HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-09 CPC Packet1ME IIRTNPLA CE OF MINNESOTA
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North
September 9, 2015
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of August 12, 2015 regular meeting minutes
IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a
part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to
staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit
your comments to 5 minutes or less.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on
the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will
then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given
5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the
conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take
action on the proposed item.
2. Case No. 2015-29: Consideration of a 1'6" variance to the 15' combined Side Yard Setback for houses [City
Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for a two-story addition to the structure. Located at 319 Maple St W. Peter
Koltun, Owner. Paul Randall, Applicant.
3. Case No. 2015-30: Consideration of a 11'6" variance to the 20' Front yard Setback for houses [City Code
Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the reconstruction of a first floor, rear entry to the structure. Located at 1204 4th
Ave S. Rebecca Ketchum, Owner.
4. Case No. 2015-31: Consideration of a 5%, 275 square foot variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for
structures [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the construction of a 42 square foot first floor addition to the
structure Located at 424 Greeley St N. Nancy Nelson, Owner.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. Case No. 2015-25: Conditional Use Permit request for cluster development. Located at 8753 and
8911 Neil Ave N. Kenneth Heifort, Owner Jim Boo, Applicant. (Tabled at the applicant's request)
6. Case No. 2015-14: Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Stillwater's 2008
Comprehensive Plan specifically to the City's Park Plan and the Transportation Plan to incorporate a Master
Trails Plan into the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as required by the release of a Metropolitan Council System
VII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
7. For Your Information — Staff Verbal Updates
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ate
TOE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 12, 2015
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Lauer, Middleton, Siess, Council
Representative Junker
Absent: Commissioners Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly
Staff: City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of July 8, 2015 meeting minutes
Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the July 8, 2015 meeting
minutes. All in favor, 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2015-23. Variance for building and installation of an internally accessed vertical lift/elevator,
located at 408 Maple Street West. Ryan and Kara Forcier, owners.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants are requesting a 6' variance to the 20' front yard
setback to construct an interior -accessed vertical lift/elevator. Staff recommends approval with
conditions.
Ryan Forcier, applicant, explained they wish to install the vertical lift/elevator to transport their son,
who is severely disabled, between the upper and main level of their home.
Commissioner Middleton asked if the back side of the home would work instead. Mr. Forcier said
there is already a wheelchair ramp at the back entrance to the home.
Eric Olson, 324 Maple Street West, voiced support for the request. It would not detract from the
neighborhood.
Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve Case No. 2015-23,
a Variance for building and installation of vertical lift, located at 408 Maple Street West, with the
following conditions:
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's
Case No. 2015-23.
b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to exterior alterations.
c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure.
d. Major exterior modifications to the Variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. All in favor, 5-0.
Case No. 2015-24. Special Use Permit and associated Variances for 952 square foot garage with 682
square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, located at 1343 First Street South. Lowell Schmoeckel, owner.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant plans to construct a two-story garage. Because
garages in this district are restricted to one story, he is requesting a Special Use Permit for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) which would require a 180 square foot Variance to the maximum
garage size of 800 square feet, and a 17.6' Variance to the 25' rear yard setback for the ADU. The
applicant does not intend to finish the second -story dwelling unit at this time; the space will be used
for his hobbies. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for an ADU and approval of the
17.6' Variance to the rear yard setback, with conditions. Staff recommends denial of the 180 square
foot Variance to the 800 square foot maximum garage footprint provision, finding there is no practical
difficulty other than the applicant's desire for more storage on the main floor.
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing.
Lowell Schmoeckel, applicant, explained an originally planned gable roof design did not fit the
property. A hip roof would be more consistent. The second story will be used for storage. He is willing
to stub in sewer and water but has no intention of using it for dwelling space.
Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant would consider reducing the size by 152 feet. Mr.
Schmoeckel responded he needs the additional space for storage as he has no useable basement.
Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing.
Chairman Kocon commented that the building appears large. He would prefer a smaller footprint.
Commissioner Siess agreed.
Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the 17.6' Variance to the
25' rear yard setback and to deny the 180 square foot Variance, for a 952 square foot garage with 682
square foot ADU for Case No. 2015-24, located at 1343 First Street South, with the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be in substantial conformance to those on file with the Community Development Department
for Case No. 2015-24.
b. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department and a grading escrow
in an amount deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department for the new construction shall be
submitted.
c. A Design Permit shall be obtained from the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the submittal of
a building permit.
d. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the garage. The building permit shall clearly
show the maximum height of the ADU, in correlation to the height of the existing residence.
e. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the ADU shall be connected to municipal sewer and
water. All in favor, 5-0.
Page 2 of 8
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
Case No. 2015-25. Conditional Use Permit for cluster development, located at 8753 and 8911 Neal
Avenue North. Kenneth and Geraldine Heifort, owners and Bim Boo, applicant.
City Planner Wittman noted that the applicants are requesting that the Commission table consideration
of this item until the Commission's September 9 meeting.
Chairman Kocon opened and continued the public hearing to September 9.
Case No. 2015-28. Variance to setback requirements for construction of an attached porch, located at 812
Harriet Street South. Margaret (Betsy) Glennon, owner.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a 9' Variance to the 20' front yard
setback and a 17' Variance to the 30' slope setback to construct a porch to be added to the existing
structure. The existing 5'+/- porch located on the rear (north) will be replaced with a 16.5' long porch
that would extend 9' beyond the wall of the home. Staff recommends approval of the Variances with
conditions.
Betsy Glennon, applicant, reviewed the history of the home. The porch is a simple screen porch
overlooking the ravine. The original porch is rotting on its footings and she would like to restore it to
its original heritage using historical colors and architecture. It will be a modest addition.
Commissioner Siess asked how steep the hillside is. Ms. Glennon replied the slope varies but the
hillside is steep and access is challenging.
Commissioner Middleton asked about the vegetation on the slope to the northwest. Ms. Glennon
responded there are old lilacs, box elder, elm and volunteer scrub trees, grapevines and burdock. She
has added birch, chestnut, burr oak and cherry trees. There is no erosion.
Commissioner Middleton asked if there are gutters on the home and if gutters could be directed to the
existing rain garden. Ms. Glennon said yes. and she will put gutters on the porch if desired. She would
not object to gutters leading to the rain garden.
Commissioner Collins thanked Ms. Glennon for her preservation efforts and asked about screening.
Ms. Glennon responded because of the nearby bed and breakfast, the north side will be screened.
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve Case No. 2015-28, a
9' Variance to the front yard setback, and a 17' Variance to the slope setback for construction of an
attached porch, located at 812 Harriet Street South, with the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department for
Case No. 2015-28.
b. A building permit, or an amendment to an existing building permit, shall be reviewed and approved
prior to exterior alterations.
c. The porch addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure.
d. Major exterior modifications to the Variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. All in favor, 5-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Page 3 of 8
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
Case No. 2015-21. Variance for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing
monument sign at the south entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South. Mike
Johnson, applicant.
City Planner Wittman stated that at its July meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing and
notice for an additional Variance associated with the installation of a second free-standing sign to be
located on the Lake Elmo Bank property, because the proposed location would require a variance that
was not lawfully noticed for. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new site plan indicating
where the second sign is proposed to be located. The 5' wide sign would be 5'6" from the property
line, necessitating a 4'6" variance. However, in correspondence with Jim Hall, Principal Project
Manager for the Minnesota Department of Transportation Highway 36 project, it appears there is
limited space between the property line and the back of the parking lot curb in this location. While
MnDOT's right of way plan indicates 5.85' in this area, Mr. Hall stated this is not based on survey
data and is not 100% accurate. He also indicated the ROW is not parallel to the parking lot curb. The
applicant is requesting a second free-standing sign and an up to 15' setback Variance for the location
of the sign, to be located within 1' of the property line. Staff recommends approval of the Variance
for Case No. 2015-21 to allow for one additional free-standing sign, for a total of two free standing
signs to be located at 1937 Greeley Street South; and approval of a 15' Variance to allow for a free-
standing sign to be located on the edge of the West Frontage Road right of way, with conditions.
Mike Johnson, Graphic House, applicant, acknowledged he understands the staff report. They have an
issue with proposed condition #3 about lighting. A reasonable alternative would be to make the
background of the sign opaque so it doesn't light at all, so that the only thing that lights in the evening
are the letters.
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to approve Case No. 2015-21, Variance
for the total number of signs permitted for the construction of a free-standing monument sign at the south
entrance of Lake Elmo Bank, located at 1937 Greeley Street South, with the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's
Case No. 2015-10 dated July 14, 2015.
b. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Survey showing the
proposed sign in relationship to the parking lot curb, the West Frontage Road curb and the property line.
c. The free-standing sign adjacent to West Frontage Road may be lit during business hours only.
d. Any lighting shall produce no lumens at the property line. All in favor, 5-0.
Case No. 2015-22. Consideration of a 19-lot residential Preliminary Plat and associated Variances,
located at 1902 William Street North. Sterling Black, applicant.
City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. The applicant came before the Planning Commission on
July 8, 2015 with a 20-lot preliminary plat to be known as Hazel Park Villas, located at the western
end of Hazel Street next to Stillwater Country Club. The initial application included numerous
Variances such as street width, lot frontage, cul-de-sac length and building coverage. The Planning
Commission could not find in favor of the Variances requested and tabled action to allow the developer
to revise the preliminary plat. The revised plat dated July 28, 2015 has eliminated one lot and all
Variances. The current 19-lot plan meets all lot dimension standards, coverage standards and road
design standards. Staff received three comments: letters from Melanie Ebertz and Gail Plewacki, and
Page 4 of 8
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
a submission from 22 residents representing 10 properties, opposing the application on the basis the
cul-de-sac is a risk to the public. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Sterling Black, applicant, stated the lots have been reconfigured since the last meeting, one unit has
been cut, and the length of the cul-de-sac has been reduced to comply with City requirements. The
current proposal is a better product for them, the City, the neighbors, and the watershed district.
Roger Humphrey, Humphrey Engineering, informed the Commission that the project was revised due
to neighborhood and watershed district input. He explained the revisions - eliminating a lot and moving
the cul-de-sac while maintaining the same number of units on the golf course side. New utility,
grading, erosion and stormwater management plans have been done to create a better plan for
everyone. The cul-de-sac length is measured from the center of the cul-de-sac to the edge of Hazel
Street. It is based on the standard block which is 660 feet long. He offered to answer any questions.
