marine Circle is a
cul-de-sac the north side of the block already has an inconsistent setback;
therefore, the impact to the streetscape will be minimal.
c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, they would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The property is zoned RA, One Family Residential. The proposed garage
addition is an allowed use of the property.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions:
1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department
B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision
must be provided.
C. Table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in Alternative A.
Attachments: Application materials
Site plan of proposed garage
cc: James and Jean Tansey
2012-35 - 2978 Marine Cir
Variance to the required exterior sideyard setback for a garage
City of Stillwater, MN
1 Feet Community Development Department
0 10 20 40 216 North Fourth Street
1 inch = 20 feet Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8820 — 651-430-8810 fax
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Special/Conditional Use Permit
i% Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
ACTION REQUESTED
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
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 02978 / 8 AR/M6 eii CLA- Assessor's Parcel No.-3/ 0.30 2.0 13 003 r
(GEO Code)
Complete Property Legal Description* ho T /S BLOCK is C RolN'wooD ' ' 1 PDITIotJ W4J //N67o/J eavu77:
(*Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and pfoperty descriptions from'
the county are not acceptable.
Zoning District RA Description of Project 6-ARA6L /9PP/i/eorti
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify i will comply with the permit if it is granted and used."
Required If other than property owner
Property Owner 074Atf s l AiJ fEY Representative
Mailing Address c277t' 114ARI/JE C /RCLt Mailing Address
City - State — Zip STILL 14.447 /Zl MAI SSD6a. City - State — Zip
Telephone No. 6S/ —3S7— 0/'V7 Telephone No.
Email U17"7 4AJ,C.E,Y C MC.4ST. /V E i Email
Signature
(Signature is re fired)
Signature
(Signature is required)
Nth
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SWIEGAND\LOCAL 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.
2( A complete legal description of subject property. o N �C «C//o,v
D-Building pianscleariy dimensioned and scaled (16 copies).
C'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).
p ` 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).
RY Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures.
Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line.
E' All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site
coverage conditions. -rE6 A,zIAL P(-/PT0
❑ Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and
proposed marked accordingly). /Jor-E
f Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for
driveway widths and parking space sizes.
O Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street
corners.
V Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan). WO,"
t
O Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site;
indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities. /J v c'`/q^'d
❑ Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement (may
not be required). S-vR✓i Y '''4P
C"- 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.
O 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. Cv7..4
O 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. /N/X)
Applic•'t/owner signature
Date
rhiora
October 19, 2012
Jim and Jean Tansey
2978 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater Planning Commission:
We would like to request a variance for a home improvement project we would like to complete on our
garage. We would like to add an additional stall to our existing 2 car attached garage so that we can
secure all of our vehicles in a locked garage, and increase the safety of Jean and our daughter, who's
work hours require them leave the house or arrive home in the middle of the night. Adding an
additional stall to the existing garage is the most efficient and practical approach to achieve this.
Our contractor had submitted a plan for approval for a 16' garage addition because we felt if we were
going to make this much of an investment, we would like to get additional storage room also. Due to a
misunderstanding of how the setback is measured, we were under the impression that this plan was
within the limits of an allowable setback. Once we were informed of the correct setback requirements,
and that a variance would be required, we have reduced our plans to add a 12' addition instead of the
original 16' addition. We feel this is the minimum size that would be required for a usable garage stall.
We would also expand our current driveway (16' X 51') to provide access to the additional stall.
Our home is on a corner lot on Marine Circle in Croixwood at the intersection of 2 cul de sac segments of
the road. Due to the layout of the road along the side yard of our home, our property tapers inward
from the front of the property to the back. There is a row of pine trees along the boulevard on our side
yard, so the view of our garage for our neighbors across the side street is already somewhat screened.
The location of the garage addition will not interfere with the line of site for traffic approaching the
intersection of the roads. The site has been occupied by a bed of shrubs, arborvitae and mugo pine that
has become overgrown so the new structure would not impede the view from the front street much
more than the shrubs already have. The presence of the new addition will not have much visual impact.
We have included several photos in the packet of other corner lot homes in Croixwood that have had a
3rd stall added to an existing garage. As you will see, the result is an attractive addition to the property
and neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration in this request for a variance.
Sincerely,
Tansey Jean Tansey
0 E
32
1 0
T. o
cs
03
O.
41)
1Y
2978
FOR
C. R. WINDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS Tel. 645- 3646
1381 EUSTIS ST., ST. PAUL, MINN, 55106
ORRIN E. THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
C ul(g ENT jesTE 14Vour,
",.
..,
'
jA / •
2"
V
/
/ •
z
•-•
Lot 15, Block fc Croicwood Fourth
Addition, Washington County, Minnesota.
, a-.1"
°Z. --/71-
gayp Epes,s
To 54C-14 qiC
C.41g8,
96' E DGE,
"re 'Mel< c:,x'
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 15 A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, - IF ANY,
THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SA ID LAND.
Dated 014 ea 7W day of De'-'771'el.A D 19?I
C. R. WI N & ASSOCIATES, INC,
by
Sur, veyor, Minnesota Registration No. -7 72-C
2-97S
FOR:
ORRIN E. THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
k
C. R. WINDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS Tet 645-3.646
1381 EUSTIS ST., ST, PAUL, MINN. 55108
2(1-1*.i ht..14;
3717 El 0g Roos,
oF &AS
1.1 gDE oF goof 3Y`
846K ciigg
0\1-
-V
Lot 15, Block 8; Croixwood Fourth
Addition, Washington County, Minnesota.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 15- A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF. THE
BOUNDARIES •OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND Of THE* LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS,- IF ANY,
THEREON, - AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND.
Dated this 007:ei day of
Ott! e,-7717er A D 19M
C. R. WI N & ASSOCIATES, INC.
by
Surveyor, Minnesota Registration 'No.
9
1
z
■
1�1
�11
11■
0
z
m
m
0
z
JIM AND JEAN TANSPT
ZSIS MARINE CIRCLE
STILLWATER, MN 55082
651-332-4085 631-35i-0141
16' X 22' ATTACIdED GARAGE ADDITION
6CALE PH2 PLAN
DRc M HT
0r0 n ION N0 0,710.133
DATE . 66PT 14,1011
RE 1500 OCT 1. 6012
n R00/Na. 00001
11
0
0
1
ill;
gih
Ai..
;qh
Pil
3/414'g
654
d
N011aS 990et
r........................................
t
%
g
- -,-
--,-- ?1i;
a ii.-gia
6 EatT,
c...)
z
o
1.
x
L, m
.dr- IN1
0341
i! EPP
Q .= a la n
11 . .,
71 1:
q 5 T T
If:
6
JIM AND .E.A14 TANSEY
2916 11ARINE CIRCLE
STILLWATER, MN SSOS2
6I-332-40ES SS1-3E1-0141
16' X 22ATTACWIED GARAGE ADDITION
SO4 PER PL,TI
DATE WM., 20.
DRAIN 54
STS 0E5*41 INC 655210-133
lz,EVIBEG OCT 1. 7017
O141-4I44104 091201
Similar 3rd Stall Additions in Croixwood on Corner Lots
o
1 Northland Avenue
2496 Hidden Valley Lane
2871 Woodridge Lane
Sheila Wiegand
From: Michel Pogge
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:11 AM
To: Dave & Sandy Fabio
Cc: Sheila Wiegand; Bill Turnblad
Subject: RE: Variance request
Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the planning commission.
Mike
From: Dave & Sandy Fabio [d_s_fabio@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 2:58 PM
To: Bill Turnblad; Michel Pogge
Cc: Jim and Jean Tansey
Subject: Variance request
City of Stillwater,
We would support the variance at the Tansey residence for the purpose of extending their garage.
This street does not have sidewalks, and we do not feel it ever will with the lack of traffic on a circle. The
addition to their garage should not create a problem since it is not encroaching towards a neighbor's property.
Sincerely,
David and Sandy Fabio
2946 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
i
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: November 9, 2012
CASE NO.: 2012-04
APPLICANT: Minnesota Department of Military Affairs
City of Stillwater
LOCATION: 13120 - 75th Street (Co. Rd. 12)
13129 & 13199 Boutwell Road
LANDOWNER: City of Stillwater
REQUEST:
HEARINGS:
1) Annexation of 18.92 acres
2) Rezoning of the property to RB, Two -Family Residential
3) Zoning Code amendment to allow an armory and a municipal
fire station by Special Use Permit (SUP) in the RB, Two -Family
Residential Zoning District
4) SUP for an armory in the RB, Zoning District
5) SUP for a municipal fire station in the RB, Zoning District
November 14, 2012 - Planning Commission
November 28, 2012 - Township/City Joint Planning Board
December 4, 2012 - City Council (tentative)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LMDR, Low/Medium Density Residential
LDR, Low Density Residential
ZONING: Current: TZ, Transitional Zone
Upon Annexation: A-P, Agricultural Preservation
REVIEWERS: City Administrator, City Attorney, Public Works Director,
Fire Chief, City Finance Director, City Planner,
Minnesota Department of Military Affairs,
Washington Co. Highway Department,
Brown's Creek Watershed District,
Washington Conservation District
REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 2 of 16
BACKGROUND
Project description
The City of Stillwater has been working with the Minnesota Army National Guard for a number of years
to provide property suitable for a new Readiness Center (Armory) to replace the existing facility in
downtown Stillwater. The City has also been considering the construction of a new fire station for many
years. The two independent projects came together in November of 2010 when the City purchased a site
that could accommodate both the new Armory and a new centrally located Fire Station.
The 18.92 acre site' is proposed to be improved with a co -located 79,465 square foot Armory and a seven
bay Fire Station. The facility will allow both the Fire Station and the Armory to operate independently,
yet conveniently share space because the buildings are attached.
Use of some of the Armory spaces will also be made available to the public. Stillwater residents and the
general public will be able to rent the gymnasium, attached commercial grade kitchen and three
classrooms in the Armory. The gymnasium will be constructed as the assembly hall for Guard training
weekends, but will be fitted with a single basketball court. In addition, the site and building footprint are
laid out to accommodate a gymnasium expansion, should the City decide to construct that in the future.
Site access and circulation
The facility will be served by a new public road that will connect Boutwell Road just east of Newberry
Court North to CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive. The intersection with the County Road will require signal
lights and associated turn lanes.
At open houses held for concept site plan discussions, neighbors from Croixwood and Stillwater
Township asked why a new public road is needed to connect CSAH 12 with Boutwell Road. Several
reasons exist. First, neighbors along Boutwell Road do not want all Armory traffic to rely solely on
Boutwell Road. Rather, they want to see both Boutwell and CSAH 12 carry its traffic. Second, in order
for response times to remain within the acceptable range, the Fire Station must have direct access to
CSAH 12 and a new public road that joins to Boutwell Road. And, in order for Washington County to be
satisfied that the arterial road system will function satisfactorily, they require the new public through road
if there is to be any access to CSAH 12 from the subject property.
There are two proposed entrances to the facility. The south entrance gives access to the public reception
area of the Fire Station. It also gives access to the Armory classrooms that can be used by the public.
The north entrance is the primary public entrance to the Armory. It is also the direct entrance for use of
the gymnasium.
The Armory will be served by three parking lots. [See attached site plans.] Two of the lots are unsecured
and available for Armory personnel and public use. The northern lot will be used predominantly by the
National Guard, who will enter the north end of the Armory through a secured entrance. The east lot will
be used by both the general public and the National Guard. Each of these lots is accessed via driveways
off of the new public road. The third lot is for a small military vehicle pool behind the Armory. Access
to this seven vehicle lot is secured and limited to National Guard and service vehicles.
Fire Station personnel will be served by a driveway and parking lots separated from the Armory and
public lots. Public visitors to the Fire Station would use the southern portion of the Armory's parking lot.
[See attached site plan.]
' 18.92 acres is owned by the City, but 0.68 acres of that is encumbered by right-of-way easement for Boutwell
Road. The net area is 18.24 acres.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 3 of 16
Sidewalks connect all parking areas to the two public entrances. There is also a sidewalk to the new
public road which will connect to the planned trail. This trail will connect trail system on CSAH 12 with
the trail system on Boutwell Road. Crossing of CSAH 12 will be aided by signal lights at the
intersection.
Land ownership
The site is planned to be divided into four parcels: the north lot (11.9 acres), the south lot (4.4 acres), and
two roadway lots (1.5 acres and 0.7 acres). [The outlines of these parcels can be seen in the attachment
entitled "Property Areas".] The Minnesota State Armory Building Commission (MSABC) would own
the north lot and the north roadway lot. The City would own the south lot and the south roadway lot. The
City would retain an easement over the north roadway parcel for road, utility and trail purposes.
The MSABC must have fee ownership of the north roadway parcel in order for the National Guard to pay
for road and utility improvements on that parcel. If they do not own it, federal rules do not allow them to
pay for the roadway and utility improvements.
The south roadway lot includes 0.32 acres that are currently owned by Tom and Karen Garley.
Negotiations for its acquisition by the City are in progress.
Size of the Fire Station
The attached Fire Station plans show a total facility size of 34,325 square feet. On September 4, 2012 the
Stillwater City Council discussed these plans and determined that the estimated $8 4 million cost of
constructing the facility was too high. At a special work session on September 18, 2012 the City's design
consultants presented an option that reduced square footage of the Fire Station to 29,600 square feet. It
also reduced soft costs. The result was an estimated cost of $6.9 million (excluding land). The City
Council on a 4-1 vote directed City staff to proceed with a facility of this size and estimated cost.
Though Department of Defense plans include the new Stillwater Armory, Congress still needs to approve
its funding. Until that occurs, additional design work on the Fire Station has been put on hold. Therefore,
the 34,325 square foot Fire Station plans will be used for purposes of Special Use Permit review, but it is
understood that this represents the greatest possible impact. The facility that is to be constructed will be
smaller.
Construction schedule
Attached is a proposed project schedule showing timelines for both the Armory and the Fire Station. The
schedule shows two options for the Fire Station. If Congress were to approve Armory funding early in
2013, it is possible to begin the Fire Station before the Armory. However, if Congress does not approve
funding until later in the year, the Fire Station and Armory would both be constructed at the same time.
If Fire Station construction begins before the Armory, it could begin in the fall of 2013 and be ready for
occupancy in the fall of 2014. If the Armory and Fire Station are constructed together, construction
would likely begin in spring of 2014. The Fire Station would then be completed in the spring of 2015 and
the Armory in the fall of 2015.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 4 of 16
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
In order to build the Minnesota National Guard Readiness Center (aka Armory) and Municipal Fire
Station project as proposed, the following actions would be required:
1) Annexation of the site's three parcels comprising 18.92 acres; and
2) Rezoning of the property to RB, Two -Family Residential; and
3) Zoning Code amendment to allow an Armory and a Municipal Fire Station by SUP in the
RB, Two -Family Residential Zoning District; and
4) SUP for an Armory in the RB, Zoning District; and
5) SUP for a Municipal Fire Station in the RB, Zoning District.
If this set of requests is approved, future requests will need to be submitted and considered at public
hearings for:
1) Building and monument sign permits; and
2) Lot line reconfiguration or platting.
EVALUATION OF REQUESTS
I. ANNEXATION
In order to provide municipal services to the proposed Armory and Fire Station facility, the 18.92 acre
site will have to be detached from Stillwater Township and annexed to the City of Stillwater. The
property is located within the portion of Stillwater Township that is subject to the terms of the 1996
Orderly Annexation Agreement (OAA) between the Township and City.
The OAA established a phasing schedule and conditions for annexing land adjacent to the City. The
subject property is located within Phase IV. As such, annexation of the property can occur any time after
1/1/15, or earlier if: 1) 100% of the property owners within the area to be annexed agree to the
annexation, and 2) the property is adjacent to the City, and 3) the annexation would not create more
housing stock than could be assimilated in an orderly fashion into the area.
Each of the three conditions for granting a petition for early annexation are met for the subject property:
1) the City owns all 18.92 acres being petitioned for annexation; and 2) Boutwell Road serves as the
northern edge of the site, and Boutwell Road is located within the corporate limits of the City of
Stillwater; and 3) no additional homes would be created by annexing the subject land, nor have past
annexations created more than the maximum allowed 120 dwelling units per year within the Orderly
Annexation Area.
II. REZONING
The property is currently located within Stillwater Township and is zoned TZ, Transitional Zoning
District. Upon approval of the annexation petition by the Municipal Board the property would
automatically be zoned A-P, Agricultural Preservation. The A-P designation is intended as a temporary
zoning until such time as the City zones it for a specific use.
The proposed zoning for the property after annexation is RB, Two -Family Residential. This is based
upon the 2030 Future Land Use Map found within the City's Comprehensive Plan. As can be seen in the
attached civil site plan (CS100), most of the site is guided by the Future Land Use Map for Low/Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) development. The southeastern part of the site is guided Low Density
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 5 of 16
Residential (LDR). The most common Zoning District associated with the LMDR classification is RB,
Two -Family Residential. The most common Zoning District associated with the LDR classification is
RA, Single Family Residential.
Therefore, if the zoning district classifications suggested by the Comprehensive Plan are assigned strictly
to the site, the zoning for the eastern portion of the Fire Station lot would be zoned RA and the western
portion would be zoned RB. [See the annotations on the attached civil site plan.] Since multiple zoning
district classifications for individual lots are impractical, either RA or RB would have to be selected.
Given the fact that the Fire Station building is to be located on the western portion, City staff proposes to
zone the whole lot RB, Two -Family Residential. Likewise for the Armory lot, the southeastern portion of
the Armory lot would be zoned RA while a great majority of the lot would be zoned RB. Therefore, staff
proposes to zone the whole of this lot RB as well.
III. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Institutional uses such as hospitals, schools and churches are allowed by Special Use Permit (SUP) in the
RB Zoning District (RA as well). And though fire stations and armories are institutional uses, they are
not specifically mentioned as allowed. Therefore, an amendment to the Zoning Code would be necessary
to specifically allow these uses by SUP in the RB District.