In regard to Condition #2 related to the "T" intersection, Mr. Black stated they have not fully studied
its impacts and would prefer an island as a more defined entrance to the neighborhood, as proposed.
Mr. Humphrey described the way the center island with plantings is designed, as opposed to the City -
recommended "T." They would be willing to work with engineering staff to find a suitable controlled
intersection design.
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing.
Ken Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, noted that the City's subdivision ordinance was completely amended
in 1996. Cul-de-sacs are normally limited to 400-800 feet in the interest of public safety. A 1,500' cul-
de-sac creates a public safety issue for access and for safety vehicles. Hazel Street is 28' wide, which
is substandard according to City code. The street narrows down to 21.5' at its narrowest, going up the
steep hill. Adding traffic through this narrow funnel is not a good idea. The previous 2007 approval
won on a 3-1 City Council vote. It came down to a local person working their connections who got it
through. It was a very ugly process.
James Purcell, 2001 Hazel Court, expressed concern about the defoliation of the property. The existing
foliage provides drainage, so eliminating it will force stormwater into the ravine in his backyard. If
allowed to go forward, developers should be required to utilize the existing topography and leave a
substantial amount of foliage in place to facilitate drainage. They also should be required to post a
security bond so if they go bankrupt, the neighborhood can be restored.
Brian Boucher, 317 West Hazel Street, summarized that the neighbors are not against the property
being developed, but are concerned about the number of units. 19 units does not fit into the character
of the neighborhood.
Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, agreed that the number of units proposed is too high. This affects the
entire North Hill and the entire City. He submitted a letter with a number of signatures expressing
concerns about the cul-de-sac length. The site is very unique in its topography. There is one way in
and one way out, and it has ravines and the golf course on its sides. There won't be another way to
access the homes if the street is blocked. The cul-de-sac is not truly 590 feet but more like 1,400 feet.
The hill is treacherous. An often -quoted standard of the American Institute for City Planners lists
disadvantages of cul-de-sacs including: access to interior lots can be blocked, long cul-de-sacs
encourage increased traffic speeds and mid -block turning, dead-end watermains encourage
Page 5 of 8
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
sedimentation which adds to fire hazards, public equipment such as fire trucks have difficulty
maneuvering. A second dead end street should not branch off from a cul-de-sac. Other research done
in Massachusetts by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy recommends that cul-de-sacs must be
measured from center of the cul-de-sac to the nearest intersection with a through street (a street with
more than one access). He asked the Commission to look at the issue as unique and see the public
safety issue. It should be clarified in City ordinances as well.
John Schoenecker, 301 Willow Street East, stated Willow is the only route available off Highway 95.
So most of the construction and public traffic will be coming up and down Willow, whose residents
are still paying for street reconstruction. He is concerned about the extra weight causing deterioration
of the street. He asked if the developers will be held responsible for any damage. He does not like the
density of the development but realizes development will occur regardless.
Liz Nelson, 300 Willow Street East, stated on the two blocks of Willow there are six elementary aged
schoolchildren. Busses don't use those streets so the kids are walking down the street. In icy conditions
cars go off the road regularly. It doesn't make sense to add that much traffic into a small area. The
integrity of the area should be preserved, especially considering the money that has been put into
Brown's Creek natural area.
Dave Hatch, 2009 Third Street North, voiced concern about safety and limited sight distances.
James Meier, 405 West Hazel Street, pointed out that streets in the area are substandard, raising safety
concerns. He agreed with previous speakers in opposing the development as proposed.
Debbie Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, shared her concern about light pollution spilling over into
neighboring properties, especially with all the trees gone and the density of the development. As many
of the trees as possible should be retained.
Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, questioned the proposed engineered walls on the north edge of
the property. The last two houses on the north are right up against those walls. Lots of pressure would
be created against the wall by a heavy rainfall. He would hate to have it all give way and end up on
Brown's Creek Trail. The development as proposed is not feasible.
Mary Harycki, 2004 Hazel Court, agreed with the previous speakers and thanked the Commission for
listening.
Melanie Ebertz, 1924 North First Street, reiterated concern expressed at the last meeting, about the
bike trail. Her home is at the top of the hill, so she has seen a lot of close calls on the road. The
previously approved project was planned before the trail was completed. Hazel Street is now a
trailhead. People have to accelerate to get up the hill and they careen down it. She believes it would
be negligent and unlawful for the City not to consider the use of the trail which is being promoted
statewide.
Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. He summarized the public concerns that were expressed.
He does not wish to denigrate any objections that were brought forward, but the developer has come
forth with a proposal that fits the zoning and comprehensive plan. He feels property owners have the
right to develop within the zoning codes. In contrast with the plans that were approved eight years
ago, the revised plan has a shorter cul-de-sac, less density, less impervious surface, and does not
require a variance. City staff has determined that the cul-de-sac will work within the City ordinances.
Page 6 of 8
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
Commissioner Middleton agreed that property owners have a right to develop. But the City's
obligation is to ensure that codes are followed and that the fabric of the community is considered by
the developer, and he feels that failed in this case. Stillwater has a cul-de-sac length restriction of 600
feet. In his opinion, a 1,400+ foot cul-de-sac is proposed. He cannot support the development.
Commissioner Siess stated this new proposal is better than the previous one, but she strongly agrees
that the proposal should be recommended for denial.
Commissioner Collins said even though one house was eliminated, public safety issues remain. He
thanked the neighbors for their input. He worries about safety after having driven back there numerous
times. The street is very narrow especially when two cars pass. He believes the development as
proposed would totally change the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Lauer remarked he doesn't support the proposal, but he is feeling constrained by the
fact that last month, the Commission told the developer to come back with a revised proposal. It now
fits within the regulations set forth by the City. The streets are substandard, but the property owner
has the right to develop even though the project will be completely detrimental to the area.
Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend denial of Case No.
2015-22, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for a 20-lot residential development, located at 1902
William Street North.
Commissioner Siess clarified that the basis for the motion to recommend denial is the finding that the
cul-de-sac length does not meet the 600 foot requirement in the subdivision ordinance.
City Planner Wittman suggested the Commission may want to document the finding that the applicant
inadvertently has asked for an 850-foot Variance and that there is not a practical difficulty established
for a Variance of that nature. This finding would essentially differ from staff's interpretation of the
code. While it was staff's interpretation that no Variance was needed, the Commission appears to
believe that the cul-de-sac should be measured from Fifth Street, and therefore a Variance would be
needed.
Commissioner Siess agreed that her motion was based on findings as City Planner Wittman stated.
City Planner Wittman mentioned the motion could also include the findings of fact that were made by
the Planning Commission in 2007.
Commissioner Siess agreed her motion was made in support of the findings of the Planning
Commission and its recommendation for denial in 2007.
Motion passed 4-1, with Chairman Kocon voting against.
OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
Meeting Schedule Discussion
Page 7 of 8
Planning Commission August 12, 2015
City Planner Wittman noted that after the last very lengthy meeting, she and Community Development
Director Turnblad discussed how to prevent such lengthy meetings. An alternate meeting date could
be set if there are several hearings scheduled for one meeting.
Chairman Kocon commented that staff may be able to work with some applicants ahead of time to cut
the meeting length, but he does not support a second meeting date.
Commissioner Siess stated she felt like the discussions were muted in some of the cases toward the
end of the meeting. She asked about limiting the number of public hearings per meeting to six.
City Planner Wittman replied sometimes she can predict the amount of time a given case will take,
but she is looking for input on whether the Commissioners want to have a secondary meeting in a
given month. Maybe this should be brought before the full Commission.
Chairman Kocon said it has been suggested previously to take a show of hands at the beginning of the
meeting and then re -order the agenda to hear the case with the largest number of attendees first.
City Planner Wittman recognized that public hearings are all advertised for 7 p.m. They are placed on
the agenda in the order in which the applications are received by the City. When an agenda is
published, there is some expectation of applicants as to when they need to arrive to the meeting.
Council Representative Junker pointed out it's not just the Commission, it's also the applicants - look
at it from their point of view as well. It is not a consistent pattern that meetings go until midnight.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
All in favor, 5-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
Page 8 of 8
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: September 9, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-29
APPLICANT: Peter & Amy Koulton, property owners, represented by Paul Randall
REQUEST: Consideration of a 1'6" variance to the 15' combined Side Yard Setback
for houses for a two-story addition to the structure located at 319 Maple
Street West
ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
REQUEST
Peter and Amy Koulton have applied for variances to make certain improvements to the
property located at 319 Maple Street West. The improvement includes the removal of an
existing 280 square foot detached garage and construction of a 446 square foot, two-story
addition to the structure. The addition will encompass a single car, attached garage and family
room on the first floor with a new bedroom on the second story. While the proposed addition
meets the minimum Side Yard Setback of 5', the total combined Side Yard Setback area is 13'6",
thus necessitating a 1'6"variance from the minimally required 15' combined Side Yard Setback
for houses
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of
the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the
landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming
uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be
considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be
considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates:
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
• A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of
further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
The applicant must demonstrate that:
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land
for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose the combined Side
Yard Setback is to control the impact of a building's mass on the subject property as well
as neighboring properties by maintaining an open, unoccupied space alongside property
lines. As the property owner's Side Yard Setbacks on either side will be at least 5', the
variance will be in general harmony with the purpose and intent of the setback
provisions. And, since only the reverse gable portion of the home would have less than
15 combined feet of setback, not the whole house, the effect of the building's mass is
minimized.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply:
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted
in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official
controls;
The applicant has indicated the proposed addition is a replacement of the existing,
detached garage while they are proposing to add additional first floor family room area
and an additional, second story is reasonable. The single story addition, however,
includes a 4'6" stairwell to the new family room area. As the minimum building code
required for this stairwell access is 36", the reduction of this stairwell by 1'6" to the
minimum code requirement would prevent the need for a variance. As such, other
alternatives reasonable alternatives exist.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are
not created by the landowner; and
The applicant has indicated the uniqueness to the side yard setback is the narrow lot size
of just over 43'. As such, the circumstance is unique given most of the traditional
residential lots in Stillwater are at least 50' in width.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
As the structure will be no closer than 5' to either property line, the essential character of
the neighborhood will not be significantly altered.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
Case No. 2015-29
CPC: September 9, 2015
Page 2 of 3
1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and grant a 1'6"
variance to the 15' combined Side Yard Setback for houses for a two-story addition to
the structure located at 319 Maple Street West, with or without conditions.
The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A
condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance.
If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner,
staff would recommend the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community
Development Department's Case No. 2015-29.
b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior any modifications are made
to the structure.
c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure.
d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7.
2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance.
3. Table the application and request additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On the basis a reasonable alternative exists to the 1'6" variance, staff recommends the Planning
Commission deny the variance.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Facade Rendering
Site Plan
Flood Plans (3 pages)
Construction Detail Elevation
Case No. 2015-29
CPC: September 9, 2015
Page 3 of 3
850
845 y.
_•P;•,r . , :I•
iwater
4 -
The Birthplace of Minnesota
406 404
724
720
322
T 323 319
1
;T a X
�, r y.,, i
r
- - /PA
-
-- _,•• � —
t-
, rsrj5 ,.
-41
W'ri`,i
319 Maple Street West
di Parcel Boundaries selection
Parcel Boundaries
•- Municipal Boundary
714
r: -i -'g
f
"O 1
212
218
al
r� '
L .. ie..
712
408 324 . 310, . 704
0 65 130 260
Feet
rA r: l S�
L -
General Site Location
702
0l\?
I
i
..I
d'� i
.....
, 626
j
.,
,, , „,,... . ,; 9j
, , i�,
626 ; tiw..
1
1
/� 1
409 323
319
317 315 ' ♦ ,r ,
x�f
616 a� ._.
1
i �N.
1 \
AMIIIIL
OUT .._..®®®
1
406 404 334 332 326 320 318 610 611 �,. w"
'
illimin 218
Mt .'` ® 222 :Ala
o„_•
1••_••—••_•.—•
Peter & Amy Koltun - Variance Request
319 Maple Street West
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-3314
koltunp@etillwater.k 12.mn.us
August 21, 2015
ATTN: Abbi Jo Wittman
The Stillwater Planning Commission
216 4th Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Abbi;
We are requesting a variance for a project on our property at 319 West Maple Street. The
project is to replace our existing stand alone garage with an attached garage, some
additional family room space and second story bedroom over.
We plan to use the space as residential living and garage space for our family only. This
use is permitted under current zoning standards, but our proposed project is not
permitted due to side yard set back and impervious structures requirements. This is true
even as we plan to reduce our building distance to property line on the west side of our
property and we will be replacing existing impervious structures.
Our circumstance is due to existing conditions beyond our control, due to the narrow
nature of our lot and current placement of our house with regard to the east side
property line.
We have provided for your review a drawing of our proposed project which shows that
our finished project will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, matching
closely the character of our existing home and the historical character of the homes in
our area.
Thank you for considering our request for variance.
Sincerely yours,
Peter & Amy Koltun
E[ 3 3 c E'01W . • Lamiemppo-
3
t� J
20150801- KOLTUN - Home Addition Perm
12
C)
0)
O
N
O
L E
ca -0 V
tO co To r-
-va co
N ea
L (Q
el ea
CZa31 N
J 4) in
0_ R so
Existing Fenceline
19'-10"
Surveyor
s Pin
Site Plan
SCALE: 1" = 15'
I
PL Randall & SonsIL www.plrandall.com
651-263-1813
I Designers, Builders, Remodelers 20150807 - KOLTUN -Home Addition Permit Drawing
Existing Footings
O
Frost Vtall Foundation
8" Concrete
42' Deep
8x18' Frost Footing
Foundation - NEW
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'
ELECTRICAL SERVICE NOTES:
1.) Standard electrical services installed to code.
3.) Baseboard electrical heating in living spaces.
NEW FAMILY ROOM
15'- 4" x 8'-8"
Built Up LVL Beam—
Built Up Post —
Built Up LVL Beam—,
First Floor - NEW
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'
tilt Up Post
20150801- KOLTUN - Home Addition Permit Drawing
ELECTRICAL SERVICE NOTES:
1.) Standard electrical services installed to code.
3.) Baseboard electrical heating in living spaces.
Second Floor - NEW
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'
20150801- KOLTUN - Home Addition Permit Drawing
I I I I I Asphalt Shingiel
fIII lee aYVater Barrier in.,'
IllIIiii
111
II �I ■
=MEM. l MEN
■■■■uliiiu■ ENE
■■■■■■■I ■._
-gaol!
E—�
--
Ridge Yent-
['Fri'', FMem11 1
par Bs
Standing Seam Metal Roof - to match existing
Built Up LVL Beam
II419!✓TI tldlgl�r�hh'I d.9lPjf�i111L!ITIV1Td44TYt
anagrm mars,
II
i■i
Roof Peak 20 FT 4 IN
Sprayed Closed Cell Rlgd Foam Ins. - RI per inch
Cement Fiber Shingle Siding - Close Match to existing
►shalt Shingle
Ice 8 Nater Barrier
15* Roofers Felt 1Nind Barrier
R-21 Ins.
Construction Detail Elevation
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'
Concrete 5
Ft
r m. 12 FT2 IN
Floor 1 FT 8 IN
Garage FlOor 0 FT
Sprayed Closed Cell Ins. - R7 per Inch
2" Rigid Insulation
20150801- KOLTUN - Home Addition Permit Drawing
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: September 9, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-30
APPLICANT: Rebecca Ketchum, property owner
REQUEST: Consideration of a 11'6" variance to the 20' Front yard Setback for houses
[City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the reconstruction of a first floor, rear
entry to the structure located at 1204 4th Avenue South
ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
REQUEST
Rebecca Ketchum has applied for a variance to make certain improvements to the property
located at 1204 4th Avenue South. The improvements includes the removal of an existing 7'
wide by 17' long (102 square foot) single story rear entry, located on the north facade of the
structure, and the replacement of it with a 7' wide by 17' long (119 square foot) single story, rear
entry. The existing improvement is wholly located within the 20' Front Yard Setback for
houses. Consequently, the applicant is requesting an 11'6" variance to the 20' Front Yard
Setback for this replacement.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of
the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the
landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming
uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be
considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be
considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates:
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
• A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of
further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
The applicant must demonstrate that:
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land
for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purposes for a Front Yard
Setback include maintaining open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and
environmental benefits. However, the existing single story, rear entry is already located
within the Front Yard Setback area. While the property owner is proposing to increase
the new entry, to be located 1' closer to the property line than the existing entryway, the
structure's existing northern wall will remain approximately 1' closer to the property
line than the new addition, thus keeping in general harmony with the purposes and
intent of the setback provisions.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply:
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted
in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official
controls;
The applicant has explored alternatives to the removal and reconstruction of this
addition. Included in the analysis is the repairing of the existing entryway. However,
this addition was constructed over an exterior entrance to the basement. As such, it was
never built on proper footings and, in its current state, is compromising the structural
integrity of the original structure.
The applicant has indicated the addition is reasonable as it will be in keeping with the
character of the home, having a similar appearance to that of the existing improvement
in this location. As the proposed improvements include a reconstruction of the existing
addition, with a 17 square foot increase, the use is reasonable.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are
not created by the landowner; and
As no year of construction of the addition has been determined, the circumstance is not
a result of the property owner, who purchased the home in 2011. The single largest
reason for the reconstruction, and minor expansion, is to prevent further structural
damage while retaining a means of access from the rear of the property.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The reconstructed entryway will be designed to have a similar appearance of the
existing entryway in this location. The applicant has indicated the exterior finish will
match the design aesthetics of the home.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
Case No. 2015-30
CPC: September 9, 2015
Page 2 of 3
1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and grant a 11'6"
variance to the 20' Front yard Setback for houses [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the
reconstruction of a first floor, rear entry to the structure located at 1204 4th Avenue
South, with or without conditions.
The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A
condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance.
If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner,
staff would recommend the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community
Development Department's Case No. 2015-30.
b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior any modifications are made
to the structure.
c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure.
d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7.
2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance.
3. Table the application and request additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends
conditional approval of a 11'6" variance to the 20' Front yard Setback for houses [City Code
Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the reconstruction of a first floor, rear entry to the structure located at
1204 4th Avenue South.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Narrative Request with site photos (4 pages)
Site Plan
Architectural Renderings (2 pages)
Case No. 2015-30
CPC: September 9, 2015
Page 3 of 3
'
MI ' ' 1111141,--jit LIPM•k Are- 'S. ' _.-3 — c
-„, ,, ,
cSt1i11vater
92,
'' ,
�:
'
��--
�"-
iy23a
The Birthplace of Minnesota
41�
Y
I
7
El l i18 1 937
W
{�,-:
- — _. _•
1
, ilirc' O '` 1002
'1'006,
•1a
:� ,,
.
Iv i
w II—
jr
100,.a,
' .
P, > 441 io5
1204 4th Avenue South
di Subject Property
Parcel Boundaries
.0.- Municipal Boundary
Q `+i
,FU11•
m
1
of 1►
Y119
'r`,, �.
0 90 180 360
d,.
F'
s'
�' :„
Feet
1109
�_
General___Site Location
1.
1111
IA:,
'
-r" .�
—
r.....:
d�
01 .
L3h1 -3-19•
F
, ; a•
ay ; _
5
1_
a1
`
`�[,s
r
`
p :9 ' i�
o
t%
i
r-. ,
.
o
4011-:
17
i
•
2r
Y.rr
CAi
r
M'
—
._.1
'ter
1221
1 • `'f22
1 1
• e�.
�7 r
1..
,
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN, 1204 4TH AVENUE SOUTH
Charles and Rebecca Ketchum, owners
The purpose of this application is to request a setback variance at 1204 4th Avenue South,
Stillwater, MN 55082. The work proposed is the demolition and rebuilding of a single -story side porch;
the existing porch measures approx. 6' wide by 17' long, and the proposed new porch would measure 7'
wide by 17' long. This structure is not currently in compliance with the setback. New, finished
dimensions would put the porch 28' 4" from the street (Burlington Street East) on the north side.
Existing circumstances are unique to the property site, and exist through no fault of the current owner.