Until recently the City Council could approve uses in a residential zoning district that were considered
substantially similar to other allowed uses in a district. That provision still exists in some of the City's
commercial districts. But it no longer exists in residential districts. Therefore, if a substantially similar
use is found to make sense in a zoning district by SUP, the Zoning Code must now be amended to
specifically allow that use.
Activities associated with already allowed institutional uses include Sunday crowds for churches,
classroom activities for schools, evening activities at schools, sirens associated with emergency traffic to
hospitals, administrative offices, large buildings, parking lots, etc. These same activities, or very similar
ones, are also associated with fire stations and armories.
• Fire personnel training would occur partly in a classroom setting, partly in the training facility on
the south end of the new fire station.
• The Fire Station typically has fewer emergency calls with sirens than would be experienced at a
hospital's emergency room.
• The armory would have little outside activity. On -site training occurs on two weekends a month.
Training is conducted indoors. Any outside training that is necessary is conducted at Fort Ripley
or elsewhere.
• The Armory personnel usage during the week is typically office work during office hours.
• Site fencing is limited to standard chain -link fence material. No barbed-wire is allowed or
proposed.
• The small military vehicle parking area directly behind the Armory is designed for only seven
medium sized vehicles such as Humvees.
• Public use of the facility would include rental of classroom space and gymnasium space.
In short, the types of institutional uses likely for a fire station or an armory are the same or very similar to
institutional activities already allowed by SUP in the RB Zoning District. Therefore, specifically
allowing a fire station or armory with a Special Use Permit is consistent with current practice.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 6 of 16
IV. SPECIAL USE PERMITS
If the City Council approves the requested amendment to the City Code, then the Fire Station and Armory
would be allowed by SUP. Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that when Special Use Permits are
being reviewed for approval, they need to meet certain standards.
(A) The proposed use needs to conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans.
(1) Zoning Ordinance
a) Minimum Dimensional Standards
Lot standards
Minimum lot standards for the RB Zoning District are compared below with the proposed
lot dimensions. As can be seen from the table, all minimum lot standards are satisfied.
Lot Standards
Area
Width
Frontage
Depth
Required
7,500 s.f.
50'
35'
100'
Armory Lot
518,676 s.f.2
> 750'3
> 725'
600'4
Fire Station Lot
193,606 s.f.5
> 275'2
> 325'
575'3
Setbacks
The minimum building setbacks required in the RB Zoning District are compared below
with the proposed setbacks.
Improvement Setbacks6
Fire Station
FS Parking
FS Garage
Armory
Armory Parking
Required
Proposed
Required
Proposed
Required
Proposed
Required?
Proposed
Required
Proposed
From CSAH 12
20'
78'
20'
25'
30'
227'
NA
NA
NA
NA
From West Line
25'
151'
25'
57'
3'
51'
25'
207',
25'
225',
From Boutwell
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20'
317'1,
20'
90'11
From New Road
20'
215'
20'
137'
30'
393'
20'
170'
20'
20'
2 11.9 acres: this is a preliminary figure based upon the most likely location of the lot line that will be located
between the armory lot and the fire station lot.
3 Measured at building line.
4 Average depth
5 4.4 acres: this is a preliminary figure based upon the most likely location of the lot line that will be located between
the armory lot and the fire station lot.
6 Street setbacks are measured from right-of-way, not from edge of street.
The setbacks referenced here as required are the City's Zoning Code requirements. Federal requirements for
armory setbacks are much larger.
8 If the future gymnasium expansion is built as shown, it would have a setback of 100 feet from the west property
line.
9 To the small military vehicle parking area behind Armory. 290 feet from west lot line to nearest point of personal
vehicle parking lot.
10 If the future addition is ever built as shown, it would have a setback of 275 feet.
" Future parking area is 35' from Boutwell right-of-way.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 7 of 16
Miscellaneous
Maximum lot coverage'Z
Buildings 25% allowed 15.98% proposed
Impervious surface 25% allowed 22.28% proposed13
Maximum building height 35' allowed 35' proposed14
Maximum garage height 20' allowed 19' proposed
In summary: all dimensional standards are in compliance.
b) Parking
The Zoning Code does not specify parking requirements for an armory or a fire station.
Therefore, a parking needs analysis was done to determine the number of parking spaces
that should be provided.
The National Guard needs 170 parking spaces. 175 parking spaces are provided with an
additional 46 spaces that will be graded but not paved unless needed.
• The largest unit authorized by the Department of Defense to use the Armory
has a size of 170 people. During training weekends all 170 could be required
to attend. Assuming each person drives separately, that would be 170
parking spaces.
During training weekends only the Guard will be using the Armory. On non -training
weekends and during the week, the Armory could have a combined peak parking demand
from the public and the Guard of 147 spaces. This would include up to 81 spaces for use
of the classrooms, 40 spaces for sports use of the gymnasium and 26 spaces for Guard
personnel.
• The three classrooms (which could be rearranged with room dividers into six
classrooms) have a combined maximum occupancy of 241 people. The
Zoning Code requires that parking be provided for classroom space at a rate
of one space per three occupants. This generates a maximum requirement, if
all classrooms are booked at once, of 81 parking spaces.
• The gymnasium (guard assembly hall) will be large enough for one
basketball court with no bleachers for spectators. If the court is split in half,
or if two volleyball courts were set up, you might cram 40 people into the
space. This scenario is unlikely, but remotely possible. Equally unlikely
would be that all 40 people drove separately. None the less, we will assume
that to be the case. Consequently, a maximum of 40 spaces might be needed
for a sports use of the gym.
12 Both lots are combined for the coverage calculation, since the exact location of the diving lot line is not yet
established.
13 Including proof of parking area.
14 The height to the top of the Fire Station entryway roof is 35' tall, as is the Fire Station tower. All other areas of
both facilities are less than 35' tall, as measured from the finished grade at the front door. Since less than 50% of
the lower level has exposed walls, it is not considered a "story" by the Zoning Code, and height measurements are
not taken from the fmished floor elevation of the lower level. Instead they are taken from the fmished grade on the
main floor level.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 8 of 16
• If the classrooms and sports use of the gym are occurring simultaneously
during business hours for the Guard, then another 26 spaces could be needed
for Guard personnel.
If the assembly hall were booked for a non -sports event during the Guard's normal
business hours, and the classrooms were not booked at the same time, the parking
demand could be as high as 175 spaces. 175 spaces will be constructed.
• During normal business hours the Guard will have as many as 26 people
working.
• The maximum occupancy load for the gymnasium, if it is used for non -sports
assemblies, is 447 people. The Zoning Code requires that parking be
provided for assembly space at a rate of one space per three occupants. This
generates a maximum requirement of 149 spaces.
The only scenario under which parking requirements could not be met by the 175 planned
parking spaces would be if during regular business hours all the classrooms were booked
and the assembly hall was booked for a non -sports event that generated a demand for
more than 69 parking spaces. But, use of the Armory by the public will be controlled
through an annual lease. The National Guard will book public use of the facilities, so the
lease will need to stipulate that when booking the assembly hall during regular National
Guard business hours, the assembly hall will be limited to 70 people during those times
when classrooms are booked.
(2) Comprehensive Plan
Land use
The Comprehensive Plan guides the site and immediately surrounding properties for low to
low/medium density residential development. This equates to a density of up to 9.7 units per
acre. Institutional uses are considered by Zoning Code to be compatible with residential
neighborhoods.
Future development of surrounding neighborhood
Developing the Fire Station and Armory on the subject property would not disrupt future
development of the remainder of the neighborhood. Full access to CSAH 12 will still be able
to occur at Northland Avenue. Depending upon which properties are involved in future
development along Boutwell Road, access to Boutwell could also be possible. If 12993
Boutwell Road is part of the neighborhood development, an intersection with Neal Avenue
would be possible. If 13055 Boutwell Road is involved, access would be possible there. If
neither is involved, developable acres would be limited in area and could likely be served by
a single access at Northland.
Traffic
The Armory and Fire Station facility is planned to be serviced by a new public road that
would intersect with CSAH 12 and align with Maryknoll Drive. It would continue along the
eastern property line and intersect with Boutwell Road just east of Newberry Court North.
The CSAH intersection is planned to be a signalized four -legged intersection. Signalization
is desired by Washington County and the Fire Department for a number of reasons. Chief
amongst them is that with sight distances to the east at the lower end of the acceptability
scale, signal lights are prudent to allow slow accelerating fire trucks to safely enter traffic,
especially west bound traffic.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 9 of 16
Washington County was opposed to an intersection on CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive when
the City's Comprehensive Plan was being drafted, but they are conditionally supportive of the
proposed intersection now. Since that time, sight distance studies have been conducted and
though the approach from the east has limited sight distance, it meets the minimum distance
requirements for the posted speeds. Therefore, with turn lanes and signalization, the County
would approve the new access onto the County Road.
An emergency exit from the Fire Station is being discussed with Washington County.
Currently it is shown about 100 feet from the western property line. [See site plans.] The
City's Fire Chief believes that the Fire Station needs two ways out of the site to be able to
deploy most reliably. The County believes that the safest way to bring the Fire Department's
emergency vehicles onto CSAH 12, and to safely manage traffic flow on the County road, is
to give the Fire Station access only via the new signalized intersection at Maryknoll Drive.
As a compromise, the County would issue a permit for the emergency access directly onto the
County road if the access is moved to the west property line (100 feet further west than
shown on the attached site plan), and as property to the west is developed in the future, this
access point would be shared with a right-in/right-out public road that will serve that new
development.
Access to CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive requires the purchase of 13,783 square feet of land
from the Garleys, who own property on the east site of the project site. In addition 6,306
square feet will be needed for a temporary construction easement. The City and the Garleys
are in the process of negotiating the terms of the sale.
The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes a section entitled "CSAH 12
at Northland Ave Intersection" (Chapter 9, p. 9-23). It acknowledges that a north -south
collector connecting Neal Avenue with Northland Avenue "was analyzed, but rejected
because of concerns voiced by Croixwood neighborhood residents about potential cut -
through traffic in their neighborhood." In lieu of full access to Croixwood at Northland, a
"three-legged" intersection design was offered that did not allow southbound traffic to enter
Croixwood.
Though Maryknoll Drive is not Northland Avenue, the potential cut through traffic raises the
same concerns amongst Croixwood residents. Consequently, during open house and other
discussions on the project, City Planning Department staff had suggested that the Northland
Avenue intersection design included in the Comprehensive Plan might be able to be applied
to the Maryknoll Drive intersection Planning staff erred in two ways by offering that
solution.
• First, the Fire Department needs to get access to the Croixwood neighborhood via
Maryknoll Drive. So the three-legged solution is not acceptable to the Fire
Department.
• Second, at the time it was believed that the Maryknoll Drive intersection could be
constructed without signal lights. With time and additional investigation it became
clear that signals would be needed. That required the design of the intersection to be
changed, since four legs are needed for County approval of signalized intersections.
As is customary for projects of this size, a study was commissioned by the City to investigate
general traffic impacts that might occur at surrounding intersections and the neighborhood at
large. A copy of the study is attached. A summary of key points includes:
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 10 of 16
1. With the exception of the intersection of Boutwell Road and CSAH 15, all
intersections have a satisfactory level of service now, and will continue to after
construction of the Armory and Fire Station.
2. The Boutwell intersection with CSAH 15 currently does not function well for
westbound traffic that wants to turn left onto 15 during morning and evening rush
hours. Fortunately, the peak use times for the Armory will be training weekends,
during which times the intersection functions satisfactorily. Also, the County now
plans to install signals at this intersection. Though, the timing and funding have not
been defined yet.
3. Until the Fire Station is constructed, signals are not warranted at the Maryknoll Drive
intersection. However, since it is the City's hope to build the Fire Station either
before or together with the Armory, the signals will be needed right away.
4. With the construction of the new public road and signalized intersection with CSAH
12, northbound traffic from Highway 5 could get to Neal Avenue a minute quicker by
cutting through Croixwood (if lights are in your favor). Southbound traffic would not
be quicker to cut through Croixwood, since it would not experience the same time
delays with left turns as northbound traffic. Therefore, it would be as fast or faster to
take Deer Path rather than cutting through Croixwood.
a. The increase in northbound cut -through traffic could be as high as 50 to 75
cars a day. This equates to about 5 to 8 additional cars during the peak rush
hours, or one more vehicle every 8 to 12 minutes. During non -peak hours
the number of cars would be less.
b. This amount of traffic increase is not considered significant.
(B) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
(1) Civil Engineering
• The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plans and finds them satisfactory. Prior
to commencement of any grading, however, the final plans must be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer.
• Sanitary sewer and water will be extended from Boutwell through the site by the National
Guard. The water main will be looped and oversized to allow connection to the mains in
Croixwood. The cost of the oversizing will be paid by the City.
• Stormwater runoff will be managed on -site. Expansive green spaces will maximize water
treatment on the spot and reduce runoff. All remaining runoff will be routed to one of
three constructed stormwater basins, which will pre -treat any water that is released into
the on -site wetlands or the County ditch along CSAH 12.
• The base will be graded for a trail on the east side of the new public road. It is a critical
link in the City's overall trail plan, since it would connect the Boutwell and CSAH 12
trails. Its completion is not planned as part of this project. But, it will be ready in the
future for the City to complete as funds become available.
• All electrical and communication utility lines are proposed to be buried.
• A grading permit will be required from Brown's Creek Watershed District.
• The National Guard will be responsible for paying a number of fees associated with
improvements in the western expansion area of the City. Trout Stream Mitigation Fee for
stormwater improvements already installed by the City to treat runoff before it enters
Brown's Creek will cost about $109,00015. Transportation Adequacy Fee for road
15 New road right-of-way and about 28,454 sf of delineated wetland and about 5,000 sf of steep slope (>24%)
excluded from acreage that the fee was calculated on. Total net of 11.14 acres at $9,795.87 per acre. The actual
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 11 of 16
improvements in the western part of the City will cost about $187,00016. The sewer and
water trunk charges total about $171,00017. Total fees are therefore about $467,000.
Since the National Guard will be paying to construct the majority of the new public road,
and the road would not likely be required if the Armory were the only use of the site, the
Guard's costs for constructing this road will be credited against the total fees. If the
preliminary cost estimates for the Guard's road expenses in the amount of $247,000
reflects actual costs, they would still owe about $220,000 in site improvement fees. This
will be due at the time of building permit issuance.
(2) Landscaping
The existing wetlands and their tree buffers will be preserved as will the existing tree
cover on the western portion of the site. Attached plan CD100 shows the trees that will
be removed for grading.
Landscaping planted after grading will include 10 foot tall evergreens and 2.5 to 3 caliper
inch deciduous trees. As can be seen in landscape plans L100 and L101, these trees will
be clustered to screen the parking lots and they will line the new public road and break up
the view from CSAH 12 of the driveway on the south side of the Fire Station. The front
entrance to the facility will be landscaped with formal groups of deciduous trees, planting
beds, and a flag pole array.
Large lawn areas will be planted between the new road and parking lots as well as
between the parking lots and the building. Native grasses will be established around the
wetland areas, especially the wetland behind the armory. The large green spaces act as
an aesthetic amenity as well as stormwater treatment area.
Since the parking lots are to be located in a residential zoning district, special attention
needs to be given to screening headlights from parking lots.
• Currently an alternating double row of pine trees is located along Boutwell Road
opposite the Newberry Court North intersection. Some of them will be saved,
but most are proposed to be removed and replaced with a less artificial looking
grouping of trees. On the one hand, this replacement would create a more
pleasant feel at the northern entrance to the site. On the other hand, the existing
artificial double row of mature pines creates a very effective headlight screen for
the Newberry Court neighborhood. Staff recommends that prior to City Council
consideration of the proposal, the National Guard's landscaping consultant
explore the possibility of saving most of the mature pines along Boutwell near
Newberry Court North at least on an interim basis while the planned trees mature
somewhat. If the mature pines are removed, an alternate effective means of
headlight screening will need to be proposed for the northern lot.
acreage, and therefore the fee which is based upon acreage, will vary depending upon where the lot line between the
Fire Station and Armory is drawn.
16 New road right-of-way, about 28,454 sf of delineated wetland, and about 5,000 sf of steep slope (>24%) excluded
from acreage that the fee was calculated on. Total net of 11.14 acres at $16,775.06 per acre. The actual acreage,
and therefore the fee which is based upon acreage, will vary depending upon where the lot line between the Fire
Station and Armory is drawn.
17 New road right-of-way and about 28,454 sf of delineated wetland and about 5,000 sf of steep slope (>24%)
excluded from acreage that the fee was calculated on. Total net of 11.14 acres at $15,335.47 per acre. The actual
acreage, and therefore the fee which is based upon acreage, will vary depending upon where the lot line between the
Fire Station and Armory is drawn.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 12 of 16
• The Fire Station parking lot proposed in the southwest corner of the lot will be
located at an elevation higher than the agricultural field to the west of it. Though
headlight wash from this lot may not be a problem in the near future, someday
the field will be developed into a residential neighborhood. At that time
headlight wash will be a problem in people's back yards. Perhaps when the
neighboring property is developed a wood privacy fence may be the best
solution. In the meantime some sort of shrubbery plantings should be provided.
The City typically requires the outside trash receptacles and ground mounted utilities,
such as generators, to be screened. The trash dumpsters and generator for the facility are
proposed to be located next to the military vehicle parking area behind the Armory.
Views of the generator and trash area will be screened from all perimeter views by
existing vegetation that will not be disturbed during construction. However, to improve
screening during the winter months, it may be effective to plant a cluster of evergreen
trees just to the west of the trash dumpsters.
(3) Architectural design
The project site is not located within a historic residential neighborhood, downtown, or
the West Business Park. Therefore, no architectural standards are mandated, nor is a
review by the Heritage Preservation Commission required. None the less, architectural
design is important to the City and its residents.
The exterior building materials were thoughtfully chosen to be reflective of major
building material types found in the City. Warm brick and cultured limestone were
chosen for this purpose. Architectural elements such as the arch above the Fire Station
bays and the lean-to roof over the entrances were selected to hint at historical features in
Stillwater without trying to suggest that this modern facility is located in a historic
district.