The existing building is in structural disrepair, and was in such a state when the current owner
purchased the property 3 years ago. Due to poor construction and maintenance, the foundation on this
structure has failed, and it is causing stress to foundation and framing members on the adjacent main
house. The home owners have exhausted all other options (including extensive repair and bracing, re-
grading of the exterior, and other efforts) but must address the foundational faults in order to preserve
the integrity of the rest of the home. This structure is built over an old stairwell that served as an
exterior entrance to the basement of the house, and was never built on proper footings. The proposed
project serves to increase the usable square footage of the house by a little more than 100 ft2, but the
more urgent purpose is to address the structural faults present in the structure. As such, other options
for reconstruction have been explored, but the issue remains: In order to prevent further structural
damage to the home, the foundation must be addressed. Should the variance be denied, and the
structure is demolished but not rebuilt, the home would still not conform to minimum setbacks. It is
therefore the hope of the owners that the variance is allowed, as the resulting structure would still be
setback further from the street than the main body of the home.
The request for variance and proposed new use is reasonable, as it merely proposes the reconstruction
of a new structure to approximately the same size as what is being replaced. It is a residential home and
the proposed new structure will have the outward appearance of a porch. It is to stay a single -story
structure. The proposed new space will include a laundry room, mud room, and serve as the primary
rear entrance for the home. It will be fully conditioned space, and be open from the interior to the rest
of the home.
The proposed new structure will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as the proposed
finished size is nearly identical to the existing structure. It will maintain the appearance of a porch from
the exterior, and not look out of place as a "secondary" addition to the house. The exterior finish will
match the design aesthetic of the home, built in 1880, by incorporating trim, paint, and window details
found on the rest of the home. Lastly, it will be replacing a structure that is in obvious disrepair and in
doing so will certainly improve both the character of the home and neighborhood.
1
The below image of the home shows existing setbacks on both the east (4th Avenue South) and north
sides (Burlington Street East). Existing setback from the house to 4th Avenue South on the east is 33' 3",
and existing setback from the front porch to 4th Avenue South on the east is 26' 3". Existing setback
from the house to Burlington Street East on the north is 27' 9", and existing setback from the side -porch
(proposed project site) to Burlington Street East on the north is 29' 4".
*All measurements were observed by the homeowner, and measured from the finished exterior surface of the home to the inside -edge of the
curb.
2
The below image of the home shows the setbacks once the proposed project is completed. The only
change from the existing setbacks is measured from the side -porch — the new setback from the
side -porch to Burlington Street East on the north is 28' 4".
3
The below image is from Washington County, showing the property line in yellow. The distance from
the proposed new structure to the property line is noted here, as are other relevant distances. The
proposed new structure is highlighted in blue.
The below image is also from Washington County, and shows the simple dimensions of the lot(s).
4
The below image gives an aerial view of the site, showing distances from the house to either street,
distances between or to other buildings on the property, and lot dimensions. Note the proposed new
boundary of the side -porch in blue.
5
Lastly, architectural renderings are attached to illustrate approx. finished dimensions of the porch,
interior floor plans showing intended use, and exterior elevations. Thank you for your consideration.
r,RST I_C+M _ '_COR PLAN (GROSS AREA - I, Ijq 5 r )
ip
45 Ail'
6
gFIRS' LEA- LOOR PLAN (GROSS AREA = 1,150 5.F.)
7
ii8"
fa AiCgItI r { I'Ve..ON
8
1
i
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: September 9, 2015 CASE NO.: 2015-31
APPLICANT: Nancy Nelson, property owner
REQUEST: Consideration of a 5%, 275 square foot variance to the 25% maximum lot
coverage for structures [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] for the
construction of a 42 square foot first floor addition to the structure located
at 424 Greeley Street North
ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
REQUEST
Nancy Nelson has applied for a variance to make certain improvements to the property located
at 424 Greeley Street North. The improvement includes the removal of an existing cellar access
door and concrete pad, located on the rear (northwest) portion of the home, and the
replacement of it with a 42 square foot single story addition to accommodate a bathroom and
laundry area. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a 5% variance to the 25% maximum lot
coverage for structures.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of
the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the
landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming
uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be
considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be
considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates:
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
• A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of
further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits.
The applicant must demonstrate that:
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land
for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose of the maximum lot
coverage is to maintain open, unencumbered space to regulate massing proportionality
and to provide for adequate infiltration in the historic residential neighborhood which
lack modern stormwater drainage and treatment facilities. As the applicant indicates,
the total lot coverage (including the combination of structural and other impervious
surface coverages) will be decreased by 6.75 square feet as this new addition will
necessitate the removal of existing impervious surface areas. Additionally, the
applicant's total lot coverage (structural and other impervious combined) would be
approximately 45%, thus allowing for sufficient drainage on the property and keeping
with the purpose and intent of the structural coverage provisions.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply:
The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted
in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official
controls;
The applicant has indicated the addition is reasonable as it will be in keeping with the
character of the home, repurposing existing closet space to accommodate for modern
amenities on the first floor. As the proposed improvements includes the installation of
a bathroom and laundry room, neither currently existing in the first floor of the home,
the minimized addition is reasonable.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are
not created by the landowner; and
Although the 4.6% increase represents a total of 275 square feet, only 42 square feet are
proposed to be added to the structure. The existing 233 square feet overage to the
maximum 25% structural coverage has been in existence since prior to the owner's
purchase in 1996. Additionally, no building permit records are on file showing
additions that have occurred since the City's modern permitting system, established in
1946.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character
of the locality as the addition will help add to the historic character of the home by
utilizing an existing first floor roofline, similar windows and siding as the existing
portions of the residence.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
Case No. 2015-31
CPC: September 9, 2015
Page 2 of 3
1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 5%
variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures [City Code Section 31-
308(b)(1)] for the construction of a first floor addition to the structure located at 424
Greeley Street North, with or without conditions.
The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A
condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance.
If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner,
staff would recommend the following conditions:
a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community
Development Department's Case No. 2015-31.
b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior any modifications are made
to the structure.
c. The addition will have similar color and materials as the existing structure.
d. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7.
2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance.
3. Table the application and request additional information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends
conditional approval of a 4.6% variance to the 25% maximum lot coverage for structures [City
Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] associated with the construction of a 42 square foot first floor
addition to the structure located at 424 Greeley Street North
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Narrative Request
Site Plan
Aerial (Washington County)
Existing Conditions Plan
Proposed Addition Plan
Existing Facade Design
Proposed Facade Designs (2 pages)
Case No. 2015-31
CPC: September 9, 2015
Page 3 of 3
0
The Birthplace of Minnesota
424 Greeley Street North
CI Subject Property
Parcel Boundaries
w.- Municipal Boundary
80
160
General Site Location
320
Feet
\`\
i.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..J •-4
Re: Variance for small addition at 424 Greeley Street North
Date: 19Aug15
Dear Abbi Jo and City of Stillwater Planning Commission,
The request of this variance is for a minor adjustment, 42 square feet, over the 1733 square feet of existing
building mass on the lot, in order to add a combined first floor bathroom/laundry. Since I am planning on living
in my home for many more years I would like to add more conveniences and ease to my daily living. It would
also accommodate for incidences and individuals requiring accessibility due to limited mobility/physical
limitations.
Considering the age of the house, originally built in 1873, the house has one small bathroom — on second floor —
and currently no hook up for laundry.
In order to minimize variance impacts, the architect, Tod Drescher, has drawn up plans to remodel an existing
closet and building a small addition by "filling -in" the back NW corner of the house.
Tod has been sensitive to both the character and charm of the house, the environment and the
neighborhood. The new construction would not be seen from the front and is mostly blocked in the back by
garages. It would not be visible much from the south, mainly by the neighbor on the north side.
All setbacks will be satisfied. The one story (15.5ft to peak) addition will flush with the existing kitchen roof.
The addition will be 7.5ft from the side property line and 49ft from the rear property line. The side yard
setbacks total 22.5ft. The impervious surfaces would actually go DOWN by 6.75sf with the new plan because I
would be removing the old cellar access door and the slab next to it. The site is fairly flat and slowly drains to
the rear over grass. No erosion issues that I can see so landscaping will remain the same.
* A variance is requested for increasing the total lot building footprint from the current 28.9% to 29.6%.
The lot is 6000sf. Current building footprint on the lot is 1733sf. The addition would add 42sf (0.7%)
making new total of 1775sf.
Similar windows and siding will be used to blend in with the existing character of the house. The proposed
addition retains the historic character and value of the neighborhood.
If you have any questions after reviewing any of the enclosed, please feel free to call me at 651-491-8808.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Nancy R. Nelson
424 Greeley Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
rto HoSE'G
,kp1(T1 aN
C#444
r r�----�
`r 1z A 1
{-i a to - 122 9 SF
5 P 0 G F. 1 L S 120. o� �� 114 IL143“ CO1 1`r n S
ii
1 L ertys04 42¢ GREgtxy 45r, rl . 1'7
1/, ' 1 g Af? p2
$dILP I NG,
ki4 & AF E TTdr'A �.
1229 S F l 73 3 S r= 28. 9 a/o
•
LOT so` "c 1201 = ‘000 SF
1�
'PRDFoSet, AiDp Eno 1`i
42sF = 0%
I1'33t 42 = 17Z15F = 29. %
$10.00
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
14049 Sind $ wt North, P.O. Box 6
SbNNNN, *NM 55082-0008
(651) 430.5r6
/NrvIy5A01I, Wis66vton. mn ua
WWW SQ WIIIIMVWn.Mn, urNwrvoyor
LEGEND
DNR PROTECTED WATERS
DNR PROTECTED WETLAND
DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
PARK BOUNDARY
NORTH
SECTIOTPOWNSHINIANGE NOES
1200302012133020122030201
:290302011
12T03020)I
F + + 4
SCALE: 1 Inch = 20 feet 1 3203020 3303020,13t03020
COUNTY
VICINITY YAP
* -LOCATION OF
THIS YAP
SECTION VICINITY MAP
22 I 21 I 12 I 11
_I--1144€
7.8' 24 1 13 I 14
32 31 42 41
SiW —1— -StE
33 1 34 I 43 1 44
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FORMAT (GEOCODE)
SECTION TOWNSNP RNx£ QUARTER RPE(APIC
AMBER MAMA NABER WRIER PARCEL
// /// // ON ////
(000I) .IABI FOUR DOTS OF PROPERTY__
BFHIBIGIION N,reAI
THIS DRAWING IS THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION OF
LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES.
WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES.
PROPER)Y LINES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND MAY NCH -
REPRESENT ACTIIAI I RCA URNS
MAP LAST UPDATED: May 1, 2015
NOADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE
DATE OF CONTOURS: November, 2011 DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: May, 2013
11-%91-41-44
THAT)
f 04
E
.i
a1-a
o�J
7- 3'it
i xr y
WV= ,
T
12."p SSA.