(4) Lighting
A lighting plan has been submitted and it satisfies the City requirement to limit the
illumination strength at residential property lines to 0.0 footcandles. Also, the
illumination at the edge of CSAH 12 is kept at 0.0 footcandles.
Cut sheets for fixtures must be reviewed by Planning Department and found to be
consistent with the City's performance standards prior to issuance of a building or
grading permit for the facility. Each fixture will need to completely shield views of the
lamps as observed from property lines.
During the open house for the Armory and Fire Station concept plans, several neighbors
asked whether all or some of lights in the Armory parking lots could be put on a timer to
turn off at night. They suggested that all but those necessary for security be timed off at
6:30 pm, or an hour after an event is over. Staff recommends that this be explored prior
to City Council consideration of the proposal.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 13 of 16
(5) Miscellaneous Fire Station Matters
Need
The City has been discussing the need and location for a new fire station since 2001. The
consistent growth and expansion of the City, which includes a number of housing
developments and expansions, dictate the need to relocate the current facility. These
growth areas include The Legends, Liberty on the Lake, Settlers Glen, Millbrook,
Lakeview Hospital, the Washington County Government Center Expansion, downtown
housing and the increased number of special events and tourism activities.
The current facility is no longer centrally located causing response times to increase
beyond the nationally accepted average, which is 5 minutes, on the west side of
Stillwater. Response times in excess of 9 minutes are occurring in several residential
areas based on the current fire station location.
It is difficult for paid -on -call firefighters to respond to the station for calls due to current
station location.
o Myrtle Street is very busy and backs up quite frequently past the Fourth Street
"T" intersection. This creates delays for personnel responding to the station.
o Current location also makes it difficult for responding apparatus to leave the
station and makes it difficult to make corners. Drivers routinely need to drive on
the wrong side of the road due to backed up traffic and intersections being
blocked. This is a serious accident waiting to happen. It also slows response.
Current station is not designed to handle modern fire apparatus and is not large enough.
o Several pieces of equipment are located at the old public works garage on 5th
street. This delays response and creates an awkward situation during an
emergency.
o Apparatus bays are not big enough for modern fire apparatus. Bay door height is
very limited causing issues with apparatus placement and parking issues.
o Not enough apparatus bays to safely and efficiently respond to emergencies.
Currently several apparatus have to be moved in order to respond with the
appropriate equipment for the emergency. This is a safety concern for firefighters
responding to the station for a call and delays response.
Location
The proposed location provides as close to a central station location within the City as
possible. The property is part of the area identified in the 2005 Fire Service Delivery
Study as the most appropriate to build a new station for a single station deployment
model. It allows for more consistent response times for the majority of the city — over
98% of structures and over 86% of service demand would fall within a 5-6 minutes
response time or less. And it would allow for improved response times for over 83% of
the structures on the west side of Stillwater.
Deployment Model
The operational question of a single station versus two station model has been considered
and a decision was made by the City Council this year to pursue the single station model.
Some of the considerations that informed the decision include:
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 14 of 16
• Two stations almost double the annual operating cost of Department operations
by requiring additional full-time and paid -on -call personnel.
• Initial upfront capital cost for a smaller station may be realized but over time
there is an overall increase in expenditures for annual maintenance and upkeep of
two stations vs. one.
• Response times will be more consistent throughout the entire City and will meet
nationally recognized response standards for over 98% of the entire Stillwater
area. Nearly all critical high -risk areas of the city would fall within a five-minute
response time capability (Fire Service Delivery Study, 2005).
• In addition, the majority of Downtown structures have fire suppression sprinkler
systems which provide immediate fire response when a fire occurs. This includes
all the new townhome structures in Terra Springs, The Lofts, The Mills, and a
large majority of the historic commercial properties have been retrofitted with
fire protection systems.
Potential Noise Footprint
Neighbors have concerns about the potential noise of sirens and 24 hour operations. The
Fire Department's goal is to be good neighbors. From a noise footprint mitigation point
of view, the property suits itself well for a fire station, since it allows good separation
distances between the station and surrounding homes. The station's bays are 180 feet
from the west property line, 395 feet from the east property line and 435 feet to the
nearest home on the south side of CSAH 12.
Department training and drills are generally conducted on Tuesday evenings and are
designed to be concluded by 9:00 p.m. In addition, not all training is conducted on site
thus reducing activity at or near the actual station location.
The use of emergency sirens for fire vehicles is mandated and required by State Statute.
However, the current SFD operational response policies are based on a triaged or tiered
response process. This means all incidents dispatched to SFD from the 911 call center are
coded indicating the level of urgency needed to respond. Red lights and sirens are
utilized only when required under life threatening situations.
Re -use of Existing Fire Station
The City is studying a Police Station expansion that would re -use the current Fire Station
space.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be satisfactory, it could recommend that
the City Council approve the requests with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with
the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions
herein:
• Civil Site Plan DD issue date 10/01/2012, Sheet CS100
• Civil Utility Plan DD issue date 10/01/2012, Sheet CU100
• Civil Grading Plan 35% Review; 10/01/12, Sheet CG100
• Civil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan DD issue date 10/1/12, Sheet CE100
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 15 of 16
• Civil Stormwater Management Plan DD issue date 10/1/12, Sheet CT100
• Electrical Site Plan SD issue date 7/6/12, Sheet ES100
• Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan DD issue date 10/1/12, Sheet CD100
• Landscape Plan 35% review date 10/1/12, Sheet L100
• Seeding and Front Plaza Plan 35% review date 10/1/12, Sheet L101
• Exterior building elevations Dated 10/1/12 & 9/4/12
• Exterior building materials Dated 10/1/12
2. The final civil engineering plans must be submitted to the City Engineer and found
satisfactory to him, or revised to his satisfaction prior to commencing any earthwork on the
site.
3. A permanent easement for road, utility and trail purposes must be conveyed to the City over
the proposed roadway prior to commencement of any earthwork on the site.
4. All electrical and communications utility lines must be buried
5. Trout Stream Mitigation fees, Transportation Adequacy fees, and trunk sewer and water fees
will be due and payable prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The annual joint use lease entered into by the City of Stillwater and the National Guard must
stipulate that when the National Guard books public use of the assembly hall during regular
business hours, the assembly hall will be limited to 70 people if classrooms are scheduled for
use during the same or overlapping times. If none of the classrooms are scheduled at the
same or overlapping times, use of the gymnasium is limited only to the design capacity of the
space.
7. A grading permit is required from the Brown's Creek Watershed District prior to
commencing any grading work on the site.
8. Prior to City Council consideration of the proposal, the National Guard's landscaping
consultant should explore the possibility of saving most of the mature pines along Boutwell
near Newberry Court North at least on an interim basis while the planned trees mature
somewhat.
9. Prior to City Council consideration of the proposal, the National Guard's landscaping
consultant should explore improving the vegetation screening of the trash dumpsters and
generator by planting a cluster of evergreen trees just to the west of the trash dumpsters.
10. Prior to City Council consideration of the proposal the City should explore headlight
screening options for the Fire Station parking lot on the southwest corner of the site.
11. Cut sheets for exterior lighting fixtures (both in the parking lot and on the buildings) must be
submitted to the Planning Department and found to be consistent with the City's performance
standards prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for the facility. Each fixture must
completely shield views of the lamps as observed from perimeter property lines.
12. Prior to consideration of the proposal by the City Council, the National Guard lighting
consultants should explore putting lights in the Armory parking lots on timers to turn off all
lights not necessary for security purposes at 6:30 pm, or an hour after an event is over.
13. All ground or roof top mounted mechanical equipment (except the solar panels) must be so
located as not to be visible from perimeter property lines, or screened. Screening may be
vegetation, fencing or other means approved in advanced by the Community Development
Department.
14. A sign permit is required for all monument or building signage.
15. Outside trash receptacles must be completely screened from views at perimeter property
lines. Existing vegetation that will remain in place can be used for this screening, if it is
effective.
16. All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. must match the color of the adjacent surface.
17. The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from the
public street.
18. An NPDES permit shall be in effect prior to commencing construction.
Armory & Fire Station
November 9, 2012
Page 16 of 16
19. Prior to consideration of the proposal by the City Council, a revision to the grading plan
should be explored to accommodate a relocation of the Fire Station's emergency access
westward about 100 feet.
C. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a
decision, it could continue the hearing for additional information.
D. Denial If the Planning Commission fmds the proposal to be unsatisfactory, it could recommend
denial of the requests. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given.
cc
Col. Jensen, Facilities Mgmt Officer, DMA
Doug Wild, BWBR
Ann Terwedo, Planner, Washington County
Dave Magnuson, Stillwater City Attorney
Special Use Permit
October 19, 2012
City of Stillwater
216 Fourth Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
BWBR Comm. No. 3.2012110.04
New National Guard Readiness Center (Armory)
and Stillwater Fire Station in Stillwater, MN
Project Overview
This project is for a new 79,465 square foot Readiness Center (Armory) for the Minnesota Army
National Guard, and a new 34,325 square foot Fire Station for the Stillwater City Fire Department.
Both facilities to be located on an 18.4 acre site (located north of West Myrtle Street/County Road
12 (CASH 12) and south of Boutwell Road at the proposed extension of Maryknoll Drive) in
Stillwater, Minnesota.
The Readiness Center portion of this site will serve as the home and primary training center for two
of the Minnesota National Guard's units; Headquarters Company of the 1/34th Brigade Combat
Team's Brigade Special Troops Battalion and 34th Military Police Company. Together the units will
have 26 full-time personnel located in the Readiness Center Monday through Friday, with normal
work hours being between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
The two Guard units will be conducting on -site weekend training missions with a maximum
schedule of two weekends per month, and on some occasions throughout the year weekend
training will be done at other locations dependent upon the type of training required. During
weekend drill periods there will be from 150 to 200 Soldiers attending drill depending on the unit.
Normal hours for weekend activities are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with occasional training being
conducted on Friday nights as late at 10:00 p.m. Training at the Readiness Center will often consist
of indoor classes and administrative tasks. Rigorous outdoor training is conducted at Camp Ripley
Training Center, not at the Readiness Center location.
The units will be storing four to seven military vehicles in the back of the building for use at the
Readiness Center, primarily 1.25 ton trucks (HMWWVs), cargo trucks (LMTVs) and trailers. The
Readiness Center will not be the primary storage location for either unit's vehicles.
The Fire Station portion of the site will house administration, living, training and other operational
areas, and vehicle storage. Specifically, the apparatus bay will have seven double vehicle storage
bays, a hose/training tower, and a smoke training room. The apparatus bay will be accessible from
S:APlanningVPlanning Cases\2012VArmory\SUP \application package\Narrative.docx
Special Use Permit
October 19, 2012
Page 2 of 3
two points on the site; one from West Myrtle Street/County Road 12 and another from a new access
road to the east of the proposed building.
Similar to the Readiness Center, the Fire Station will utilize various areas, both interior and exterior,
for training purposes. The new building will incorporate the various training needs into the facility
as seamlessly as possible to maintain a clear identity within the community.
The Readiness Center will have several areas available for community use. Such spaces as
classrooms, assembly hall and kitchen have historically proven to be great assets for their
communities. Many spaces within the Readiness Center will be shared between the National Guard
and Stillwater Fire Department. Such spaces include but are not limited to; classrooms, physical
fitness room, locker rooms, showers, kitchen and telecommunications room.
Site
The landscape will enhance and highlight the natural environment of the site providing both an
aesthetic setting and a functional facility. The preservation of existing trees and vegetation
combined with on -site wetlands will help preserve the natural beauty of the site and act as a
transition to the neighboring properties. The Readiness Center must adhere to Anti Terrorism /
Force Protection guidelines calling for minimum distances between the facility and parking or
roadways. This guideline helps create an entry plaza with ample green space and new plantings
located to frame key architectural elements such as building entrances. The entry plaza will provide
a strong, clear sense of arrival and designate the building as a governmental and service facility with
the presence of flags at the center of the plaza.
Site Circulation
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation enhancements are designed to eliminate or reduce conflicts.
Similarly, vehicular traffic and parking for the Fire Station has been separated to ensure the safety of
all visitors and the availability of parking for full-time fire department staff and emergency response
personnel. The landscape design will aim to communicate this separation and provide safe, clear
pathways for pedestrians between roads, parking and building facilities. New parking lots
accessible from the new road running north -south between West Myrtle Street/County Road 12 and
Boutwell Road as indicated on the attached drawings, will be shared between the Fire Station
visitors and Readiness Center personnel and visitors. Although not part of the current project, a
future pedestrian path along this new road is accommodated.
VPlanning VPlanning Cases \2012VArmory\SUP \application package \Narrative.docx
Special Use Permit
October 19, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Materials
The exterior materials of the Fire Station and Readiness Center will consist of precast concrete walls
with prominent areas clad in brick, cultured stone, and metal panel. All windows will have extruded
aluminum frames and high performance insulating glass. Exterior directional down lights will
illuminate the building and parking for safety while maintaining suitable lighting levels as to not
disturb neighboring properties.
Sustainability
To accomplish the goal of sustainability, the site, water use, energy use, materials, and indoor
environmental quality will be examined closely. Day -lighting has been one key strategy to reduce
energy use and improve indoor environmental quality with views to the landscape. The project has
applied and been accepted to the U.S. Green Building Council LEED 2009 process to maintain these
goals and achieve certification.
Summary
The partnership between the Stillwater Fire Department and the Minnesota Army National Guard
has allowed for many advantages. Specifically, the sharing of spaces and utilities will result in cost
savings and increased efficiencies for both entities. The community will gain access to a new and
sustainable city amenity.
VPlanning VPlanning Cases \2012VArmory\SUP \application package \Narrative.docx
J
J
J
EL
J
0
FIRE HALL
IRE HALL - FRONNK R
FIRE HALL
MNARNG STILLWATER READINESS CENTER
N G B: 270014, State: 10151
Readiness Center + City of Stillwater Fire Hall
Exterior Building Images
MNARNG STILLWATER READINESS CENTER
N G B: 270014, State: 10151
Looking East / Southeast
i
i
Exterior Building Images
cc
CO
Ec
TT" crIHD
a�
O
m N
N m
O O
z
O
O
u
0 m
O
MNARNG STILLWATER READINESS CENTER
N G B: 270014, State: 10151
Exterior Building Images
cc
CO
Ec
a�
o�
m
m
N m
O O
co co O
O a
u
Q m
O m
IRE HALL - EA T FA AD
FIRE HALL
IRE HALL APPARAT BA
1
FIRE HALL
IRE HALL - FRONNK R
FIRE HALL
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
CD E
r
IRE HALL - TRAINING TOWER
FIRE HALL
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
CD E
co
I Ai
FIRE HALL - TRAINING TOWER
# 11011111111
II
—; _ �rinrnnnn�l�mnA
1 ',
lam, ,
FIRE HALL
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
CD E
CO a
0
v�
0
IRE HALL - TRAINING TOWER
FIRE HALL
d-
0
0
0
N
0
IRE HALL - FRONNK R
FIRE HALL
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
aJ E
r
IRE HALL - FRONNK R
FIRE HALL
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
a) E
r
ii—
li-
-
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii—
ii-
-
a
0
cO
CU
•
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Animal
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
CD E
r
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
5y
C—
C—
C-
0—
C-
0-
0-
L
0—
rr.
J i i
mum
rumi
r-0
di1n1gi
—0
0
h-0
4 —0
r-0
—0
0
0
N
0
N
N
0
N
(a) E
r
SECOND LEVEL + TOWER FLOOR PLAN
.7)
Hr
11,
0101:1Ali
0
0
0
0
CD E
co a
o
(..c)
0
10
MNARNG STILLWATER READINESS CENTER
N G B: 270014, State: 10151
CD
CD
J)
J)
CD
CD
CD
LL
0
O
0
w
J
2
ce
0
Z
T
Location Plan
CC
T
CO
E o
o
a
o°
�n o
m N
N m
D •
O O
° a
V CC
CO
O
m
„ L., I 07 :31,3N 31IA
3
5TJ
4
0
0
u
=
-0-EM,111,a0
HolH S]lb0LS]
Pig
g
31111 J z
4
13:1
/ding
Oftdt
1 is
144
.75
-----
f4/
•••••••.•11111%,,,
r j e
0 0 _
/1 0,0_000
----
A g,
Odm§8
':.
\
01222(
- '-'0_
2 . ,-- /HOZ& A101-1 'a' NOLIJ3S 3NI7 DA 12341 V 1263
ZP.
"8'
L
u_
U
CO r0
v)
CONCRETE
®®
CONCRETE P
0
/
7:70
i/ �—
i
:2,
1L 1
III/ e// `rem
i—- ✓/ �—/�/
v// ill II 11
I /1rii// LL�
% V I \� r) 11/1
o.a
\ I l/,4r, ` xo I! L iI
\ /�I1 AVA ��/i� 11 111111 .✓ I•
rti �
I I /, _4/ij �I l wll�l0,1
/ / r ( i 1 //A\
ii
j jI11�i �), � —�i ��_
- /
„-‘,. ,
„,,,,,„„
„,__„.„
I1111
ill 1171— —_1 /I I
„d1 III®, 1 � III V/A, \
,V,, Ill), IIII�� ( 1 iill k,'V,\
\_, 1111 1 I 1 .� I1 , �11 „\
\\, 1 � � /
-- ��`�� � 11I1I�1� / L / 11 '/
/ -
:44) 11
4l
II ///� VA\�C���� /// .�_m i �G )-3I
\\\\\\\\ � _ \ / / /l / 9 - 1i �
O/��` =I l III)I/Kn / - / /
NIi\& / �/
y/
44-44,
�w
am
(73
28
a
a
READINESS CENTER
4
4
4
4
I
,
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
117
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
...........
22
INVEE 9S a ZiOZ..6
2T UVOd
zz
w�
V
z
0
00
SPECIFICA110 NS
2
IRIQOUIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRV
FRAGRANT CFO Low SUMAC
3
m
m
21
`33
2
s
m
„.,
s
<e
,
3 3
3 w
L, a
TYPE saANn
�
a
__ ""
40
0
0
J
4®
4®
4®
w
w
L
STILLWATER -AUG 8, 2012
Parking spaces
LO
CO CO o0
a o a a
v r uO 00a s
LO
ul
U uJ
> d K G z
O > W 0 W
a Z cn CC u_
uJ
LU
0
ObOb,N003
grade drop
cr
w
Section at Fire Station Training Tower
�I m
0_
cr
w
Fire Hall - Stillwater, MN
3.2012110.04
DOG
AON
}Jp
das
6ny
In(
unr
AnN
�dy
LO J V
- gad
O
N Lief
DOG
AON
daS
6ny
In(
unr
AnN
�dy
L!i J? W
- gad
O
N Lie(
DOG
AON
daS
6ny
In(
unr
AnN
�dy
Jew
- gad
O
N Lie(
DOG
AON
daS
6ny
In(
unr
AnN
�dy
(Y) J v
- gad
O
N Lie(
DOG
AON
daS
6ny
In(
unr
AnN
�dy
N ,ew
- gad
O
N Lie(
•
1
Early Approval 'window'
Late Approval 'window'
c '^ 0 0>, 7, 0 -[o0 a s
Of ao 0 t— > U U l.)
o 0
al U W 0_O
o a
U Q
c
i
E NGINEERS
P LANNERS
D ESIGNERS
Consulting Group, Inc.
SRF No. 0127816
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
CITY OF STILLWATER
FROM: Patrick Corkle, PE, PTOE, Principal
Jeff Bednar, TOPS, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist
DATE: November 8, 2012
SUBJECT: NEW STILLWATER NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER AND FIRE STATION
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As requested, SRF Consulting Group has completed a traffic study to assess the traffic impacts
associated with a proposed New National Guard Readiness Center and Fire Station to be located
north of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and west of Maryknoll Drive in the City of Stillwater (see
Figure 1). The main objective of the study is to identify potential traffic impacts to the
surrounding study area and in particular the neighborhood impacts associated with the new site
access road/local street that will be constructed with the facility. A traffic forecast and
operations analysis scenario related to the potential future closing of the intersection of Myrtle
Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road is also included.
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
An existing traffic operations analysis was completed for the New National Guard Readiness
Center and Fire Station project area. The main objective of the existing traffic operations
analysis is to determine how traffic currently operates in the study area and establish a baseline
condition from which to evaluate future conditions.
Key Intersections and Data Collection
Existing traffic operations were analyzed at the following key intersections:
• Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 75th Street/CSAH 12
• Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th Street
• Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive
• Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road
• Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail
• Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Deer Path
• Boutwell Road and Neal Avenue
www.srfconsulting.com
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 763.475.0010 Fax: 763.475.2429
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1
❑ ▪ i �, ®. + i rL L—ram� ` y W
.' ,- ..«.,.,.., 1 3.,. •aa ? 'ls AVM17d0a8 , y� .,,,�, 24 N,�' 3u
- o ° M3I A w._� g S - �_
00.4
49 IYi ... ? ,.,. t!.�,
+DLO§ �$Q :A� .1�., 0 ! 4st 'IV ww N §.l, yt ' „� 7
,ir:, .,.. ,, r IYq "® 4,
.m,.0' S.m $ �� O Pb Y. Sm ,,.
',. ,w " -i": 03 r PL4s No O � 4 4. y ,,. "�' SS
as 0-S ail--R4 NR"' r N� ,. uZ N /__,�'' N �'"� "n rN>i �, y
y'1S - 1 h : w r N «m '"� ry I J00 =
r
C" 1S OG 6; „. 1:. • k z 1S �t 1-2 1,t Imo. °I N 131aaV3 'S
¢' m I� hJ a HvH11 4 n 11- 2 "
▪ VH9` LTVJ �-
u��, a9 it,
ba��a"dw� N as
� I __ . o� ird IL I
a° Lt ▪ 9- a; o ls 1 3a
1S ....0 AVN'TIM .N.3 C : N. " r 1S 1vr 1IIM ,�.� 2E1
i "Ls _,,,11____c) ''), _bLrl, ,L..2i L ;1
iJ was �.N .s &3133 •
'N a100
1S LI1L9
3AV
Ltd
3AV 3NV1
is t i"
`DNINNVW
mV•
sit:*
CP
Aaa38M3N
wi o " 415
0k z�
'1S I y1
1S ' LTL s s
SN aNO i ,.. 5 I ,N w ,. ¢ u4 tL SN@ >Gv .s—
a,.,.,Y, '1S 3N"'8na �f3 y ;S
is i_ z m'
O'er i ,ils y 'a31'NF�7 W IjII
' ?< ',)3 _' •;> .... F• 3A0 10'S�
zfil 9 .
r .. ps +a-ow3 HS€
1_16 MR i918 1s 57J1M " a' :s •
,� ❑anneal 5 "1S k
hs r6 O ,�,•••� 7'BNId p'Cb:mo.��sal 9 c-\' P° . i...J o4S311-b'O'S�6�1S 38 �^wu±$�3:af
,� yyo.— 4
YE-NG . CR P Nq\� 'id e� "a . AU'NMN WAY
vim:" t3� aw NO pSNbH b7' P
L71
?... Of U • 3 9 H0vi I L4.y,..•G'T. o °:31a liv-1 ''''� �` . by E;
!�@ �o0��� W"g011 11 3W1
�0 33O ¢+▪ l..
!fad J 7 )° W t r` • 10
a3a ya �. ° o r '^d
f z U cn 1 `;.,,
100 �/Ib f`00 10 ATriVi1 2 U.
a00MNO 1100 �:9 Y �$ EJ a3 N3a01H +
a. C
T �,y��,;Oyl2 o�.6.4 ?;3a=,:. ., ..
,.�',„,�ro ',". V1N3HOV'1a31Nf 7°i�� m$ z 0 C�(�`
�Ad��`1.--4,
dy a ; `yfb�e W w y a, ,, .
ON �`"pw ❑ i u 6 O y gG
0
o Nh ` � , °Dti
y
0)
�
VT cibNW
i \\"\,
��m" o "5
r c a $. s �J" P1A-C
e
• I1!t
,-
�n,1"-,- sn °00b ` byq i ,O �' q�y�
.i o
i' i" �. aw < Lz
z y 2L
4 1-'
Lo m
l;I
6 aJ n 6id\so.1 n 6id\Sl\b88L\s;oafoJ d\: H
Project Location
0127884 October2012
Bill Turnblad - 3 - November 8, 2012
Intersection operation observations, sight distance observations and vehicular a.m. and p.m. peak
hour turning movement counts were collected by SRF Consulting Group in September 2012
before the Stillwater Bridge was closed for repairs. All key intersections are currently side -street
stop sign controlled except the traffic signal controlled intersection of Manning Avenue/CSAH
15 and 75th Street/CSAH 12. Existing geometrics, traffic control, and peak hour traffic volumes
for the key intersections are shown in Figure 2.
Intersection Operations Analysis
The key intersections were analyzed using a combination of the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) and the Synchro/SimTraffic computer simulation analysis model. Capacity analysis
results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates how well an intersection is operating.
The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle. Intersections are given a ranking from
LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an
intersection where demand exceeds capacity. In urban metropolitan areas such as the study area,
LOS A through D is generally considered acceptable by drivers.
For side -street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate
for the level of service of the minor approach. Traffic operations at unsignalized intersections
with side -street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the
overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering
the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support those volumes. Second, it is
important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not stop, the
majority of delay is attributed to the side -street approaches in most cases.
Results of the existing operations analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all key intersections
currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
assuming existing traffic control and intersection geometric layout and lane use.
Table 1
Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis — Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 75th Street/CSAH 12
C
C
Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th Street *
A/F
A/F
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive *
A/B
A/B
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road *
A/C
A/C
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail *
A/C
A/C
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Deer Path *
A/C
A/C
Boutwell Road and Neal Avenue *
A/A
A/A
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control. The overall LOS (includes delay on all
intersection approaches) is shown followed by the worst side -street approach LOS.
Jr-1 unspuh
36.i a16e3 `. r
(9Z) ZS
(0) l
(0l) 6Z
d
4 L I
b (Z)
0 (l)
6 (L l )
4rwed
N
N
N
til (6)
l (D)
£ (£)
4r
Neal Ave N
•
Creekside Crassifi
9
r
0
i
AV IeaN
4
Y
eprtr
Two-way Stop
pa ••'
44
O "
s c
berry Ct N4 ' ., j
i
N
= r
i
Y
co-o
co —
�
«J 1»
(66) L
(est.) 068
(b6) S
Lot- (101)
617Z (L8L)
r b (6)
Sl HVSO
O CO
C67o
Two -Way Stop
❑ paculd0'' B
11,
s� c
Brick St 5 ' a
5 is Ralaa
ry
Oeie Pat h
Kansan PI
Pen W a�
r '
ssa00V el!S aJn;nd
r.
�y�an•VtE6h i u uevy
Y � T
0
C
N
t
is
.11
L 01- (OZ)
9Z (9Z)
tr ,a1105gA,ew
co
co
JIL.
(179) 8S
(6Le) 8Lb
(so I.) OS£ —
z
9b (E8)
6 6Z (SLS)
E9 (b9)
f Sl HV
aurie;Li
D
i. 9tl
0
3 a.
4
N
N
co
co
M
• rr
0
z
w
0
w
J
w
J
0
0
u_
NQ
LL
4
Side -Street Stop
XX = AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
c
J
H:\Projects\7884\TS\Figures\Fig u re2
Key Intersections Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Existing Conditions
0
(0
Q
0
c
O
a)
LL
!_
a)
!_
a)
U
a)
!_
a)
ct
V
c
0
Z
a)
=
a)
Z
0127884 November 2012
Bill Turnblad - 5 - November 8, 2012
Although all key intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better during the peak
hours, moderate queuing and side -street delay occurs at the Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th
Street intersection. Along 80th Street in the westbound direction, queues extend back
approximately 150 feet (six vehicles) during the a.m. peak hour. This is caused by higher north
and southbound through traffic volumes and fewer acceptable gaps. Westbound approach
average delays range from approximately 60 to 90 seconds (LOS F) during the peak hours,
indicating that it is difficult for vehicles to make westbound left -turns from 80th Street. These
issues were confirmed during field observations at the site during data collection.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ACCESS REVIEW
The proposed development consists of a New Stillwater Readiness Center for the Minnesota
Army National Guard (MnANG) of roughly 80,000 gross square feet along with a future
Stillwater Fire Station of roughly 30,000 gross square feet. The Readiness Center project also
includes site work consisting of 175 new parking spaces (plus 46 proof of parking spaces for a
possible future total of 221 parking spaces), a new access roadway between Myrtle Street/CSAH
12 and Boutwell Road, surface water retention, service areas and green space. Specifics of the
future Fire Station site design continue to be developed. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan.
The Readiness Center will have 26 full time employees (no part-time staff) working standard
business hours. The MnANG unit assigned to this Readiness Center has a maximum strength of
170 soldiers who may participate in a Drill Weekend once or twice per month for indoor training
(units would not regularly have training on both weekends in a month). At these weekend
training events there would be a maximum of 170 soldiers. There will also be public use of the
Readiness Center classrooms and gymnasium. The City is considering the construction of a
second gymnasium that would accommodate two full sized basketball courts. The classrooms
and gymnasium(s) can be rented by the public for events when not being used by the MnANG.
The Fire Station would have four to five staff on duty during a typical shift. During training
events, usually after standard business hours, there could be 25 to 35 staff on -site. The number of
staff that respond to emergencies varies but is typically between 10 and 18.
Site Access
Based on the proposed site plan the Readiness Center will be served by two driveways on a new
access road/local street through the site connecting between Myrtle Street and Boutwell Road.
The concern of the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhoods to the south is that with
the construction of the new access road and a potential future traffic signal controlled
intersection at Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive, traffic from north of the proposed
site may now use their neighborhood as the cut through to the Highway 36 retail area instead of
using Deer Path and Brick Street as the recognized "through" routes.
The future fire station site plan identifies that there will be two site access locations, one
driveway directly to Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 roughly 500 feet west of Maryknoll Drive and one
on the site access road/local street roughly 400 feet north of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12.
Proposed Site Plan
,
7 V
t n sain 6!A sni788Aspeloid \ :H
›•-•
-cs
u3E
crs
cL
c.,
E2
co
-CS
(33
CD
0
CD
LES
CD
Ct
crs
co co
co
0
Z
0127884 October 2012
Bill Turnblad - 7 - November 8, 2012
Internal Site Circulation
An internal site traffic circulation review was conducted following generally accepted traffic
engineering and site planning guidelines. Parking for the proposed project would be provided by
new surface parking areas as identified on the site plan. The layout of these proposed surface
parking areas allows for easy circulation for vehicles entering/exiting and traveling throughout
the site. The parking stalls are shown to be 90-degree, nine foot wide stalls with adequate drive
aisle widths. Therefore, circulation within the site and parking areas appears to be reasonable.
The following site access and internal circulation recommendations should be considered:
• The new access road/local street through the site connecting between Myrtle Street and
Boutwell Road and all internal roadways and surface parking areas must be designed to
conform to City of Stillwater standards.
• The access driveways and drive aisles within the surface parking areas should be designed to
allow easy vehicle access and circulation. The parking aisles should be wide enough to allow
for vehicle circulation, including emergency vehicles and adequate turning radii should be
provided for easy maneuvering.
• A clear travel path for service vehicles, such as refuse and delivery trucks, should be defined.
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed Readiness Center/Fire Station
development, trip generation estimates for the weekday and drill weekend a.m. and p.m. peak
hours were developed (Saturday was assumed as the highest traffic weekend day/design day
although the drill weekend does include Sunday and infrequently Friday evening).
There is not a specific land use type within the 2012 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Report, 9th Edition that accurately depicts the type of trip generation expected
for a National Guard Readiness Center and Fire Station and there are no nearby similar facilities
where driveway counts could be collected that could be used to estimate the trips that would be
generated. Therefore, a range of surrogate land uses/alternative trip generation methodologies
were considered and the most reasonable trip generation estimates were selected and utilized.
The surrogate land uses considered from the current ITE Trip Generation Report include:
• Military Base (ITE Land Use 501)
• Government Office (ITE Land Use 730)
• Government Complex (ITE Land Use 733)
The alternative trip generation methodologies considered included:
• A reasonable premise assuming 85 percent of the National Guard Readiness Center soldiers
arrive/depart during the peak hours and 15 percent arrive/depart before/after the peak hours.
• Employment based socio-economic related trip generation rates from the Twin Cities Metro
Area regional travel demand model.
Bill Turnblad - 8 - November 8, 2012
Table 2 presents the Typical Weekday and Drill Weekend (Saturday was assumed as the design
weekend day) daily and peak hour trip generation estimates that were selected and utilized from
the range of surrogate land uses and alternative trip generation methodologies considered.
Table 2
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Type
Employees
or Soldiers
A.M. Peak
Hour Trips
P.M. Peak
Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
In
Out
Typical Weekday
National Guard Readiness Center
26 (1)
22
4
13
37
311
Fire Station
5 (1)
4
1
2
7
60
Typical Weekday Totals
31
26
5
15
44
371
Drill Weekend (Saturday assumed as the design day)
National Guard Readiness Center
170 (2)
145
7
7
145
354
Fire Station
5 ('�
4
1
2
7
60
Drill Weekend (Design Saturday) Totals
175
149
8
9
152
414
(1) Employee based trip generation estimate utilizing a Government Office trip generation rate surrogate.
(2) National Guard unit strength (soldiers) based trip generation estimate assuming 85 percent of the unit arrives/departs during
the peak hour with 15 percent arriving/departing before/after the peak hour.
As seen in Table 2, the Stillwater Readiness Center and Fire Station would generate a modest
level of new traffic on the study area roadway system. And while there may be special events
that would generate more traffic, these generally off-peak special events would not occur often
enough to provide the practical basis for analysis and design of the area transportation system.
The proposed development is anticipated to be completed by year 2014. Therefore, traffic
forecasts were developed for year 2015 conditions (one year after construction). Based on
existing area traffic growth patterns and historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes,
no annual growth was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to develop year 2014
background traffic forecasts.
The directional trip distribution for the proposed development is based on the regional
distribution of households and employment and existing travel patterns (see Figure 4). Based on
the directional trip distribution, a manual assignment of the Readiness Center and Fire Station
generated traffic results in peak hour forecasts for the future build conditions (see Figure 5).
CV
m
O
E
2
m •I
0
0
W
OC_ ���• ,,a
�'St
N 1st `5f 15 PUZ N 5
N 4th. St.iDE t
N William St 2
Lis
11
: 5
cbits
1 Im
Z
[c •Q
cis
S and 1419 -'—
#s PuZ Si a —,
S 4th St JC cn
E �.��LL
•
l3 m O
5 ]S RalaWWJ T°`
N and ow8 a e1
Z
N�
J
1�-
L
0
4
2
LID
LID
baJ n bid\saJ n 6id\Sl\b88L\s;aafa d\: H
Site Generated Traffic Directional Trip Distribution
N
•
cL
E
O
(a
a)
N
N
N
N
v
rcs
ro
ca
N
•
Z U
0127884 October2012
• Jr- unspao
(9Z) Zs
(0) . �►
(0l) 6Z
J 1~
4r
M M N
a
b (Z)
0 (L)
6 (L l )
4rwed
til (6)
£ (£)
Neal Ave N
•
Creekside Crassio
9
r
0
t0
AV IeeN
Two -wa
FII,. Y S .•-- top
444.4.0IlL
dge,Traj!
s
berry Ct N�
-v
► cJtOp
N
N
.- I
I
sr'
Y
rN-O
LO
J r
L 01, (101)
617Z (L8L)
r b (6)
(ZZ) E 6 _t
(est.) 068
(t76) s
Sl HVSO
O CO
(now
Two -Way Stop
To
c
0)
en
U_
m+
-Pen Wad
11
r '
sseaav aTIS
(8Z1
(86)Z�
Brick St 5 '
5 is Ralaa
'ry
Oeie Pat h
Kansan PI
D
0 Laune;�rj
N y
0
o
'a
at(' .