2G,S W
o9Eww
oLD
46. a
• 81 2H
t+c +-'t
• Vrri`tL I t►uaLe'uM
,1 PAY Woof
ev,1
(54 -1714‘,1)
06 AwlI L44.
V- A S
Im.e••••--,
tra
5 -7;1+
4-1
L A
•
[ 41,4
%--PROPo5ED kI7CAT1DA
I
axisa
V
f
A
N
fi
g
Sys"
hi* 111oN
row 0%1
a-U ca.l -
Izio..) 6G
r
rout. cog -Iwo.)
r
r .rcty.sF
// --+-1
. , ► ►t-
e+rcr.
4-le r r;►.rr t E
•LD 4s7t!.L.
"1114til. •
Fa6aer14
WA &*noh4 = 425F z 8-5 x 5-0
0.7
0
fitt.6°4
t7A1M/L64.0.4
1/2444:11 1.04 15
kt/Tt- Ca(15ii
y4 =1O' AP4 -4
iktt91
14'` 1' 10011 -,
1,6130,1
Nom-44 tiptim4 4'
Woo.
5r1p1141
at—P it-0 C-44- rACE i 0 e+4
t‘ki%*3
14rttli (,VKI467 04)
IA= I 1 05 OA 15 44.
g 14 Jr 1 •f
•S"
01-1)
SI•LICGO
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
City of Stillwater
Trails Master Plan
September 9, 2015
Planning Commission
Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
Abbi Wittman, City Planner
Melissa Douglas, Planning Consultant
City of Stillwater, Trails Master Plan Update, Review of Comments and Revised Plan
Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Vision and Guiding Principles
Build on Stillwater's history and natural
setting to become a leading active
transportation community and one of
Minnesota's premier trail destinations.
Community. A destination trail system
that serves the people of Stillwater as
well as visitors, businesses and
employers. Promotes tourism, job
creation and economic vitality. Provides
access to nature and understanding of
the city's history.
Safety. A trail system that ensures safe
recreation and travel for all trail users
regardless of age or ability. Encourages
activity and wellness.
Accessibility. A trail system that is easily
accessed and accommodates a mix of
users inclusive of all abilities. Information
about the trail system is readily
accessible and easy to understand.
Connections. A trail system that links
neighborhoods, schools, employment
opportunities, commercial areas, regional
trails and public transportation and
connects members of the community to
each other and the landscape.
Communication. A trail system that
educates and interprets the landscape
and natural setting, uses technology to
Public Review of Draft Plan
In May and early June, the draft Stillwater Trails
Master Plan was circulated for public review:
✓ The draft plan and related Comprehensive
Plan amendments were provided to adjacent
communities and Washington County for review and
comment.
✓ The draft plan was posted on the City's
website with a survey form for feedback.
✓ Individual meetings were held with
Washington County, Oak Park Heights and the
Downtown Revitalization Committee Bicycle
Subcommittee to review the plan details.
✓ The draft plan was presented at a meeting of
Washington County parks and natural resource
commission members sponsored by the Alliance for
Sustainability.
✓ A public meeting was advertised and
attended by over 20 individuals who provided
comments and input.
✓ A public hearing on the draft plan and related
Comprehensive Plan amendments was held at the
June Planning Commission meeting.
✓ Based on public input and comments
received, the draft plan was revised.
✓ The Parks Commission reviewed the revised
plan at their meeting on June 22, 2015 and
recommended adoption of the updated Trails Master
Plan.
City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update
The final draft plan was provided to the Planning Commission in late June in anticipation of
discussion at the July Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission had very
lengthy agendas at both their July and August meetings so discussion of the Trails Master
Plan update was deferred until this September meeting.
The June draft addressed comments received as of June 10, 2015. Comments received and
addressed are summarized on the attached table.
Washington County submitted additional comments in their letter dated June 26, 2015
(attached). The following revisions to the June draft are recommended to address specific
comments by Washington County:
1. Revise Section 1.3 Regional Setting to include a reference to the Lake Links
Regional Trail Alignment.
2. Section 6.0 Proposed Network Improvements.
a. Revise proposed improvements for Greeley Street from Highway 36 to Myrtle
Street to include on -street bike lanes and sidewalks rather than a sidewalk
and off-street multi -use trail.
b. Revise proposed improvements to include either a trail or a sidewalk adjacent
to Fairview Cemetery along Osgood Avenue from the city boundary to
Orleans Street.
c. Identify a bike/pedestrian connection from CR-5/Stonebridge Trail to the
Brown's Creek State Trail in the Plan with the recognition this connection may
be located in Stillwater Township.
d. Add an off-street multi -use trail on the west side CR-5/Stonebridge Trail with
a separated trail crossing.
3. Section 6.2 Specific Corridor Recommendations. Revise recommendations for
Highway 36 to show this corridor as an area for further study rather than giving
specific recommendations at this time. Significant coordination with MnDOT,
Washington County and Oak Park Heights will be need to ensure a cohesive and
safe pedestrian and bicycle system in this area. On -going construction makes it
difficult to fully evaluate changes in traffic patterns during the preparation of the draft
plan. A study area designation will more accurately reflect changing conditions and
give the City flexibility to address issues and opportunities as they arise.
4. New appendix showing typical cross sections and details for on -street bike routes,
bike lanes, multi -use trails and sidewalks.
Recommendation for Adoption of the updated Trails Master Plan
At this time, we ask that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt
the updated Trails Master Plan with the revisions noted above and any additional revisions
requested by the Planning Commission at the September meeting.
Implementing Comprehensive Plan Amendments
To implement the updated Trails Master Plan, Stillwater's 2008 Comprehensive Plan must
be amended to reference and reflect the new document and changes in conditions.
Proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan are attached. We also request that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the necessary comprehensive
plan amendments to implement the updated Trails Master Plan.
2
City of Stillwater Trails Master Plan Update
If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, you are welcome to contact me
via e-mail at mjdouglas@comcast.net.
Attachments
Comment Summary
Washington County comment letter dated June 26, 2015
Proposed comprehensive plan amendments
3
Draft Stillwater Trails Master Plan, Comments Received
Comment
Proposed Response
Page
Reference
Improve resolution of images, maps and
pictures in documents. (Bill Turnblad,
Community Development Director [BT])
Image resolution reduced to minimize file
size for easy downloading during public
comment period. Higher resolution images
will be included in final draft.
General
Street name/type and jurisdictional
corrections throughout document (Shawn
Sanders, Public Works Director and City
Engineer [SS]).
Revisions made.
General
Agree with importance of connectivity,
safety, accessibility, natural/scenic features.
Historic interpretation is a nicety if resources
are available. Maps with location, distance
and directions would be most beneficial.
(Survey response)
The need for way -finding signage and
maps is discussed extensively throughout
the plan. No revision needed.
p. 8
Trails are not just for recreation but also as
routes to schools, stores, etc. (Survey
response)
No revision needed.
P. 9
Lack of discussion of the river in the plan as a
transportation corridor and connection to the
trail system. (Public meeting comment)
Discuss with Planning and Parks
Commission how to best incorporate the
riverway into the plan.
P. 9
Concurs with need for integration of trails in
the community and need for continuity to
improve convenience, safety and use. (Frank
Piontek, resident [FP])
No revision needed.
p. 9-10
Concurs with goal of a regional,
interconnected trail system. (City of Oak Park
Heights [OPH]).
Bike racks needed at businesses and malls.
(Survey response)
New section on bicycle parking to be
added.
p. 15
New regional trails create significant need for
bicycle parking in downtown Stillwater. There
should be a standard design for bike racks
downtown. Portable racks should be
considered as an interim solution.
(Downtown Revitalization Committee Bicycle
Subcommittee [DRC])
Bicycle parking will be needed downtown and
should be provided in commercial areas and
at schools and parks. (Public Meeting
comments)
Trailheads need water and restrooms. (Survey
response)
Text to be revised to note these facilities
should be included at trailheads.
p. 15
Concern about adequate parking for regional
trail users at trailheads. (Public Meeting
comment)
1
Draft Stillwater Trails Master Plan, Comments Received
Comment
Response
Page
Reference
Possibility for trailhead or facilities at Kolliner
Park? (DRC)
A master plan for Kolliner Park was
adopted by the City of Stillwater in 1998
included plans for restoration north of the
Lift Bridge and trails, beach access and
facilities south of the Lift Bridge. This plan
will need to be updated to reflect Lift
Bridge conversion to pedestrian/bicycle
only. Text to be revised to note this
property represents an opportunity for
the City of Stillwater for development in
conjunction with the new St. Croix
Crossing Loop Trail.
p. 15
Signs and other communications needed
emphasizing that Brown's Creek Trail is multi-
use, for pedestrians as well as bikers. Could a
centerline be added to the trail? (Survey
response)
Inquiry sent to DNR about whether any
further trail signage or markings are to be
installed. New section to be added about
multi -use potential conflicts and education
opportunities.
p. 15
p. 19
Conflicts between many users on Brown's
Creek Trail — cyclists, pedestrians,
skateboarders, roller bladers, segways,
surreys — need for education and public
safety presence. (DRC)
Need for public safety patrols of Brown's
Creek Trail. (Public Meeting comment)
Provide education on trail courtesy including
passing etiquette. (Public meeting comments)
Speed limits on trails? (Public Meeting
comment)
Research potential for speed limits on
regional and local trails.
p. 15
Notes the need for communication and
collaboration between agencies and
communities. (FP)
Section to be revised to emphasize the
need for inter -agency coordination.
p. 19
Need for contact and coordination with the
DNR on Brown's Creek Trail Management and
with MnDOT on the St. Croix Crossing Loop
Trail. (Public Meeting comments)
No snowmobiles. Plow trails in winter.
(Survey response)
Two existing snowmobile trails in
Stillwater are along Highway 96 and
Highway 12/75th Street are designated by
Washington County. This information will
be noted in new section on potential trail
user conflicts.
p. 20
Update of snow removal policy will be a
separate discussion, not part of the
Downtown Master Plan. (BT)
Reference to Downtown Master Plan
removed.
p. 20
2
Draft Stillwater Trails Master Plan, Comments Received
Comment
Response
Page
Reference
Add trail section along Neal Avenue as a High
Priority, Near -Term improvement, especially
the section between Boutwell and McKusick.