-t' : 4
f
<1_
L 01- (OZ)
I— 9Z (9Z)
Ir J0 Ilou�(�ew
.11
co
O
CO orb
co N
(179) 8S
(66£)8Lb
(806) OS£ -
a r
�y�an•VtE u i u uevy
Y � T
z
L Es (L8)
6 6Z (sLs)
E9 (b9)
f Sl HVSO
v 0)
O M M
N N CO
4
"C
• rr
0
z
w
0
w
J
w
J
0
0
u_
NQ
LL
4
Side -Street Stop
XX = AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
c
J
.r
0
E
0
0
0
N
0
0
I
H:\Projects\7884\TS\Figures\Fig u re5
Key Intersections 2015 Forecast Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
co
u-
0
(0
0
0
(6
c
0
a)
LL
!_
a)
!_
a)
U
a)
!_
a)
ct
V
c
0
Z
a) id
y--�
N
Z
0127884 November 2012
Bill Turnblad - 11 - November 8, 2012
FUTURE BUILD CONDITIONS
To determine how well the existing roadway network will operate under future 2015 build
typical weekday conditions, an operations analysis was completed for the weekday a.m. and p.m.
peak hours. Results of the future build typical weekday condition operations analysis shown in
Table 3 indicate that all key intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C
or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with existing traffic control and
intersection geometric layout and lane use.
Table 3
Future 2015 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis — Typical Weekday
Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 75th Street/CSAH 12
C
C
Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th Street *
A/F
A/F
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive *
A/B
A/B
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road *
A/C
A/C
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail *
A/C
A/C
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Deer Path *
A/C
A/C
Boutwell Road and Neal Avenue *
A/A
A/A
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control. The overall LOS (includes delay on all
intersection approaches) is shown followed by the worst side -street approach LOS.
The westbound approach at the Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th Street intersection will
continue to have moderate queuing and delay issues. Drivers on the westbound approach to this
intersection are expected to experience more than one minute of average delay per vehicle during
the peak hours under future conditions. This level of delay can lead to drivers accepting unsafe
gaps in traffic that may result in a traffic safety problem at this intersection. Washington County
is looking into a potential near future traffic signal at this intersection however funding and
construction priorities have not been identified for this traffic signal.
An additional operations analysis was completed for the future 2015 build drill weekend
(Saturday design day) a.m. and p.m. peak hours at two selected key intersections. Results of the
future build drill weekend (Saturday) condition operations analysis shown in Table 4 indicate
that the two selected key intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A or
better during the future build drill weekend (Saturday) a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with existing
traffic control and intersection geometric layout and lane use. This outcome is due primarily to
the lower weekend (Saturday) background traffic levels present at the key intersections.
Bill Turnblad
- 12 -
November 8, 2012
Table 4
Future 2015 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis — Drill Weekend (Saturday)
Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive *
A/A
A/A
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road *
A/A
A/A
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control. The overall LOS (includes delay on all
intersection approaches) is shown followed by the worst side -street approach LOS.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The concern of the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhoods south of the proposed
site is related to the construction of the new access road including a potential future traffic signal
controlled intersection at Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive and traffic from north of
the proposed site that may potentially use their neighborhood street as the through route to the
Highway 36 retail area instead of using Deer Path and Brick Street as the recognized "through"
routes. To address this concern a travel time analysis was conducted for various travel routes to
determine if the proposed development and the new access road connecting Myrtle Street/CSAH
12 and Boutwell Road will result in increased traffic through existing residential neighborhoods.
Route choice is primarily based on travel time by most drivers. Therefore, this travel time
analysis was based on the average travel times based on field travel time runs conducted in
September 2012 during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods on various routes through the
study area including routes through the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhoods.
Travel times on future routes including the new site access road/local street were estimated based
on the route distance and posted speed limits and account for additional time delay to complete
left- and right -turns and include associated intersection traffic control delay.
The results of this travel time analysis (see Figure 6) indicate that under existing conditions there
is no travel time advantage to use the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhood streets
as through routes for traffic with origins or destinations north of the proposed site. However, the
construction of the new access road/local street through the proposed site may increase the
potential for northbound traffic with destinations north of the proposed site to use the Maryknoll
and Croixwood residential neighborhood streets as through routes, although the volume of this
traffic does not appear to be significant.
The highest estimate of additional northbound "through" traffic would occur on Maryknoll Drive
south of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 with between 50 to 75 additional vehicles daily (a 10 to 15
percent increase over the existing estimated daily volume of 500) or five to eight additional
vehicles during the peak hour (one additional vehicle every 12 to eight minutes during the peak
hours). Southbound travel time estimates suggest that there is no advantage to using the
Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhood routes. Southbound trips may therefore
continue to use their current and recognized Deer Path "through" route.
a)
E
a)
as
0
(0
N
0
4)
0
0
(0— o E
o d
t
EP
0)> c0
as
z CZif)t� N 0
0 0 O)
k W
W K,._
oCt
C C C C �_ C � C Ts N
M� Cr) M' CD CO � C a)
O) 0 c)N O N co o N s
ca co N- 1- (0(0 M co 10E
(D o 0)
m • a o
- co O N. I N- co. co O) u) -0
co N co (\j N N N N E N
a) 2 m
• ON E
fi
mm mm mm mm H.E—, ,
Z U) Z U) Z U) Z U)
Q Q m m 00 Oa z> c
I'--��=1❑
�, �C -
� U
EE E EE cS
j
co N- co co O
o - O N - co _o
(n o
m Q
0) co. or- rnrn 00 ocn
N N MN N N M M E u)
(7,2
> N
mm mm mm mm H.E
Z U) Z U) Z U) Z U) ai
- - N N co co ' o
Z
c
0
3
0
) JL '1
i a)
Krueger LIL
H:\Projects\7884\TS\Figures\Fig u re6
Neighborhood Through Route Travel Time Analysis
CO
L
U
c13
Q
E
U
(6
!_
0
.175
.
v J
a)
IL
!- _
a)
c
a)
U
o
a)
c
n3
a)
ct
(6
c9
c
0
1
c13
Z
N co
N
Z
0127884 November 2012
Bill Turnblad - 14 - November 8, 2012
Methods to discourage drivers from using the neighborhood routes include traffic calming,
selected one-way streets and traffic diverters. These actions may reduce or eliminate the
neighborhood "through" traffic but at the expense of the neighborhood's mobility and emergency
vehicle response times to and from the neighborhoods.
CLOSING MYRTLE STREET/CSAH 12 AND BOUTWELL ROAD INTERSECTION
Existing intersection spacing between the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 intersections at Maryknoll
Drive, Boutwell Road and Eagle Ridge Trail is less than the current Washington County
Intersection Spacing Guidelines. To address this condition a scenario was developed and
analyzed where the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road intersection was closed with the
traffic at that intersection reassigned to the adjacent intersection of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 at
Maryknoll Drive (see Figure 7). No traffic was reassigned to the intersection of Myrtle
Street/CSAH 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail due to the more circuitous route and longer travel time.
The results of this analysis as presented in Table 5 indicate that the overall LOS would not
change at the adjacent intersections of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive and Eagle
Ridge Trail. However, the side street approach operations and LOS would be degraded at Myrtle
Street/CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive.
Table 5
2015 Weekday Peak Hour Analysis — Close Boutwell Road Intersection Scenario
Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive *
A/C
A/C
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road (Closed)
NA
NA
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail *
A/C
A/C
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control. The overall LOS (includes delay on all
intersection approaches) is shown followed by the worst side -street approach LOS.
Closing the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road intersection may potentially increase the
possibility of traffic with origins or destinations north of the proposed site to use the Maryknoll
and Croixwood residential neighborhood streets as through routes.
The maximum peak hour queues that may develop on the southbound approach at the Myrtle
Street/CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive intersection are three vehicles (75 feet) for the left -turn and
one vehicle (25 feet) for the right -turn. Based on these estimates the southbound right -turn lane
length can be based on the deceleration design and provide adequate storage.
Alternatives to fully closing the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road intersection could
include restricting this intersection to a 3/4 intersection, a right-in/right-out only or a right -in only
intersection However, these alternatives may require reconstruction of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12
to a divided section (currently under consideration by Washington County and the City).
• Jr- unspuo
(9Z) Zs
(o) l �►
(0l) 6Z
a�
.r
a ! ■ _-•
J 1~
4r
co
M N
c,
a
b (Z)
0 (l)
6 (L l )
4r4Jed
til (6)
l (0)
£ (£)
Neal Ave N
•
Creekside Crassio
9
• Je '
r
0
t0
i
AV Ie°N
Two_Wa
�.•--II.. Y Stop
r
dge,Traj!
s
berry:Cr Nf
► cJtOp
Ni
Y
O
�1»
L 01, (606)
617Z (L8L)
r 17 (6)
(ZZ) E 6 _t
(est.) 068
(t76) S
Sl Ho/SO
O COC6'o
Two -Way Stop
rn
u7
ti
pCOMNn�
sseaav 314S
r.
'Pen Wa'
11 '
(o W EE L
(0) 0
(8Z) 0. n
f
Nian•V,tfiu uuevy
Y � T
Brick St 5 ' a
s is Ralaa
•
Oec.Path
Kansan PI
Laur'6' Li
D
4
:.
N
r D
o
3 'a
01.(oZ)
,,t9 (S)
9Z (SZ)
rJo 110.), (,ew
CCO LO
O0 N
N
JIL.
z
L ES (L8)
6 6Z (SLS)
E9 (b9)
f Sl HV )
N N
1
• rr
0
z
w
0
w
J
w
J
0
0
u_
NQ
LL
O
0
XX = AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
H:\Projects\7884\TS\Figures\Fig u re57
2015 Forecast Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Myrtle StreetlBoutwell Road Intersection Closed
0
(i3
0
0
(i3
!_
O
a)
LL
!_
a)
!_
a)
U
a)
!_
a)
ct
V
!_
0
Z
a) id
=
N
Z
0127884 November 2012
Bill Turnblad - 16 - November 8, 2012
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis, the following summary and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
• Intersection observations and vehicular a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts
were collected by SRF Consulting Group in September 2012.
• All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours assuming existing intersection traffic control and geometric layout.
o Moderate queuing and side -street delay occurs at the Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th
Street intersection. On westbound 80t Street queues extend back approximately 150 feet
(six vehicles) during the a.m. peak hour. Westbound approach average delays range from
approximately 60 to 90 seconds (LOS F) during the peak hours, indicating that it is
difficult for vehicles to make westbound left -turns from 80th Street.
• The proposed development consists of a New Stillwater Readiness Center for the Minnesota
Army National Guard (MnANG) of roughly 80,000 gross square feet along with the future
Stillwater Fire Station of roughly 30,000 gross square feet. The Readiness Center project
also includes site work consisting of 175 new parking spaces (plus 46 proof of parking
spaces for a possible future total of 221 parking spaces), a new access road/local street
between Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road, surface water retention, service areas
and green space. Specifics of the future Fire Station site design continue to be developed.
o The Readiness Center will be served by two driveways on a new access road/local street
through the site connecting between Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road.
o The concern of the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhoods to the south is
that with the construction of the new access road/local street and a potential future traffic
signal controlled intersection at Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive, traffic
from north of the proposed site may now use their neighborhood as the cut through to the
Highway 36 retail area instead of using Deer Path and Brick Street as the through routes.
o The future fire station will have two site access locations, one driveway directly to Myrtle
Street/CSAH 12 roughly 500 feet west of Maryknoll Drive and one on the site access
road/local street roughly 400 feet north of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12.
o The layout of the existing and proposed surface parking areas allows for easy circulation
for vehicles entering/exiting and traveling throughout the site. The parking stalls are
shown to be 90-degree, nine foot wide stalls with adequate drive aisle widths. Therefore,
circulation within the site and parking areas appears reasonable.
• The Stillwater Readiness Center and Fire Station would generate a modest level of new
traffic on the study area roadway system. And while there may be special events that would
generate more traffic, these generally off-peak events would not occur often enough to
provide the practical basis for analysis and design of the area transportation system.
Bill Turnblad - 17 - November 8, 2012
• Results of the future build condition operations analysis indicate that all key intersections
will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the weekday a.m.
and p.m. peak hours, assuming existing intersection traffic control and geometric layout.
o The westbound approach at the Manning Avenue/CSAH 15 and 80th Street intersection
will continue to have moderate queuing and delay issues. Drivers on the westbound
approach to this intersection are expected to experience more than one minute of average
delay per vehicle during the peak hours under future conditions. This level of delay can
lead to drivers accepting unsafe gaps in traffic that may result in a traffic safety problem
at this intersection. Washington County is looking into a potential near future traffic
signal at this intersection. However, funding and construction priorities have not been
identified for this traffic signal.
o The intersection of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive would not meet traffic
signal warrants under the forecast traffic volumes developed in this traffic study. A
future traffic signal may be justified at this intersection due to the location of the New
Fire Station and restricted sight distance. However, further discussion of a future traffic
signal and intersection geometric improvements, particularly left- and right -turn lanes on
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 should be considered as this project goes forward.
o An additional operations analysis was completed for the future 2015 build drill weekend
(Saturday assumed as design day) a.m. and p.m. peak hours at two selected key
intersections (Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive and Boutwell Road). Results
of this operations analysis indicate that the two selected key intersections will continue to
operate at an acceptable overall LOS A or better during the future build drill weekend
(Saturday) a.m. and p.m. peak hours, assuming existing intersection traffic control,
geometric layout and lane use. This outcome is due primarily to the lower weekend
(Saturday) background traffic volume levels present at the key intersections.
• The concern of the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhoods south of the
proposed site is related to the construction of the new access road including a potential future
traffic signal controlled intersection at Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Maryknoll Drive and
traffic from north of the proposed site that may potentially use their neighborhood street as
the through route to the Highway 36 retail area instead of using Deer Path and Brick Street.
o The results of a travel time analysis indicate that under existing conditions there is no
travel time advantage to use the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhood
streets as through routes for traffic with origins or destinations north of the proposed site.
o However, the construction of the new access road/local street through the proposed site
may increase the potential for northbound traffic with destinations north of the proposed
site to use the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhood streets as through
routes, although the volume of this traffic does not appear to be significant.
o The highest estimate of additional northbound "through" traffic would occur on
Maryknoll Drive south of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 with between 50 to 75 additional
vehicles daily (a 10 to 15 percent increase over the existing estimated daily volume of
Bill Turnblad - 18 - November 8, 2012
500) or five to eight additional vehicles during the peak hour (one additional vehicle
every 12 to eight minutes during the peak hours).
o Southbound travel time estimates suggest that there is no advantage to using the
Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhood routes. Southbound trips may
therefore continue to use their current and recognized Deer Path "through" route.
o Methods to discourage drivers from using the neighborhood routes include traffic
calming, selected one-way streets and traffic diverters. These actions may reduce or
eliminate the neighborhood "through" traffic but at the expense of the neighborhood' s
own mobility and emergency vehicle response times to and from the neighborhoods.
• Existing intersection spacing between the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 intersections at Maryknoll
Drive, Boutwell Road and Eagle Ridge Trail is less than the current Washington County
Intersection Spacing Guidelines. To address this condition a scenario was developed and
analyzed where the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road intersection was closed with
the traffic at that intersection reassigned to the adjacent intersections of Myrtle Street/CSAH
12 at Maryknoll Drive and Eagle Ridge Trail.
o The results of this analysis indicate that the overall LOS would not change at the adjacent
intersections of Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive and Eagle Ridge Trail.
However, the side street approach operations and LOS would be degraded.
o Closing the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road intersection may potentially
increase the possibility of traffic with origins or destinations north of the proposed site to
use the Maryknoll and Croixwood residential neighborhood streets as through routes.
o The maximum peak hour queues that may develop on the southbound approach at the
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive intersection are three vehicles (75 feet) for
the left -turn and one vehicle (25 feet) for the right -turn. Based on this estimate the
southbound right -turn lane length can be based on the deceleration design and provide
adequate storage. The 400 foot queuing distance between Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and
the proposed Fire Station access on the site access road/local street may also be adequate.
o Alternatives to fully closing the Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 and Boutwell Road intersection
could include restricting this intersection to a 3/4 intersection, a right-in/right-out only or a
right -in only intersection However, these alternatives may require reconstruction of
Myrtle Street/CSAH 12 to a divided section (currently under consideration by
Washington County and the City of Stillwater).
H:\Projects\7884\TS\Report\121108_Stillwater NG Readiness Center -Fire Station Traffic Study.docx
Bill Turnblad
From: MADAMSOE@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:41 AM
To: Bill Turnblad
Subject: Case Number 2012-04
Hello Bill, hope all is well in Stillwater. I write to you from sunny Arizona about the upcoming request for annexation and
variances involved with the building of a National Guard Armory and Stillwater Fire Station on property near our home.
I have talked to you and the City Attorney on several occasions about my feelings regarding the City of Stillwater's buying
the land formally owned by Bruggeman Construction and then owned by Lakes Bank through foreclosure. Mr. Paul
Bruggeman had asked the City on several occasions (and spent significant dollars) for access to County Road 12 at
Maryknoll and had been denied by both the City and County! Now, the city buys the land from Lakes Bank after
foreclosing on Mr. Bruggeman because he could not get approval from the City for access to Co. Road 12 at several
different locations, including Maryknoll Drive. This is not right!
The Metro Council and the City and Township spent considerable time and dollars to finalize a plan for the properties in
question and I realize that is why the applicant is applying. Interesting, the City or any other entity involved never thought
it was a good idea to look at the Metro Council Plan and consult with adjoining land owners before we got this far. I think I
may have been more open to this idea if there was a plan for all the properties including access in place.
I believe the National Guard troops based in Stillwater have been going to Burnsville for training. I have received no
information saying this was not getting the training done. I did hear from the General involved that the Guard wanted to
have an Armory in Stillwater for historical reasons. No matter the reason it does not make sense to be spending money
on a new Armory when our soldiers are not being taken care of when returning from Harm's Way! This money, I'm sure,
has been approved in some budget and probably cannot be used for anything else. Sounds a lot like SPEND IT OR
LOSE IT!