(FP)
Discuss with Planning and Parks
Commissions and City Council.
p. 21
p. 27
New trail needed along Neal Avenue
especially from Eagle Ridge to Brown's Creek
Trail. (Survey response).
Will work with Stillwater on plans for
bicycle/pedestrian improvements for North
Frontage Road and Highway 36 corridor
including complimentary facilities within Oak
Park Heights. Notes that no funding has been
identified for further improvements. (OPH)
Discuss with Planning and Parks
Commissions and City Council. Right -of-
way limitations with realignment of the
North Frontage Road at Osgood Avenue
will limit opportunities for a bicycle lane in
this area.
p. 22
Figure 4
Add bike route connection to Government
Center. (DRC)
Discuss with Planning and Parks
Commission, City Council and Oak Park
Heights.
p. 22
Figure 4
Crossings at Highway 36 needed. Map should
show connections south of Highway 36 to
destinations such as the high school. (Survey
response)
Revise text to incorporate comments.
p. 22
Signal timing for Highway 36 crossings need
to accommodate pedestrians/bicyclists.
(Public meeting comment)
Connection from Highway 5 to Brown's Creek
Trail needed. (Survey response)
Plan discusses the need for this
improvement but does not make it a
priority. Depending on alignment/location,
connection may be within Stillwater
Township. Discuss relative priority of this
improvement with Planning and Parks
Commissions and City Council.
p. 22
Washington County cost -share requirements
are a concern. (Steve Russell, resident and
former Community Development Director
[SR])
Requested clarification of current cost-
sharing formula from Washington County
staff.
p. 22-23
Crosswalks, especially on Highway 12 and
Highway 5, are a low-cost way to improve
safety and should be a high priority. (SR)
Revise text to highlight need for crossing
improvements on these corridors.
p. 22-23
Improve crossings at Lily Lake School and
across Myrtle Street.
Conflicts with drivers stopping on trails and
sidewalks where they cross driveways,
especially along Curvecrest Boulevard.
(Survey response)
Revise text to note this conflict.
p. 23
3
Draft Stillwater Trails Master Plan, Comments Received
Comment
Response
Page
Reference
Does Public Works agree that Curvecrest
Boulevard is overbuilt? (BT)
City Public Works staff concurred with this
statement. Last available traffic counts
indicate 8500 to 6600 daily vehicle trips on
Curvecrest Boulevard. MnDOT State Aid
standards require four through lanes only
where daily vehicle trips exceed 15,000.
Many "road diets" have been successfully
implemented throughout Minnesota by
converting four lane roadways to three
lane roadways, making room for
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and
improving safety. This information added
to the plan and references.
p. 23
Recommend new Bike Committee as sub-
committee of existing Parks Commission
because of limited staff resources. (BT)
Discuss with Planning and Parks
Commissions and City Council.
p. 25
Recommend new Bike Committee include
Planning Commission and Park Commission
members as well as several at -large
community members. (SR)
Agree with the need for a new Bike
Committee as a subcommittee of either the
Planning or Park Commissions. (DRC)
Add first -year implementation plan. (SR)
Discuss with Planning and Parks
Commissions and City Council.
p. 26
Park and trail improvements are also made by
developers in conjunction with new
development. (BT)
Revise text for clarification.
p. 26
Require park and trail improvements with
redevelopment and new development. (FP)
Revise timing of proposed trailhead at
Highway 96 and Manning Avenue from a mid-
term (5-10 years) to a long-term (10+ years)
improvement. (SS)
Revise table.
p. 28
Concurs with need for on -going trail planning
and recommends including the City of
Bayport in these discussions. (OPH)
Revise text and table to include adjacent
and nearby communities as well as
Washington County.
p. 29
Add bike route connection to Stillwater Junior
High School. (DRC)
Discuss with Planning and Park
Commissions and City Council.
Figure 4
Figure 4 should more clearly show existing
versus proposed trails along 75th Street. (BT)
Revisions to be included in final map draft.
Figure 4
Figure 4 does not clearly show trail
connections around Long Lake. (FP)
Improve readability of Figure 4. (SR)
Add improvement priority to Figure 4. (SR)
4
Washington
County
June 26, 2015
Bill Turnblad
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director/County Engineer
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/Assistant County Engineer
RE: Washington County Comments on the Draft Trails Master Plan
Dear Mr. Turnblad:
Thank you for providing Washington County the opportunity to comment on the Draft City of
Stillwater Trails Master Plan. Washington County Traffic and Transportation staff reviewed the
document and offer the following comments:
• Section 1.0, Planning Context provides a robust summary of Stillwater, the St. Croix
River Valley and Washington County which supports the framework and connections
to current and future county and regional trails.
• Section 1.1 Benefits of Community Trails acknowledges that planned trails provide
safe transportation routes to walk or bike to work, school and local stores. They also
connect parks, playgrounds and other destinations.
• Section 1.1 Benefits of Community Trails provides a policy to improve community
health through active transportation. Washington County also promotes, plans and
develops trails for active multi -modal transportation, which is the infrastructure to
improve health.
• Section 1.3 Regional Setting should include a reference to the Lake Links Regional
Trail Alignment Masterplan, which includes an off -road trail along TH 96 from
Manning Avenue into downtown Stillwater. Figure 4 of the draft plan identifies a future
trail along TH 96 from CSAH 15/Manning Avenue to CSAH 5/Stonebridge Trail.
• 6.0 Proposed Network Improvements. The following are a number of recommended
improvement considerations and clarifications which should be incorporated into the
plan:
o Sidewalks and shoulder bike lanes might make more sense along Greeley
Street from Highway 36 to Myrtle Street.
o The county and the city should evaluate whether a trail or sidewalk should be
considered adjacent to Fairview Cemetery along Osgood Avenue from the
City Boundary to Orleans Street.
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
o There needs to be a better definition of On -Street Bike Routes. Will there be
Bike Route Signs (Green Signs)? Washington County does not incorporate
bike route signage along county roads. Wayfinding or destination signage is
more appropriate for bikers to get to where they are going. Was there
consideration on incorporating sharrows? The county will continue to work
with the city on planning and design for specific corridors.
o There should be pedestrian/bike facilities along the north TH 36 frontage road
but where? Would it be appropriate to remove the center left turn lanes?
o Sidewalks are shown on the north side of CR 5/ Olive Street from Willard
Street to Brick Street and on the south side of the CR 5/Olive Street section,
from Deer Path to Owens Street. The county will continue to work with the city
on refining the sidewalk locations as the preliminary design moves forward.
o A bike/ pedestrian connection from CR 5 to the Brown's Creek State Trail
should be identified in the plan.
o An off-street multi -use trail should be shown on the west side of CR
5/Stonebridge Trail to the future Browns Creek Trail connection with a
separated trail crossing.
• 6.2 Specific Corridor Recommendations. County Road (CR) 5. Washington County
will continue to work with the city on the detailed design of the CR 5 incorporating the
recommendations identified in the plan.
• 6.2 Specific Corridor Recommendations. Washington County will continue to work
with the city on the detailed design of CSAH 12/Myrtle Street. Through the planning
process, there needs to be a resolution on where on -street parking and bump -outs
will be located between Deer Path and Owens Street if bike lanes are to be
incorporated along the roadway.
• Page 27-28, Implementation Plan. Washington County will continue to work with the
city on the implementation items identified in the plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Stillwater Trails Master Plan. Please call
me at 651-430-4362 or e-mail me at Ann.pung-terwedo@co.washington.mn.us if you have
questions or comments.
erely,
Ann P g ITerwedb
Senior Planner
Cc:
Joe Gustafson Traffic Engineer
Becky Haydon, Project Engineer
Chapter 1 : Community Background
Introduction & Purpose
THE purpose of the background chapter is to understand
the characteristics of Stillwater and the current qualities
and challenges of the community. To help facilitate planning
efforts it is important to understand the city's history, its current
environment, and some of the trends affecting its future. The
resulting baseline information has given birth to this community
background chapter and has served as a guide upon which the
other chapters in this plan have been developed. Much of this
information was compiled as part of the "Background Report"
that was completed in May of 2007 and supplemented through
subsequent public forums.
At the end of many of the sections in this chapter, the reader will
find the heading, "Issues for the Comprehensive Plan." These
issues were identified during the city's exhaustive program to
update its 1995 Comprehensive Plan. They will provide direction
for the other chapters in this 2008 plan update.
The City of Stillwater has seen many changes since the adoption of
its previous Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, the name chosen for the 2008 update, will focus on planning
for the next 20 years. Its actual life span will only be ten years, at
which time it is required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
to be updated again.
Chapter 1 Contents
Introduction & Purpose 1-1
Regional Setting 1-1
Planning History 1-2
Key Definitions 1-2
Community Survey 1-3
Metropolitan Council & Stillwater's 2030
Planning Process 1-3
Demographics 1-6
Land Use and Growth Management1-8
Existing Land Use 1-8
Existing Zoning 1-10
Implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan 1-11
Special Studies 1-11
Appendix A 1-14
Regional Setting
The City of Stillwater is located in the eastern section of Washington
County, the easternmost county in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. Stillwater is comprised of 8 square miles at the time of this
writing, and is approximately 23 miles east of the St. Paul Central
Business District (CBD) and 28 miles from the Minneapolis CBD.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-1
Stillwater is bordered by Stillwater Township to
the north, the City of Grant to the west and the
City of Oak Park Heights to the south. Stillwater's
eastern border is the St. Croix River and the State of
Wisconsin.
The City of Stillwater was officially incorporated
March 4, 1854, making it one of Minnesota's oldest
cities. Stillwater is often referred to as the "Birthplace
of Minnesota." In 1848, a territorial convention that
began the process of establishing Minnesota as a
state was held in Stillwater at the corner of Myrtle
and Main streets. Lumbering was the predominant
industry in the St. Croix River Valley in the second
half of the 19th century, and for many years logs
were sent down the St. Croix, collected at the St.
Croix Boom Site two miles upstream of Stillwater,
and processed in Stillwater's many sawmills.
Stillwater accommodates a wide variety of land
uses that provide jobs, a diverse range of housing
types, a variety of commercial opportunities and
public amenities and parks. Stillwater is connected
to the East Twin Cities Metropolitan Area primarily
by Highway 36, Highway 5, and Highway 96.
Highway 95 travels north and south along the St.