As regards the Fire Department being attached to the Armory I believe the City needs to step back and rethink its
position. Councilman Polena told me about a year ago that the city did not have the money for a new Fire Station. So,
the city buys this land in foreclosure, some would argue the City caused, makes some money on the sale to the National
Guard and piggy backs on the building so trying to keep its costs down. Now we find out the Fire Department cost is
significantly higher and may have to cut back. This is a poor plan!
You and I both know the value of the nearby properties has decreased because of the conversation regarding the building
of the Armory. What a way for the City to impress people who may want to buy property in Stillwater.
My hope is the powers that be will turn down this application.
Warren Michael (Mike) Adams
12950 75th Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
612-812-5351
1
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
To:
Date:
Re:
Planning Commission
November 9, 2012
A public hearing on the proposed enlargement of and proposed adoption
of a Modification to the Development Program for Development District
No. 1, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.124 to 469.134,
inclusive, as amended, the proposed Modification of the Financing Plan
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (a "Redevelopment District "),
all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections
469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended.
BACKGROUND
The City of Stillwater is seeking a modification to the Development District No. 1 to expand it
to cover the entire City and to modify the Financing Plan of Tax Increment Financing District
No. 4. State Law requires that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and review the
documents. City Attorney Dave Magnuson will be at the November 14th Planning Commission
meeting to discuss and review the plans with the Commission.
Attached to this memo are copies of the following items:
• Copy of the public hearing notice
• Resolution of the Planning Commission finding the plan conforms with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
• Resolution of clarification and allocation for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4
• A copy of the modified development program for Development District No. 1
• A copy of the modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-01
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF STILLWATER, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4, LOCATED WITHIN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL
PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
CITY OF STILLWATER
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Stillwater (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4, located within
Development District No. 1, (the "Plan") and has submitted the Plan to the City Planning
Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §469.175, subd. 3; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine its conformity with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the
Comprehensive Plan for the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plan conforms
with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: November 14th, 2012.
Michael Kocon, Chair
ATTEST:
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
OF
THE CITY OF STILLWATER
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater,
County of Washington, State of Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November
14, 2012, at approximately 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater,
Minnesota, on the following matters: the proposed adoption of a modification to the
Development Program for Development District No. 1, and the proposed modification to the Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 within Development
District No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, §469.124 to 469.134 and
469.174 to 469.179. Attached as Exhibit "A" is the area of Tax Increment Financing District No.
4 and attached as Exhibit "B" is a map of Modified Development District No. 1 where, as
peiniitted by law, tax increments may be expended.
A copy of the modified Development Program and the modified Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 are on file and available for public
inspection at the Office of the City Clerk.
All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in
writing.
Dated: November 6, 2012
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
RESOLUTION OF CLARIFICATION AND ALLOCATION
WHEREAS, an amended budget for Tax Increment District No. 4 was adopted by the City
Council on November 16, 1999, authorizing future expenditures of $17,314,146.00; and,
WHEREAS, through the year end 2011 total expenditures actually paid with increment was
$5,232,171.00; and,
WHEREAS, the annual reporting form of the Minnesota State Auditor requires that the total
of the new budget and the expenditures made through year end 2011 be clarified and reallocated, but
not increased, in order to be properly reported.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater,
Minnesota, that the budget adopted November 16, 1999 be reallocated by restating lines 19 through
28 of the estimated project/financing costs section of the Auditor's Reporting Form as follows:
Line 19 Land/building acquisition
Line 20 Site improvements/preparation costs $1,291,062.001
Line 21 Utilities $4,441,641.002
Line 22 Other public improvements $3,400,000.003
Line 23 Construction of affordable housing $3,900,000.004
Line 24 Small city authorized costs, if not already included above 0
_0_
Line 25 Administrative costs
Line 26 Estimated Tax Increment Project Costs $ 478,491.005
Line 27 Interest expense
802
Line 28 Total Estimated Project/Financing Costs to be Paid from $7,,46.006
Tax Increment $17,31414,146.00
Enacted by the City Council this 4th day of December , 2012.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ken Harycki, Mayor
EXHIBIT V-C
ATTEST:
Diane F. Ward, Clerk
' Consisting of $291,062.00 expended through 2011 and $1,000,000.00 authorized on December
4, 2012.
2 Consisting of $3,441,641.00 expended through 2011 and $1,000,000.00 authorized on December
4, 2012.
3 Consisting of $400,000.00 expended through 2011 and $3,000,000.00 authorized on December
4, 2012.
Consisting of $900,000.00 expended through 2011 and $3,000,000.00 authorized on December
4, 2012.
5 Consisting of $199,468.00 expended through 2011 and $279,023.00 authorized on December 4,
2012 budget.
6 Consisting of $2,802.952 expended through 2011 and $1,000,000.00 authorized on December
4, 2012.
1
EL
44,
11
DOCUMENTS LATE
T X /NC
1
11
11
ec
I
ICA
C 1
y
1
11)
1
1
%
e 4,2 2
TO THE
A
41
The proposed modification to be considered on December 4,
2012, at 4:30 p.m. will increase the project area within which tax
increments may be expended. Since the Tax Increment District will
terminate December 31, 2012, no further Tax Increment ill be
collected and paid to the District after that date. Therefore, the
modification will have no fiscal or economic impact on the school
district or the county after that date.
SECTION V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4
Subsection 1.1
Subsection 1.2
Subsection 1.3
Subsection 1.4
Subsection 1.5
Subsection 1.6
Subsection 1.7
Subsection 1.8
Subsection 1.9
Subsection 1.10
Subsection 1.11
Subsection 1.12
Subsection 1.13
Subsection 1.14
EXHIBIT V-A
EXHIBIT V-B
EXHIBIT V-C
Page
Statement of Objectives 1
Development Program 1
Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment
Financing District No. 4 1
Parcels in Acquisition 1
Development Activity in the Tax Increment Financin
District for Which Contracts have been signed 3
Other Specific Development Expected To Occur
within the Tax Increment Financing District 3
Estimated Cost of Project 3
Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness 3
Sources of Revenue 4
Original Assessed Value and Estimated Captured
Assessed Value And Estimate of Tax Increment 4
Type of Tax Increment Financing District 5
Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 5
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 5
Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plan
for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 7
Portions of Tax Increment Financing Plan
For Tax Increment Financing District
No. 4 as Adopted April 1, 1986
Boundary Map of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 4 as established April 1, 1986
Tax Increment District No. 4 Resolution of
Clarification and Allocation
g
iii
SECTION V.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4
NOTE: As of February 21, 1989 the City has determined to implement a master
project concept in regard to tax increment financing districts located within Development District
No. 1. Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 was established and its Tax Increment Financing
Plan was approved on April 1, 1986. The February 21, 1989 modification to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan is to implement such a concept. Attached as Exhibit V-A are portions of the
original plan which are not required to be provided in a tax increment financing plan pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1, and, therefore, are not reflected in this
Section V.
Subsection 1.1. Statement of Objectives. See Section I, Modified
Development Program for Development District No. 1, Subsection 1.4, Statement of Objectives.
Subsection 1.2. Development Program. See Section I, Modified
Development Program for Development District No. 1, Subsection 1.1 through 1.15.
Subsection 1.3. Parcels to be included in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 4. The following parcels located in the City of Stillwater, County of Washington, State of
Minnesota:
P.I.N. Owner
90322610 Croixgate Land Co.
90322612 Croixgate Land Co.
FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARCELS
TO BE INCLUDED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 CAN BE
OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT CLERK.
Subsection 1.4 Parcels in Acquisition. Properties identified for acquisition
will be acquired by the City in order to accomplish one or more of the following: remove,
prevent, or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight, or the spread of blight and
deterioration; to eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and unsanitary structures and conditions; reduce
traffic hazards, provide land for needed public streets, utilities, and facilities; remove
incompatible land use, eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses; assemble land for redevelopment;
carry out clearance and/or redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this
plan.
1
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1986)
WOODLAND LAKES DEVELOPMENT
Land Acquisitions $814,000
Site Corrections
Removal/Replacement of Topsoil 226,000
Pond Construction/Controls 55,000
Clearing and Grubbing 39,000
Soil Testing 20,000
Public Improvements
Lift Station/Force Mains 92,400*
Sanitary Sewer 200,000
Water mains 350,000
Stoim Sewer 245,000
Road Construction 750,000
Landscaping 100,000
Electrical Power Distribution 380,000
Lighting/Traffic Controls 100,000
* Estimated on a 66% of total cost payable by Woodland Lakes
Other Public Costs
Engineering 380,000
Legal 25,000
Surveying 5,500
Contingency 410,000
Total Estimates $4,192,500**
** The total dollar amount does not include capitalized interest or other bonding costs. These
costs would need to be calculated as part of a larger bond issue.
Subsection 1.14. Parcels To Be Acquired or May be Acquired In Whole or
In Part Within the Development District.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 4)
PIN
9032-2610
9032-2612
2
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
The City may acquire and reconvey the parcels identified in Section I, Subsection
1.14 of the Development Program.
The following are conditions under which properties not designed to be acquired
may be acquired at a future date:
(1) The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct
purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of the tax
increment financing plan; and
(2) Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to
finance the acquisition and related costs.
Subsection 1.5. Development Activity in the Tax Increment Financing
District for which Contracts have been Signed. The following contracts have been entered into
by the City of Stillwater and the persons named below:
It is expected that the Woodland Lakes Development will have executed
development contracts no later than the summer of 1986.
(As Contracts are entered into with the City of Stillwater, they will be inserted in this
Subsection.)
Subsection 1.6. Other Specific Development Expected to Occur within the
Tax Increment Financing District. The developer plans to construct a 360,000 square foot
shopping mall, a 150 room hotel, a 13,000 square foot banking facility, and 84,300 square feet of
office and retail space. The developer may be assisted with a portion of the land acquisition, site
improvements, and parking costs associated with the various phases of development through tax
increments generated as a result of these developments. The proposed development is further
described in Appendix A of Exhibit V-A, Estimate of Tax Increment.
(As other specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this
Subsection.)
Subsection 1.7. Estimated Cost of Project. See Subsection 1.5 of the
Development Program for estimated costs associated with the Development District.
Subsection 1.8. Estimated amount of Bonded Indebtedness. An estimate of
the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness, using 60% of the tax increment, is expected to be
$3,711,020 based on all projects in the Woodland Lakes development being constructed. The
teiiii of the issue is 16 years and the interest rate of 7 percent is based upon a tax exempt bond.
Due to pending federal legislation the bonds may be taxable and the interest rate may be higher.
The amount of capitalized interest years is estimated to be $997,720. The amount of capitalized
interest will be equal to an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue
until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenue to meet scheduled interest
payments when due, but not exceeding three years as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
475.
Predicting capitalized interest prior to issuance is extremely difficult as it is a
function of interest rates, construction schedules and tax timing; therefore, the above figure is
only an estimate of capitalized interest and is subject to change.
Excess increment may be used to issue future bonds or to pay additional costs for
improvements in the municipal development district.
Subsection 1.9. Sources of Revenue. Public improvement costs,
acquisition, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Estimated Cost of Project
(Subsection 1.7 above) will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments as
described below. It is anticipated that the City will retain all tax increment generated from Tax
Increment Financing District No. 3 to pay for costs outlined in Subsection 1.5 of the
Development Program.
Several other sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated
with the development projects in the municipal development district including industrial revenue
bonds, and other state and federal funds. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique
that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development
to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. The commercial development
is expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1991 at which time the development is estimated to
generate maximum annual tax increment of $1,144,800 collectable in 1992 (PLAN A).
Subsection 1.10. Original Assessed Value and Estimated Captured Assessed
Value and Estimate of Tax Increment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74,
Subdivision 1 and Section 273.76, Subdivision I, the Original Assessed Value (OAV) for the
City of Stillwater tax increment financing redevelopment district is based on the value placed on
the property by the County Assessor in 1985. This assessed value is estimated at $60,650. Each
year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the
total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment
payable to the Stillwater redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in
total assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original
assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation
in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed
valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed
Value was certified, the amount the OAV has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court -ordered abatements.
4
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the
tax increment financing redevelopment district will annually approximate $10,062,715 in all
present and future phases. This amount will be captured for up to twenty-five years or until the
project debt is retired.
Subsection 1.11. Type of Tax Increment Financing District. The City
Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, in determining the need for a tax increment
financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 — 273.78 inclusive,
finds that the district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 273.73, Subdivision 10(a) (3). Less than 70 percent of the parcels in the district are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements, but due to unusual terrain, or soil
deficiencies requiring substantial filling, grading or other physical preparation for use at least 80
percent of the total acreage of such land has a fair market value upon inclusion in the
redevelopment district which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing that land for
development, excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in section 160.1 and local
improvements as described in section 429.021, subdivision 1, clauses 1 to 7, 11, and 12, and
section 420.01, if any, exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of said
preparation.
No parcel shall be included within a redevelopment district pursuant to this paragraph
unless the authority has concluded an agreement or agreements for the development of at least 50
percent of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies, which agreement provides
recourse for the authority should the development not be completed. Development agreements
will be executed prior to the approval of the Tax Increment Finance District Plan. Thus, the tax
increment financing district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment
district and will henceforth be referred to as a redevelopment tax increment financing district.
The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment tax increment
financing district have been listed in Appendix B of Exhibit V-A.
Subsection 1.12. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment
district within the Development District must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration
of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment.
Thus, it is estimated that the tax increment district, including any modifications to the finance
plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate in year 2012.
Subsection 1.13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The
impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing
jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not
include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or
inflation factors.
5
Total
Assessed Value
Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/85 Total $60,650
Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body:
% of District
to Total
Washington County $809,314,635 .0Q7
School District 834 $294,571,383 .021
City of Stillwater $ 76,125,857 .080
Other (Metro Transit, Metro
Council, Mosquito Control,
VocTech #916) $2,740,931,323 .002
Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that each respective
district will have over 99% of each respective district available for noiiiial growth of tax base or
valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate in 1985 levied by each taxing
jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual
loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below assuming development
would occur without public assistance.
The finance plan indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows:
Tax Increment Finance District
Maximum Maximum
Captured Tax
Assessed Increment
Valuation Received
$10,062,715 $1,144,800
Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the
taxing bodies:
Maximum
Mills Percent Tax Increment
City 28.801 25% $ 289,693
County 27.586 24% 277,472
School District 50.548 44% 508,433
Other 6.880 06% 69.202
Total 113.815 100.0% S 1,144,800
6
The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to
compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction.
The tax increments derived from the development alluded to in the tax increment district would
not be available to pay the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City.
Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the
application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new
assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the
captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars
represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating
how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to
be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be
available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the City.
Adjusted* Required Tax
Assessed Value Mills Increment
School District $294,510,733 1.730 $508,433
County $809,253,985 .343 $227,472
City $ 76,065,207 3.810 $289,693
* Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted.
Subsection 1.14. Modication of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 4. As of April 6, 1985, no modifications to Tax Increment
Financing District No. 4 or the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore have been made.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
Pursuant to the adoption of the modification of the Modified Development
Program for Development District No. 1, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 4 is hereby modified to reflect the implementation of the master plan
concept and increased project costs of Development District No. 1 as outlined in Section I,
Subdivision 1.5 of the Modified Development Program.
(AS MODIFIED JUNE 20, 1989)
Pursuant to the adoption of the modification of the Modified Development
Program for Development District No. 1, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 4 is hereby modified to reflect an enlargement of the Project Area and
increased project costs, as outlined in Section I, Subsections 1.5 and 1.13 of the Modified
Development Program.
(AS MODIFIED MARCH 20, 1990)
Pursuant to the adoption of the modification of the Modified Development
Program for Development District No. 1, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
7
Financing District No. 4 is hereby modified to reflect increased project costs, as outlined in
Section I, Subsection 1.5 of the Modified Development Program.
(AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 4, 2012)
The Budget for Tax Increment District No. 4 is modified by clarifying and reallocating to
re -state the Budget according to the attached Exhibit V-C.
The proposed modification to be considered on December 4, 2012 at
4:30 p.ni. will increase the geographic area of the Development
District from that described in the modification of ay 18, 1993, to
that described in Exhibit I-C.
T LE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR Page
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
Subsection 1.1. Definitions 1
Subsection 1.2 Statement and Findings of Public Purpose 2
Subsection 1.3 Statutory Authority 4
Subsection 1.4 Statement of Objectives 6
Subsection 1.5 Estimated Public Costs and Supportive Data 7
Subsection 1.6 Environmental Controls 17
Subsection 1.7 Open Space to be Created 17
Subsection 1.8 Public Facilities to be Considered 17
Subsection 1.9 Proposed Reuse of Property 18
Subsection 1.10 Administration and Maintenance of Development
District 20
Subsection 1.11 Rehabilitation 20
Subsection 1.12 Relocation 21
Subsection 1.13 Boundaries of Development District 21
Subsection 1.14 Parcels to be Acquired or May be Acquired in Whole
or in Part within the Development District 24
Subsection 1.15 Modification of Development Program for
Development District No. 1 26
Exhibit I -A: Boundary Map of Development District No. 1 as of
December 12, 1985 27
Exhibit I-B: Boundary Map of Development District No. 1 as of
May 18, 1993 28
Exhibit I-C Boundary Map of Development District No. 1 as of
December 4, 2012 29
SECTION I.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
(AS MODIFIED JUNE 18, 1996)
Subsection 1.1 Definitions
The terms defined below shall, for purposes of this Development program, have the
meanings herein specified, unless the context otherwise specifically requires:
"Bonds" means Tax Increment Bond or other bonds issued by the City to finance the cost
of public improvements in Development District No. 1.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
"City" means the City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of
the State of Minnesota designated as a home rule charter city.
"Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan which contains the
objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development,
redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City.
"Council" means the City Council of the City, also referred to as the governing body.
"Count}" means the County of Washington, Minnesota.
"Development District Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
§469.124 through 469.134, as amended and supplemented.
"Development District" means Development District No. 1 in the City, which is created
and established hereto pursuant to and in accordance with the Development District Act, and is
geographically described in Section I, Subsection 1.13 of the Development Program.
"Development Program" means this Development Program for Development District No.
1, initially adopted by the Council on May 7, 1985, and as it has been modified. As defined in
Minnesota Statutes §469.125, Subdivision 3, a development program is a statement of objectives
of the City for improvement of a development district which contains a complete statement as to
the public facilities to be constructed within the district, the open space to be created, the
environmental controls to be applied, the proposed reuse of private property and the proposed
operations of the district after the capital improvements within the district have been completed.
(AS ADOPTED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
"Master Project" means that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for each Tax Increment
Financing District within Development District has been modified to include the cost of the
public improvements authorized in all the other Tax Increment Financing Plans for all other Tax
Increment Financing Districts with the Development District. This has the effect of allowing tax
increment generated from Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1 through 4 to be used for the
payment of any public improvements authorized within the Development District.
"Municipal Industrial Development Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, §469.152 through 469.165.
Municipality" means any city, however organized, as defined in Minnesota Statutes
§469.125, subd. 2.
Project Area" means the Development District as geographically described in Section I,
Subsection 1.13, of the Development Program, and depicted in Exhibit I-C.
Public Costs" means the cost of all public improvements to be constructed in aid of
Development District No. 1.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds
issued and to be issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with the Development
District as stated in the Development Program and in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Tax Increment Financing District within the Development District. The teini "Tax Increment
Bonds" shall also include any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds.
"Tax Increment Financing District" means any tax increment financing district presently
established or to be established in the future in the Development District.
"Tax Increment Financing Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
§469.174 through 469.179, inclusive.
"Tax Increment Financing Plan" means the respective Tax Increment Financing Plan, and
as the same shall be modified, for each Tax Increment Financing District located within the
Project Area.
Subsection 1.2 Statement and Findings of Public Purpose
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
It is found that there is a need for new development in the City of Stillwater, Minnesota,
to encourage development within areas which are already built up to provide employment
opportunities to improve the local tax base and to improve the general tax base of the state.
The Council of the City determines that there is a need for development and
redevelopment within the corporate limits of the City in the Development District to provide
2
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the
state. It is found that the area within the Development District is potentially more useful and
valuable than is being realized under existing development, is less productive than is possible
under this program and, therefore, is not contributing to the tax base to its full potential.
Therefore, the City has determined to exercise its authority to develop a program for improving
the Development District of the City to provide an impetus for private development, to maintain
and increase employment, to utilize existing potential and to provide other facilities as outlined
in the Development Program adopted by the City.
The Council has also determined that the proposed developments would not occur solely
through private investment in the foreseeable future; that the tax increment financing plans
proposed herein are consistent with the Development Program; and that the tax increment
financing plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
municipality as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Development District by
private enterprise.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
The City Council of the City has deteiiiiined that there is a need for the City to take
certain actions designed to encourage, ensure and facilitate commercial development and
redevelopment by the private sector of underutilized and unused land located within the
corporate limits of the City, in order to provide additional employment opportunities for
residents of the City and the surrounding areas, to improve the tax base of the City, Independent
School District No. 834 (the School District) and Washington County (the County), thereby
enabling them to better utilize existing public facilities and provided needed public services, and
to improve the general economy of the City, the County and the State. Specifically, the City
Council has determined that the property within Development District No. 1 is either
underutilized or unused due to a variety of factors, including fragmented ownership of the
property, inadequate and multiple zoning of the property, excessive property cost comprising
costs of clearance, grading and soil correction, and inadequate public improvements to serve the
property; all for which have resulted in a lack of private investment; that, as a result, the property
is not providing adequate employment opportunities, and is not contributing to the tax base and
general economy of the City, the School District, the County and the State to its full potential;
and, therefore, that it is necessary for the City to exercise its authority under the Development
District Act and the Tax Increment Financing Act to develop, implement and finance a program
designed to encourage, ensure and facilitate the commercial development and redevelopment of
the property located in Development District No. 1, to further and accomplish the public purpose
specified in this paragraph.
The Council finds that the welfare of the City as well as the State of Minnesota requires
active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry
and commerce to carry out its stated public purpose objectives.
3
Subsection 1.3 Statutory Authority
(AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 1, 1985)
The City of Stillwater designated a portion of the City as a municipal development
district and is proposing to modify the boundary as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
472A. According to Minnesota Statutes, §472A.02, Subdivision 11, a development district is a
specific area within the corporate limits of a municipality which has been so designated and
separately numbered by the governing body.
The City of Stillwater is also utilizing and proposes to modify the development finance
provisions encompassed in Minnesota Statutes, the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, in
conjunction with the modification of the municipal development district.
Subsection 1.4 Statement of Objectives
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, determines that it is necessary,
desirable and in the public interest to establish, designate, develop, and administer a development
district in the City of Stillwater pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A.
The City of Stillwater determines that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements
in the development district shall be accomplished through tax increment financing in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes. The City of Stillwater and the Stillwater City Council seek to achieve
the following objectives through this development plan.
(AS ADOPTED JUKE 18, 1996)
The Council determines that the modification of Development District No. 1 and Tax
Increment Financing Districts 1 through 6 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 7, therein will provide the City with the ability to achieve certain public goals and
objectives not otherwise obtainable in the foreseeable future without City intervention in the
normal development process. These goals include (a) restoring and improving the tax base and
tax revenue generating capacity of Development District No. 1; (b) increasing employment
opportunities and employment in the City; (c) increasing the supply of all types and levels of
housing in the City, including housing affordable by persons of low and moderate income; (d)
realizing comprehensive planning goals; (e) removing blighted conditions; and (f) revitalizing
the property within Development District No. 1 to create an attractive, comfortable, convenient,
and efficient area for industrial, commercial, governmental, convention, and related uses, and
without limitation, the following listed objectives:
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
1. Acquire land or space which is vacant, unused, under used, or inappropriately used.
2. Improve the financial base of the City.
4
3. Provide employment opportunities through the creation of new jobs.
4. Encourage the renovation and expansion of existing businesses and historic
structures.
5. Acquire property containing structurally substandard buildings and remove
structurally substandard buildings for which rehabilitation is not feasible.
6. Eliminate blighting influences which impede potential development.
7. Coordinate elements of the City's Central Business District Revitalization Plan with
these project objectives.
8. Provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City for development
by private enterprise.
(AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 12, 1985)
9. Provide adequate public improvements and utilities to enhance the area for new
development.
10. Promote and secure the prompt development of certain property in the Development
District, which property is not now in productive use or in its highest and best use, in
a manner consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with a minimum
adverse impact on the environment, and thereby promote and secure the development
of other land in the City.
11. Promote and secure additional employment opportunities within the Development
District and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby
improving living standards, reducing unemployment and the loss of skill and
unskilled labor and other human resources in the City.
12. Secure the increase of housing, commercial, and industrial property subject to
taxation by the City, Independent School District No. 834, Washington County, and
other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for
governmental services and programs required to be provided by them.
13. Provide for the financing and construction of public improvements in and adjacent to
the Development District, necessary for the orderly and beneficial development of the
Development District and adjacent areas of the City.
14. Promote the concentration of commercial, office, and other appropriate development
in the Development District so as to maintain the area in a manner compatible with its
accessibility and prominence in the City.
5
15. Encourage local business expansion, improvements, and development, whenever
possible.
16. Create a desirable and unique character within the Development District through
quality land use alternatives and design quality in new and remodeled buildings.
17. Encourage and provide maximum opportunity for private redevelopment of existing
areas and structures which are compatible within the Development Program.
(AS ADOPTED APRIL 30, 1990)
18. Implement the Stillwater Downtown Plan by funding all or part of the capital costs
associated with the implementation as set forth in the proposed Downtown Capital
Facilities Project Program conceptually approved by the City Council at its meeting
of March 15, 1990.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
19. Secure the prompt development of property in Development District No. 1 for its
highest and best use, in a manner consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
with a minimum of adverse impact on the environment, and thereby promote and
secure the development of other land in the City.
20. Secure commercial, office, and other appropriate Development District No. 1 so as to
maintain the area in a manner compatible with its accessibility and prominence in the
City.
21. Secure expansion, improvement, development of existing businesses in Development
District No. 1 and the City.
22. Create a desirable and unique character within Development District No. 1 through
quality land use alternatives and design quality in new and remodeled buildings.
23. Provide maximum opportunity for private redevelopment of existing areas and
structures which are compatible with the Development Program.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
Subsection 1.4 Statement of Objectives
Actions to be taken by the City to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in
Subsection 1.2:
6
1. Acquiring property or property rights on land which is vacant, unused, underused, or
inappropriately used for new or expanding uses as well as supportive parking.
2. Acquire property containing structurally substandard buildings and remove
structurally substandard buildings for which rehabilitation is not feasible.
3. Resell property for development or redevelopment consistent with the Development
Program.
4. Encourage the renovation and expansion of existing businesses.
5. Eliminate blighting influences which impede potential development.
6. Acquisition of property for park purposes and providing park improvements to
compliment private development.
7. Constructing road, bridge, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and other local
improvements needed to serve existing and proposed development consistent with the
Development Program and the Comprehensive Plan.
8. Issuing general obligation improvement bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429 and general obligation tax increment bonds pursuant to the Tax
Increment Financing Act to finance the cost of local improvements constructed to
serve Development District No. 1, and other public costs incurred and to be incurred
by the City in and of the District in accordance with State Law.
9. Any action peiunitted by law in furtherance of all objectives set forth in that
Subsection 1.4 including but not limited to objective 13 as set forth therein.
Subsection 1.5 Estimated Public Costs and Supportive Data
The public improvements to be made within Development District No. 1 include sanitary
sewer, water, storm sewer, road, bridge, recreational, parking, and park and open space
improvements. Other parking activities will include acquisition and clearing of land, soil
correction work and resale of land for development.
(AS ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
The estimated costs of the public improvements to be made within the Development
District and financed by tax increments will be derived from the tax increment financing districts
within the Development District.
(AS AMENDED DECEMBER 40, 2012)
7
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 1)
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
Public Improvements
Utility upgrading
New development
Park improvements
Utility extensions
Public accesses
Land Acquisition
Park development
Public accesses
Other Public Costs
Relocation
Demolition
Planning/engineering
Administration
Capitalized interest
Contingency
RANGE
$1,300,000 - $1,500,000
$300,000 - 500,000
$1,5000,000 - 1,700,000
Total Estimate $3,100,000 - $3,700,000*
* It is estimated that approximately $60,000 to $90,000 of the $3,700,000 could be
financed with the first phase of tax increments from the restaurant. It is expected that
approximately $9,000 to $13,000 of tax increments will be available for amortizing a bond or
"pay as you go".
All phases will be implemented only if there are sufficient tax increment revenues from
new development in the district. Future phase expenditures may require future bond issues to
"front-end" future phase costs.
(AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 1, 1985)
Public Improvements
Utility upgrading
New development
Park improvements
Utility extensions
Public accesses
Land Acquisition
Park development
Public accesses
Other Public Costs
Relocation
Demolition
Planning/engineering
Administration
Capitalized interest
Contingency
RANGE
$1,300,000 - $1,500,000
$500,000 - 750,000
$1,600,000 — 1,800,000
Total Estimate $3,400,000 - $4,050,000*
* It is estimated that approximately $60,000 to $90,000 of the $4,050,000 could be
financed with the first phase of tax increments from the restaurant. It is expected that
approximately $9,000 to $13,000 of tax increments will be available for amortizing a bond or
"pay as you go". If all development listed in Appendix A of Exhibit II-B as bonded projects is
completed, an additional $1,360,000 could be available for project expenses.
All phases will be implemented only if there are sufficient tax increment revenues from
new development in the district. Future phase expenditures may require future bond issues to
"front-end" future phase costs.
9
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
The following budget may have to be amended from time to time as priorities change and
as tax increments become available.
Land Acquisition $2 500 000
Additional Public Improvements consisting of: $3,000,000
site preparation, relocation, utility extension,
utility upgrading, park improvements, parking
improvements, planning/engineering and
administration
Total of Additional Public Improvements
$5,500,000*
* As bonds are not anticipated at this time, the above -listed public improvements will be
completed as tax increments are generated and available.
(AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
Land Acquisition
Utilities
Site Preparation
Landscaping
Interest Reimbursement
Professional Services
Contingency
Capitalized Interest
Bond Discount
Cost of Issuance/Plan
SEADC
City Administration
Total
$250,000
118,000
89,760
53,269
62,833
15,000
10,000
126,125
10,500
20,000
10,000
14,000
$779,922*
* The City will issue bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $700,000, with a final
maturity in 2002. Based upon prevailing interest rates at the time of issuance, the amount
available for project costs shall be that amount after capitalized interest, bond discount and
expenses of the City have been deducted.
10
(AS MODIFIED MARCH 20, 1990)
Demolition
Site Preparation
Excavation and Pilings
Site Utilities
Structural Reinforcement
Administrative, including
engineering ($5,713)
Interest Expense (at 7.00%)
Total
$14,000
154,764
74,412
45,132
189,496
59,400
116,500
$653,704
* The City has determined to provide assistance to the developer on a pay as you go basis
payable over 15 years at 7.00% interest. Total principal and interest will not exceed $600,000.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED DECEMER 12, 1985)
NELLE PROJECT
Range
Land Acquisition $240,000 - $500,000
Public Improvements/Parking 124,500 - 1,922,500
Bonding/Legal/Administration 20,000 - 185,000
Capitalized Interest (3 years) 131,500 - 892,500
Total $516,000 - $3,500,000*
* It is estimated that a bond of approximately $516,000 could be issued with the first 30
unit inn expansion of the development at the "low" range. The "high" range would include a 50
unit inn expansion, a 100 unit hotel addition, 20 unit motel, an accelerated learning center and
related public space, parlor/banquet rooms, food service/utility and parking based upon the
developer's construction plan, and would support a $3,500,000 bond.
(AS AMENDED AUGUST 6, 1996)
The City Council adopted a resolution to decertify Tax Increment District No. 2.
11
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED DECEMBER 12, 1985)
ARKELL PROJECT Estimate
Land Acquisition and $803,000
Site improvements
soil corrections
utilities
site preparation
Bonding/Legal/Administration 91,000
Capitalized Interest 306,000
Total $1,200,000
(AS AMENDED February 1, 2005)
The City Council adopted a resolution to decertify Tax Increment District No. 3.
12
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1986)
WOODLAND LAKES DEVELOPMENT
Land Acquisition
Site Corrections
Removal/Replacement of Topsoil
Pond Construction/Controls
Clearing and Grubbing
Soil Testing
Public Improvements
Lift Station/Force Mains
Sanitary Sewer
Water Mains
Storm Sewer
Road Construction
Landscaping
Electrical Power Distribution
Lighting/Traffic Controls
Other Public Costs
Engineering
Legal
Surveying
Contingency
Total Estimate
$814,000
226,000
55,000
39,000
20,000
92,400*
200,000
350,000
245,000
750,000
100,000
380,000
100,000
380,000
25,000
5,500
410,000
$4,192,500**
*
**
Estimated on a 66% of total cost payable by Woodland Lakes.
The total dollar amount does not include capitalized interest
These costs would need to be calculated as part of a larger bond issue.
or other bonding costs.
(AS MODIFIED JUNE 20, 1989)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5
BRICK POND PROJECT
Land Acquisition
Park Improvements
Green Belt Buffer and Landscaping
Utility Assessment Reduction
Administrative
Total
Estimate
$60,000
50,000
250,000
200,000
56,000
$616,000*
* The total dollar amount does not include capitalized interest or other
any. These costs would need to be calculated as part of a larger bond issue.
(AS MODIFIED AUGUST 6, 1996)
bonding costs, if
The City Council adopted a Resolution to decertify Tax Increment District No. 5.
13
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 30, 1990)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1 THROUGH 5
The following budget may have to be amended from time to time as priorities change
and as Tax Increments become available:
STILLWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN CAPITAL COSTS
PHASE I — EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Streets
Storm Sewer
Watermain
Sanitary Sewer
Lighting
(West of Main)
(South of Nelson to Mulberry) (1)
T.V. Sewers and Flood Proof Review
Streetscape
Parking Lots (Parking District)
Total
$1,717,685
290,530
187,515
414,175
236,045
579,090
13,300
114,345
264,580
3,817,265
PHASE II — ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS AND NORTH MAIN
North Main Streetscape
North Main Lighting
Warden's House Wall
Entry Sign
RR Treatment
Signage Landscaping
Bluff Area Landscaping
Total
$59,400
219,780
18,750
14,850
187,385
32,320
49,855
$582,340
PHASE III — LOWELL PARK SOUTH
Lowell Park (South)
Levee Wall (South)
Boat Plaza
Brick Alley Pedestrian Ramp
Total
$265,485
480,000
329,900
77,125
$1,152,510
14
PHASE TV — LOWELL PARK NORTH
Lowell Park (North)
Levee Wall (North)
Mulberry Point
Water Street (Myrtle to Commercial)
Water Street (Commercial to Mulberry)
Mulberry Street (Water to Mulberry Point)
Mulberry Street (2nd to Main)
Lighting
(Water — Myrtle to Mulberry)
(Mulberry Street 2nd to Main)
(Mulberry Street Main to Water)
(Mulberry Street Water to Point)
Streetscape
(Mulberry Street 2nd to Main)
(Mulberry Street Main to Point)
Parking Lots - Mulberry Point
Total
$366,985
480,000
429,430
14,900
95,190
71,650
77,730
90,850
43,875
19,845
43,875
10,395
8,910
268,650
$2,022,285
PHASE V — PLAZAS
Overlook Plaza
Pioneer Park Plaza
Mill Plaza
Historic Plaza
Commercial Plaza
Marina Plaza
Total
$114,900
99,800
162,300
104,600
71,300
110,900
$663,800
PHASE VI — PARKING RAMP
Parking Ramp
Grand Garage Pedestrian Way
Total
$2,052,000
157,300
$2,209,300
15
PHASE VII — ACQUISITION COSTS
Mulberry Point $400,000
Zephyr and Highway $300,000
Maintain Sites
Parking Ramp Property $250,000
at 2nd and Chestnut
Maple Island $3,000,000
Total $14,397,500
It is estimated that all or a portion of the costs as set forth in the Development Program as
amended will be paid through the use of Tax Increments generated within the Development
District or through the sale of a Tax Increment Bond or Bonds that will be retired by Tax
Increments generated within the District.