Croix River connecting Stillwater Township on the
north and Bayport on the south. Country Road 15
marks the western boundary of Stillwater.
Planning History
Stillwater was the first city in the State of Minnesota
to create and adopt a comprehensive plan. This
plan was adopted in 1918 during the City Beautiful
movement, which was occurring throughout
the United States. The plan emphasized parks,
landscaped streets and parkways, civic centers and
walkways, particularly along natural areas such as
ravines, lakes, and the St. Croix River. Below is a
list of the land use and master plans the city has
undertaken over the years.
• 1918 - First Comprehensive Plan Adopted
• 1961- Comprehensive Plan
• 1979 - Comprehensive Plan
• 1979 - West Stillwater Business Park Plan
• Downtown Plans adopted in 1972 and 1988
• 1995 - Comprehensive Plan
• 1996 - Comprehensive Plan Update;
Annexation Area
• 2000 - Comprehensive Trail Plan
• Several neighborhood plans throughout the
years
Key Definitions
A number of planning concepts are introduced and
discussed in the following chapters. A glossary of
key terms discussed in the Comprehensive Plan is
presented below for clarification purposes.
Comprehensive Plan - A long-range plan intended
to guide growth and development of a community
with recommendations for the community's
future economic development, housing, parks
and open space, preservation of natural resources,
community facilities, and land use.
Future Land Use Plan - A plan within the
Comprehensive Plan that guides the future use of
property. In residential areas, the plan also guides
the intensity of development by establishing
densities (units per acre) for each residential land
use category.
Zoning Ordinance - The regulatory authority of
the city to direct the use, placement, spacing, and
size of land and buildings.
Greenway Corridor - An overlay that maps
high quality natural resources. The overlay is a
tool that will protect natural features within the
corridor while providing for an appropriate level of
development and opportunities for public use such
as natural trail corridors.
Clustering - A development design technique that
concentrates buildings on a part of the site to allow
the remaining land to be used for common open
space and preservation of natural resources.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-2 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Life -cycle Housing - Refers to housing of a variety
of types, styles, price ranges, and services to
accommodate a resident's life span.
Senior Housing - Refers to housing that is age
restricted, most commonly for persons 55 years
and older. This category can include owner or
rental -occupied housing and can range in price
from market rate to affordable, and can include
independent living or some level of assistance/
services.
Affordable Housing - Refers to housing that is
either rental or owner -occupied. Housing units are
considered affordable if priced at or below 30% of
the gross income of a household earning 60% of the
Twin Cities median family income.
"... the St. Croix River, location of the city,
and "my" neighborhood were the top three
responses when asked what people liked
most about Stillwater ... "
Community Survey
The City of Stillwater conducted a community
survey in 2006. This survey was sent out to a large
sample of residents and business owners asking
about their experiences living, working and playing
in the city. The survey had a 60 percent response
rate.
The results showed that 81 percent of respondents
indicated they are happy with their quality of life
in Stillwater. The survey also showed that most
residents feel safe in the city and that it is a good
place to raise children. The St. Croix River, location
of the city, and "my" neighborhood were the top
three responses when the survey asked what
people liked most about Stillwater. Growth and
development, traffic congestion and taxes were the
top rated concerns.
Metropolitan Council & Stillwater's 2030
Planning Process
In 1967 the Minnesota Legislature created the
Metropolitan Council to coordinate the orderly
development of the seven -county metropolitan
area. Minnesota law requires every municipality
and county within the metropolitan area to
prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the
Metropolitan Council that addresses all required
components of the 2030 Regional Development
Framework and the city's plan must be consistent
with the Metropolitan Council's system plans.
To assist local governments in this effort, the
Metropolitan Council issues a "Systems Statement"
to each community that describes the specific
areas that must be addressed as part of the local
comprehensive plan. The City of Stillwater received
its revised Systems Statement in September 2005
and, with an approved time extension, is required
to submit its 2030 Comprehensive Plan to the
Metropolitan Council by June 30, 2009.
The city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan will focus
on conformance with metropolitan plans for
transportation, water resources, wastewater
services, housing, land use, regional parks and
open space. The city's plan will be reviewed for
consistency with Metropolitan Council policies
and plans and compatibility with adjacent and
affected government units such as Washington
County, cities of Oak Park Heights and Grant,
Stillwater Township, Brown's Creek Watershed
District, the Middle Saint Croix Watershed
Management Organization, the Carnelian Marine -
St. Croix Watershed District, and school districts.
The city will also need to coordinate planning
efforts with government agencies such as the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA).
The City of Stillwater is classified by the
Metropolitan Council as a "developed" community
(Figure 1.1), which is defined as 85 percent
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-3
developed or more at the end of the year 2000. As
such, the Metropolitan Council requires Stillwater
to plan for 20 years of growth and identify post-
2030 growth areas. Stillwater is also required
to plan for a community -wide transportation
system. Improved connections need to be made
between transportation, transit, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities and land uses, and the city needs
to improve transportation connections and identify
transit opportunities.
All metropolitan area communities must plan to
accommodate life -cycle and affordable housing.
Lifecycle housing refers to the mix of housing types
that meet the housing demands of individuals and
families throughout their lives, such as single family
detached, townhomes, condominiums, apartments,
and senior housing. Affordable housing refers to
housing that a low to moderate income household
could afford without spending more that 30
percent of its household income. The Metropolitan
Council's definition of low -to -moderate income
household is a household that makes 80 percent of
the Twin Cities metropolitan area median income
for owner occupied housing and 60 percent of the
Twin Cities metropolitan area median income for
rental housing. The Twin Cities metropolitan area
median income is $54,304; therefore, 80 percent of
the median income is $43,443, which translates into
a $201,800 owner -occupied home.
The Metropolitan Council prepared a report in 2006
that determines the affordable housing need in the
region between 2011 and 2020 based on household
growth potential, ratio of low -wage jobs to low -wage
workers, current provision of affordable housing,
and transit service. Based on this methodology, the
Metropolitan Council's affordable housing goal
for Stillwater is to accommodate 233 affordable
housing units between 2011 and 2020.
Also the Metropolitan Council requires that
developed communities conserve, protect, and
enhance natural resources by doing the following:
• Conduct natural resource inventories
• Adopt natural resource conservation
techniques
• Prepare local stormwater management plans
• Include natural resources in the local park
system
• Implement Best Management Practices
The Metropolitan Council will review the city's plan
for conformance to all metropolitan system plans,
for consistency with requirements of Metropolitan
Land Planning Act and for compatibility with the
plans of adjacent jurisdictions, including school
districts.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER 0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-4 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Figure 1.1 : 2030 Framework
2030 Framework
Planning Areas
NOTE: Please refer to the Comprehensive Plans Composite map or the Regional Systems maps for the most
recent inforrnation. These maps are available at the Metropolitan Council Data Center (651) 602-114OE
Geographic Planning Areas
Urban Planning Areas
Developing Area.
Developed Area
Rural Planning Areas
Rural Center
Agricultural
Dttersifcx] Rural
Rural Residential
Additional Information
Regiona] Natural.
W'/rd Resource Areas
(includes Term -stria! and Wetland Area)
SOURCE. Mlenas ❑NR in mesdinaiaiir
',Mils Lite Memivnr 11tee Conrail
Regional Park
fe Proposed Regional Park
..•... ,Regional Trail
wma Transit 2025 Corridor
- Principal Arterial
Open Water
Metropolitan Cowell
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-5
Demographics
Demographic information was collected from the
1995 Comprehensive Plan, Metropolitan Council
forecasts, 2000 Census, and existing land use data.
That information is displayed in the following
tables.
Table 1.1 shows historical census population of
the city. The table also includes the City preferred
population forecast for 2010 and the Metropolitan
Council population forecasts made in April 2005
for 2020 and 2030.
Table 1.1: Population History and Forecasts
Stillwater
Washington County
Population
Change
Population
Change
Actual
1970
10,196
x
82,948
x
1980
12,290
20.5%
113,571
36.9%
1990
13,882
13.0%
145,896
28.5%
2000
15,323
10.4%
201,130
37.9%
Estimate
2005
17,429
13.7%
224,857
11.8%
Forecasts*
2010
18,400
5.6%
258,502
15.0%
2020
21,300
15.8%
316,043
22.3%
2030
19,900
-6.6%
365,570
15.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census,
*City of Stillwater preferred forecast estimates
Stillwater grew from 13,882 persons to 15,323 during
the 1990s. It is forecasted that the population of the
city will grow by 2,471 people between 2005 and
2030. Table 1.2 shows the age breakdown of the
city and county population.
About 58 percent of Stillwater's population in 2000
was between the ages of 18 and 64. Persons between
0 and 18 years of age were the second largest group
making up about 30 percent of the total population.
Stillwater 's senior population made up 12 percent
of the population. The age distribution between the
city and county is relatively even, with Stillwater
having a slightly larger percentage of seniors. The
City of Stillwater had a slightly lower percentage
of people than Washington County in the family
formation stage of life, ages 25 to 44.
Table 1.2 : Age of Population, 2000
Stillwater
Washington County
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
0-4
991
6.5%
15,346
7.6%
5 - 9
1,164
7.7%
16,946
8.4%
10 -14
1,303
8.6%
17,037
8.5%
15 -17
1,037
6.8%
14,564
7.2%
18 - 24
651
4.3%
9,058
4.5%
25 - 34
1,738
11.5%
27,341
13.6%
35 -44
2,626
17.3%
38,877
19.3%
45 - 54
2,469
16.3%
30,210
15.0%
55 - 59
852
5.6%
9,850
4.9%
60 - 64
519
3.4%
6,634
3.3%
65 - 74
864
5.7%
8,830
4.4%
75 - 84
617
4.1%
4,782
2.4%
85 +
312
2.1%
1,655
0.8%
Total
15,143
100.0%
201,130
100.0%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Table 1.3 presents the historical household growth
of the community and the county and like Table
1-1, includes a 2005 estimate, 2010 City preferred
forecast, and forecasts for 2020 and 2030 as
determined by the Metropolitan Council.
Stillwater presently has a slower growth rate
than the county, increasing by approximately
117 households per year between 1990 and 2005.
The city added 815 households in the 1990s. The
Metropolitan Council forecasts Stillwater to add
1,866 households between 2005 and 2030.