16
The City,
public facilities,
development or
development.
Subsection 1.6 Environmental Controls
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
The proposed redevelopment projects in the Development District do not present any
permanent environmental problems. All municipal actions, public improvements, and private
development shall be carried out in a manner that will enhance, rather than detract from the
natural environment. All necessary environmental permits and clearances will be obtained.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
The proposed development activities in the Development District do not present
significant environmental concerns. All municipal actions, public improvements and private
development shall be carried out in a manner consistent with existing environmental standards.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
The proposed development activities in the Development District are not expected to
present significant environmental concerns. However, all municipal actions, public
improvements and private development shall be carried out in a manner consistent with all
applicable federal and state environmental controls and standards, all necessary documents
relating to environmental impacts shall be prepared, and all necessary authorizations relating to
environmental matters shall be obtained.
Section 1.7 Open Space to be Created
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
In addition to the provisions of Chapter 472A.02, Subdivision 6, some open space may be
created for the purpose of enhancing housing development and providing circulation of
pedestrian traffic, special landscaping of residential and public property, and creation of
recreational facilities including parks and walkways. The open space will be aimed at the
improvement of the quality of life, quality of transportation and the physical facilities.
Section 1.8 Public Facilities to be Considered
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
in carrying out its objectives shall consider the construction of the following
when financially feasible, and when needed to encourage desirable private
when considered desirable in order to promote and enhance existing
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
17
Revitalization within the Development District must be financially feasible, marketable
and compatible with longer range City development plans. The following recommendations
represent the options that satisfy the development for the Project area in the initial state while
taking advantage of opportunities which are currently available.
1. Clearance and redevelopment,
2. Rehabilitation of buildings to remain,
3. Relocation of buildings and the inhabitants of buildings,
4. Vacation of rights -of -way,
5. Dedication of new rights -of -way,
6. New construction and expansion of commercial and industrial buildings,
7. Land acquisition,
8. North -end development assistance, and
9. Installation or replacement of public and private facilities and utilities.
(AS MODIFIED MAY 18, 1993)
Public facilities to be undertaken within the project area include the construction of
parking lot on a portion of the foiiner Stillwater Junior High School in order to induce and to
provide an impetus for the renovation and preservation of a portion of the school facility.
Subsection 1.9 Proposed Reuse of Property
. Current Land Use
The current land uses in the development district include public/semi-public,
residential, multi -family residential, industrial, land consumptive/highway oriented
commercial and retail/office/service commercial. The development sites are or will
be zoned in conformance with zoning standards for commercial and industrial uses.
(AS ADOPTED JUNE 18, 1996)
The public improvements needed to bring about the Development Program do not
contemplate the acquisition of land and site improvements. However, the
Development Program does not contemplate the acquisition of private property until
such time as a private developer presents an economically feasible program for the
reuse of that property. Proposals, in order to be considered, must be within the
framework of the goals and objectives set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Prior to
18
faunal consideration of the acquisition of any property, the City Council will require
a binding contract, perfoiniance bond and/or other evidence or guarantees that a
supporting tax increment or other funds will be available to repay the public cost
associated with the proposed acquisition. It is the intent of the City to negotiate the
acquisition of property whenever necessary. Appropriate restrictions regarding the
reuse and redevelopment of property shall be incorporated into any land sale contract
or development agreement to which the City is a part.
2. Proposed Reuse of Land
It is proposed that a portion of the property identified in Section C of the
Development Plan will be acquired for the construction of a restaurant and bank
expansion. The restaurant site is capable of accommodating 6,000 square feet of
onsite development plus related deck, patio space and parking. Certain existing
structures will be relocated or demolished to prepare for this development. The size
of the bank expansion is yet to be determined as well as the extent of rehabilitation of
certain buildings in the "historic district".
(AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 1, 1985)
In addition, several individual developments are planned for certain vacant parcels in
the industrial park.
(AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 12, 1985)
It is proposed that a portion of the property identified in Subsection 1.14 of the
Development Plan will be acquired for the construction of an elderly housing
development. The 35 acre site is capable of accommodating 283 units of residential
rental development plus related retail/limited commercial development and parking.
The development parcel is currently vacant. Phase I will consist of 64 units of low-
rise housing, Phase IIA will be 80 units of low-rise housing, and Phase IIB will be a
two story 75 unit development. Phase IIIA is estimated to include a shopping/retail
facility and Phase IIIB consists of 64 units of low-rise housing. The City may also
assist with the public improvement and land acquisition costs for the expansion of an
existing hotel. This project is further described in Exhibit IV -A.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
The public improvements needed to bring about the new development include site
improvements, and general improvements. The estimated public improvement costs
are referenced in the tax increment financing plan and are collectively described in
Subsection 1.5.
The Development Program does not contemplate the acquisition of private property
until such time as a private developer presents an economically feasible program for
the reuse of that property. Proposals, in order to be considered must be within the
19
framework of the above cited goals and objectives, and must clearly demonstrate
feasibility as a public program. Prior to formal consideration of the acquisition of any
property, the City Council will require a binding contract, perfoiiiiance bond and/or
other evidence or guarantees that a supporting tax increment or other funds will be
available to repay the public cost associated with the proposed acquisition. It shall be
the intent of the City to negotiate the acquisition of property whenever necessary.
Appropriate restrictions regarding the reuse and redevelopment of property shall be
incorporated into any land sale contract to which the City is a part.
Subsection 1.10 Administration and Maintenance of Development District
(AS MODIFIED MAY 5, 1985)
Maintenance and operation of the public improvements in the municipal development
district will be the responsibility of the development district administration of the City. Each
year the administrator of the municipal development district will submit to the City Council the
maintenance and operation budget for the following year to be charged to the property in the
district. The City Council will certify the assessments to the County Auditor for collection. The
City Council will levy these assessments, if any, in accordance with the procedures established in
Minnesota Statutes, §429.061.
(AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 1, 1985)
The municipal development district administrator will administer the municipal
development district pursuant to the provisions of Section 472A.10 of the Minnesota Statutes
provided, however, that such powers may only be exercised at the direction of the City Council.
No action taken by the administrator of the development district pursuant to the above mentioned
powers shall be effective without authorization by the City Council.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
Maintenance and operation of the public improvements be the responsibility of the City
Coordinator of the City who shall serve as the Administrator of the Development District. The
powers, duties and responsibilities of the Administrator are spelled out in the Administrative
Guide for the Administration of the Modified Development Program for Development District
No. 1, attached hereto as Appendix A. Each year the Administrator will submit to the Council
the maintenance and operation budget for the following year.
Subsection 1.11 Rehabilitation
(AS ORIGINALLY MODIFIED MAY 7, 1985)
Although the City has designated a rehabilitation zone to target such improvements
within the Central Business District, no rehabilitation standards or a formal program for
rehabilitation of buildings has been adopted. The City will encourage the use of industrial
development revenue bonds or note (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474) for rehabilitation,
20
renovation and expansion of existing buildings in the project as well as State of Minnesota grant
funds and tax increment proceeds.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
Owners of properties within the Development District will be encouraged to rehabilitate
their property to confoiiii with the applicable state and local codes and ordinances, as well as any
design standards. Owners of properties who purchase property within the Development District
from the City may be required to rehabilitate their properties as a condition of sale of land. The
City will provide such rehabilitation assistance as may be available from federal, state or local
sources.
Subsection 1.12 Relocation
(AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED MAY 7, 1985)
The City accepts its binding obligations under provisions of federal and state law
(Minnesota Statutes, §117.50 through 117.56) for relocation and will administer payment
benefits to individuals and businesses to be displaced by public action.
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
The City accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation pursuant to Section
469.133 of the Development District Act.
Subsection 1.13 Boundaries of Development District
Boundaries of Development District No. 1 as established May 7, 1985.
Beginning at a point of intersection with the centerlines of Aspen Street and Third Street,
City of Stillwater, Minnesota; thence southerly from said point along the centerline of
Third Street to a point of intersection with the centerline of Orleans Street; thence
westerly from said point along said centerline, as extended between Everett Street and
Washington Street, to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of County Road
No. 5; thence southwesterly from said point and along said right-of-way line to its
intersection with the southern municipal boundary; thence easterly more or less, from
said point along said southerly municipal boundary to its intersection with the westerly
shoreline of Lake St. Croix; thence northerly from said point and along said shoreline to
its intersection with the centerline of Elm Street, as extended; thence westerly from said
point along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of First Street; thence
northerly from said point and along said centerline to a point of intersection with the
centerline of Aspen Street; thence westerly from said point along said centerline to the
point of beginning.
(AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 1, 1985)
21
Beginning at a point of intersection with the centerlines of Aspen Street and Third Street,
City of Stillwater, Minnesota; thence southerly from municipal boundary; thence easterly
more or less, from said point along said southerly municipal boundary to its intersection
with the westerly shoreline of Lake St. Croix; thence northerly from said point and along
said shoreline to its intersection with the centerline of St. Croix Avenue, as extended,
thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Main Street;
thence southerly from said point and along said centerline to its intersection with the
centerline of Elm Street, as extended; thence westerly from said point along said
centerline to its intersection with the centerline of First Street; thence northerly from said
point and along said centerline to a point of intersection with the centerline of Aspen
Street; thence westerly from said point along said centerline to the point of beginning.
(AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 12, 1985)
Beginning at a point of intersection with the centerlines of Aspen Street and Third Street,
City of Stillwater, Minnesota; thence southerly from said point along the centerline of
Third Street to a point of intersection with the centerline of Orleans Street; thence
westerly from said point along said centerline, as extended between Everett Street and
Washington Street, to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of parcel 9032-
2620, thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of
parcel 9032-2620; thence easterly along said northerly line to its intersection with the
easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 5; thence southwesterly from said point
and along said right-of-way line to its intersection with the southern municipal boundary;
thence easterly more or less, from said point along said southerly municipal boundary to
its intersection with the westerly shoreline of Lake St. Croix; thence northerly from said
point and along said shoreline to its intersection with the centerline of St. Croix Avenue,
as extended; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of
Main Street; thence southerly from said point and along said centerline to its intersection
with the centerline of Elm Street, as extended; thence westerly from said point along said
centerline to its intersection with the centerline of First Street; thence northerly from said
point and along said centerline to a point of intersection with the centerline of Aspen
Street; thence westerly from said point along said centerline to the point of beginning.
(AS MODIFIED JUNE 20, 1989)
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 30
North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, lying easterly of County
Highway No. 66, and lying Northerly of a line from a point on the centerline of County
Highway No. 66, 250.35 feet South of the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter, to a point on the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter 250.03 feet South of the North line. Subject to easements of record.
That part of the West 128 feet of the East 555 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington
County, Minnesota, lying North of the Northerly right-of-way of State Trunk Highway
22
No. 212 (State Highway No. 36), except the North 661.4 feet of said Southwest Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter.
That part of the East 427 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, lying
North of the Northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 212 (State Highway
No. 36), except the North 661.4 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter.
That part of the West Half of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County,
Minnesota, lying North of the Northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No.
212 (State Highway No. 36). Subject to easements of record.
That part of the East Half of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County,
Minnesota, and the West Half of the East Half except the Easterly 300 feet of said
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying North of the Northerly right-of-way
line of State Trunk Highway No. 212 (State Highway No. 36). Subject to easements of
record.
The East 300 feet of the West Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington
County, Minnesota, except that part lying Southerly of a line 350 feet North of and
parallel to the Northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 212 (State
Highway No. 36).
That part of the West 135 feet of the East 300 feet of the West Half of the East Half of
the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range
20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line
of State Trunk Highway No. 212 (State Highway No. 36) and lying Southerly of a line
350 feet North of and parallel to said North right-of-way line.
(AS MODIFIED MAY 18, 1993)
Lots 3 through 12 inclusive, Lot 2, except the North 11 feet of the East 70 feet thereof, all
in Block 36 of the original Town, now City of Stillwater, according to the perfected plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County,
Minnesota, including all that property lying between Lots 15 through 22, Block 35 and
Lots 3 through 6, Block 36, original Town, now City of Stillwater, according to the
perfected plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, subject
to an easement for street and municipal utilities created by the dedication of Third Street.
(AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 4, 2012)
The boundaries of the District are the corporate boundary of the City as existing
on December 4, 2012 and as depicted on the map attached as Exhibit I-C.
23
Subsection 1.14 Parcels To Be Acquired or May Be Acquired In Whole or In Part Within
the Development District
(AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 21, 1989)
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 1)
PIN
9028-0030
11022-2000
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 2)
PIN
10691-3950
10691-3830
10691-3860
10691-3890
10691-3920
10691-3770
10691-4040
10691-4010
10691-4070
10691-3990
10691-3980
10691-3740
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 3)
PIN
9032-2620
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 4)
PIN
9032-2610
9032-2612
24
(AS MODIFIED JUNE 20, 1989)
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 5)
That part of the West Half of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County,
Minnesota, lying North of the Northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No.
212 (State Highway No. 36). Subject to easements of record.
(AS MODIFIED SEPTEMBER 19, 1989)
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 1)
PIN
10691-3590
10691-3650
10691-2000
10691-2030
10691-2060
10691-2090
10691-2120
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 2)
PIN
10691-3720
10691-3740
10691-3770
10691-2150
(AS MODIFIED MARCH 20, 1990)
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 1)
PIN
10690-2050
10690-6950
11022-2050
(AS MODIFIED MAY 18, 1993)
25
(Tax Increment Financing District No. 2)
Lots 3 through 12 inclusive, Lot 2, except the North 11 feet of the East 70 feet thereof, all
in Block 36 of the original Town, now City of Stillwater, according to the perfected plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County,
Minnesota, including all that property lying between Lots 15 through 22, Block 35 and
Lots 3 through 6, Block 36, original Town, now City of Stillwater, according to the
perfected plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, subject
to an easement for street and municipal utilities created by the dedication of Third Street.
Subsection 1.15 Modification of Development Program for Development District
No. 1
1. On October 1, 1985, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect an enlargement of the Project Area.
2. On December 12, 1985, the Development Program was modified by the City Council
to reflect an enlargement of the Project Area.
3. On February 21, 1989, the Development Program was modified by the City Council
to reflect the implementation of a master project concept within Development District
No. 1 and increased project costs.
4. On June 20, 1989, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect an enlargement of the Project Area and increased project costs.
5. On September 19, 1989, the Development Program was modified by the City Council
to reflect a change in the parcels to be or may be acquired within the Project Area.
6. On March 20, 1990, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect increased project costs.
7. On April 30, 1990, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect increased expenditures to be made within the Development District and to
increase the Bonded Indebtedness to be made within the Development District.
8. On May 18, 1993, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect an enlargement of the Project Area and increased project costs.
9. On June 18, 1996, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect an enlargement of the Project Area and increased project costs, and
establishment of Tax Increment Finance District No.7.
10. On May 20, 2003, the Development Program was modified by the City Council to
reflect the establishment of Tax Increment Finance District No. 10.
26
uwt+ o r c rt o+
\�� .Me t+•t I.•oy OY
�Lb:l
illli lI
L L
_
MAA
;ft
t
J
•
,\ 1
!
I ,1
- -2 ---;L-
1.-"‘'
I
,1•-
/24171:.\
e•-(1,,...:.; .i..,.L7._t:;,..r.. • .:./ ri..,v.:;^.111
---...., r.-;•.----, ..-.-:-. •s-r In r-rtg-- i.7.7n ;ft.,. , • , - •
l',17:4[:31 iir-int•-;;;; :::!-. rary.;....) LI --I 11
cr..-t_.... ,....)„...) , . .......:,..;.;;Fti.;-::::.. _ ii 1
C-':,11 17. 221.'1 ,...F '..::.-;::...:-:.:.::-., :.•-.::-."!:il":-.:.-_..1.----':c:°1!
\ 1.1 1 riii[i ,7,111,,17.N...,.::_4t,...i,i.,:,.1...11:'::liji
1
..'' ---t I
. Fi .--...---..... ,,
Ott• 4 - 'TZ':5-7 1 I 1 - 1!1lial..217: ...111.
3
,.-11::: ,-:-1,E--;f1-01lricilLig-jiiA ::"1-::...; 1
11'
a_:.--.1111jr11.1171161M1 LT.L;:,12r,A
nE"EIEDE-2:3E----:13Eira
11;13PUFPFFp-
1
11 -;) ;..JCI
„L. "
prIr1nI
!.4.J • • ' st. _i.14,0 " '
; 1
E52-3' 1LLJ9111
P.7
r "
5,-71;E Cej Lit
till
----:-,1:,1-------------/
1...-•:::-L: 1 • ' ILL...., ......„ • ..,
L. 1 ,;.,-144:70Eiliffi Tit ill T1 !
Ne,r/
‘Cf:•71':'
• ' ' 1 '
1 r_71F71Liliji (±12,11J
ali,,, .,. L:.!.,
1c-.-E-rt n,i-T-,17-, 'I
EL:3727i E.23 r,ti ' 11,..!
,.,
'Ll.L.11:
77-
"
1 ‘
•.„-.... !.i.1U.ILL —!..:.i!L.ILL.11,; 'zi , —
4 .‘t
-tit t i i
. f.
l' / \ '' \
I 4 4
. 4..
..
i
i
!
/?70t-Ieltke,C Ocve/ct,‘,/).5..(c)
/ rx (,r 6 )
EXHIBIT
I—B
CITY OF
STILLWATER, IINNESOTA
28
n Aga
A O
LINSON COURT
CIR
nonr �
ST
moll I
�' ST.
MIME