Table 1.3 : Households,1990-2030
Stillwater
Washington County
Number
Change
Number
Change
Actual
1990
5,105
x
49,246
x
2000
5,797
13.6%
71,462
45.1%
Estimate
2005
6,734
16.2%
81,645
14.3%
Forecasts
2010
7,200
6.9%
97,729
19.7%
2020
8,100
12.5%
122,744
25.6%
2030
8,600
6.2%
145,517
18.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, City of Stillwater
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER 0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-6 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Table 1.4 displays the racial makeup of Stillwater
and Washington County. The city is predominately
white with 97.5 percent of the population identifying
themselves as white.
In addition to the age of residents, the educational
attainment level also influences the community.
Table 1.5 shows the education levels, which directly
impacts the local economy, influences economic
development and also suggests potential demands
and expectations of current residents. About 25
percent of the population only has a high school
diploma. But, 27 percent of the population attended
some college. And, another 27 percent completed a
bachelor's degree.
Table 1.5 : Educational Attainment
Table 1.4 : Race
Stillwater
County
Race
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White
14,767
97.5
188,317
93.6
Two or more races
141
0.9
1,760
1.4
Asian
86
0.6
4,297
2.1
Some other race
55
0.4
1,216
0.6
Black or African
American
48
0.3
3,689
1.8
American Indian and
Alaska Native
43
0.3
785
0.4
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
3
0
66
0
Source: US Census, 2000
Stillwater
Washington County
Population age 25 years
and over
Population
Percent
Population
Percent
Less than 9th grade
118
1.2
1,982
1.5
9th to 12th grade, no
diploma
393
3.9
5,684
4.4
High school graduate
(includes equivalency)
2,468
24.5
33,378
26
Some college, no degree
2,690
26.7
33,126
25.8
Associate degree
626
6.2
10,617
8.3
Bachelor's degree
2,730
27.1
30,015
23.4
Graduate or professional
degree
1048
10.4
13,413
10.5
Total
10,073
100
128,215
100
Percent high school
graduate or higher
(x)
94.9
(x)
94
Percent bachelor's degree
or higher
(x)
37.5
I
(x)
33.9
Source: US Census, 2000
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-7
Land Use and Growth Management
One of the initial activities associated with the 2008
comprehensive plan update process was to complete
a very detailed inventory of the existing land use
of each parcel in the city. This land use inventory
also included all of the property located within the
orderly annexation area of Stillwater Township.
From this inventory, and the other background
information that was compiled, areas of potential
development or redevelopment could be analyzed.
The inventory also revealed development patterns,
densities, and trends that can provide direction for
future development and redevelopment.
Table 1.6 : Existing Land Use, 2007*
Existing Land Use (Not
Acres
Percent of
Total
Including Planned
Annexation Areas)
COMM LAND & BLDGS
333.8
6.5%
INDS LAND & BLDGS
18.8
0.4%
INSTITUTIONAL
271.0
5.3%
PARK, TRAIL &
RECREATION
870.3
16.9%
RES 1 UNIT (Single Family
Homes)
1668.2
32.6%
RES 2 UNITS
29.0
0.6%
RES 3-4 UNITS
44.5
0.9%
RES MORE THAN 4
UNITS
91.8
1.8%
RESIDENTIAL, Misc
65.2
1.3%
ROAD Right -of -Way
812.3
15.8%
VACANT
175.1
3.4%
Open Water
693.6
13.5%
Wetland
50.6
1.0%
Total City
5124.3
100.0%
Source: City of Stillwater
* Acreage in this table differ from Table 2.1B, since
the vacant acreages in Table 1.6 does not appear in
Table 2.1B. Instead it is included with neighboring
uses to allow for a comparison with 2030 uses.
Existing Land Use
The acreage of the city on January 1, 2008 was
approximately 5,124 acres. A large portion of this
acreage is dedicated to single family residential
uses. The city also has a significant amount of
land classified as open space. Table 1.6 identifies
the existing land uses within the city and the
percentage of the overall land which is dedicated
to that specific use. Figure 1.2 shows the existing
land use graphically.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-8 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Figure 1.2 : Existing Land Use
`r1 1
i■\
rttr ice' uu■u
a1'�INI'����=�j'ts.1-I nrinii
.of1rmi. i Nunn ■n.lu-i
ik ►►•_ • ma mum imanni
= 1 _ —RNA nu �a is ■
imi
.r-4'1y C�II� ,�1: ■�o n�I "I ��I
1`� Ili IIIHuI' �I:.IIII (IIII[ = -
1 ■I.IIIENINI1r ER I
IIIIIIIIIII_■.IIIIII11111111111.
■IIII * I -+- .
1 E�� f,, API■■■■■ ■IIIIII!II!II !!nn' ■■.!I� 1 �r`I'0.
���'"- f� ` Uri ICI IIIIIIIII �•- >1.��'��ts
III!; ■Ill..11a• 1J w . .■ �� 1���q,�
..J �.11.111f. IIII ■a ■■ I� ■+ �'` �►.s l�* � !GI.
..fir yam:
■- ri ri, u�■■I■
VIVIIV il-
` 743.%
��Jr
. + rt 11 -■.■. IIII
tG �1 . C tVr t s4 ram►" i11� II! "I' 11111 ■11111
ti � f � ..■ � � � ►@w � it ��r III1R ■.�I r NM _.. iu
,,aw�� �; ���� �rli fi'i i� M F��.r`-/ r�rt1 r■aq �'1�C nor :MI
rr nr>i a.i
r ■ �Iti a A►1 t rr =■ !g olio _4,4
!;!`. s: �- ■
!',: Ir rl� ,rlr I%V
.■IIII IILi�I...1►r■ rr ��■iILIII■IIII.fIRi�r■.�r1M 1�a■fs a�`��� ` —�11.�7r+` !Il�s-l�r-A�jj IIlIIi=.si...
►I� �� �111r r�■ ■_
� , .. ■ i 4 4i Mimi irwkl1,I 14 1 'r it =�. �' 1I . ■■. ■■ a�
``� Lake !� ���/7f MUM .01laa a �1444 "� , tIqUiL»
1I :IIII' ■ on
11.. y '� Lon ♦ ■ ■ 'f `_ �,.R■ �,�� .,
g- 011110011rfl� l.1■►4 ♦♦ �I ,�1_!� . rloo t —a' ..•
� ��fi�1�s `r ■rp�: �' ♦11I i111.1■ ■.
401 ot fil 4.1\itl4A44,
rii„
LI
101111A II
Ilj Q, �/ •
■ r r� -I .. . ::. :::::::„.ii-:
_I, nsa11 el". 'al arellifirli
fkfllily'�_���1-� �i■Jii�. III■i11t'�
un pi t Lai ��1'��1��11 y, ® \ ■
IIII _ j■l l ��immi�r�e'� '`�Ilj �C�, 01111011111 sli�:
MOM CAW 1, , — �I,Not aO
t■�I
NM
■- _ (Fd1
■ Ill: II-
■■ + . 11 - 1 •gym
1li 11111111I 1111.111 $ : s c
1111111i °� 1• � �c� ; i `r . ♦-
Ii.. 1 1 IIII■
. ■1..1■, ■■■11■ ■ A ...- 11 *-
a C■lL .■ i►y�'er ��� f
.IIII rim .� f_t � t %X VI
11 III El it
y�flnC9111
''_ 1111111111/�
l �ji Trias=■Fill
r t di rig
#ii
N�t�>r►�� Va�
otitia,_,:li?
•� �I
• _. _'- :dial
` Illiaratid NE
ei
.11 + p.i. � :..�s�i>r r'�t `lip\::�� v'� ■i
. -tf
Or I l �� ``a � ` '-1[/ ,.0i
V I ►- %f . i - r �?�Y ---ee�■f 1 yl►i111�.:I
�4 ■!� a w���j. ' 'li����Ir qS �rila�■ 11�alassal �+ ■1 1.
fill~ I�ys a�+pj ii vim♦ og IiI ►r �� .��1��'i �� ;i H 1 i��
illl���'� . �i .. ■I .f1111ru rn..:.r'r ���= l =_■■ mu i=
THE EIHTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Existing Land Use
2008 Comprehensive Plan
800 0 800 1,600 Feet
�._.� City Limit Residential
(Misc.) Residential (1
Unit) Residential (2
Units) Residential (3-4
Units) Residential (4+
Units) Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space
Park, Trail, Recreation
Open Water
Wetland
Right -of -Way
Vacant or Agricultural
`Note: Existing land use as of January 1, 2007;
Parcel data as of June 1, 2008
I:/510/51007001/gis/maps/Existing Land Use.mxd
PLAN Ur 511LLVVA1 r,K
n r�n�it��y��u�n�uuniLm(y����q�iBit���t���y�i��miunuuuwwnirliwg
For comparison purposes the land uses as they
existed in 1994 are presented in Table 1.7. The 1994
and 2007 data uses slightly different categories
but comparisons can still be made. Single family
residential uses made up about 35 percent of the
city in 1994 and 2007. Open space and right-of-
way rounded out the top three land use categories
in each year as well. Agricultural land showed a
significant decrease of more than 162 acres between
1994 and 2007.
Table 1.7 : Existing Land Use, 1994
Land Use
Acres
Percent
One Family
1,960.40
35.4
Parks & Open Space
759.1
13.7
Street Right -of -Way
744.8
13.4
Vacant Parcels
602.8
10.9
Agricultural
407.1
7.3
Public & Tax Exempt
344.5
6.2
Lakes and Streams
324.6
5.9
Commercial
211.8
3.8
Two Families
78.2
1.4
3 or 4 Families
41.2
0.7
Larger Multi -Family
39.8
0.7
Industrial
27.1
0.5
Group Quarters
3.3
0.1
Total
5,544.70
100
Source: 1995 Comprehensive Plan
Existing Zoning
Stillwater's current zoning ordinance establishes
22 zoning districts. Below is a description of those
districts.
Residential
The city has thirteen residential zoning districts. A
number of these districts are intended to provide
primarily single-family detached housing, with
varying degrees of design guidance. Some of
these districts relate to specific developments
within the city. These single-family districts
include: Agricultural Preservation (AP), Lakeshore
Residential (LR) District, Cove Traditional
Residential (CTR) District, Traditional Residential
(TR) District, One -Family District (RA), Cove
Cottage Residential (CCR) district, and Cottage
Residential (CR) District.
Other districts provide regulation for two-family
and multi -family residential developments. Some
of these districts also include specific design
guidelines and are limited to certain geographic
areas of the city. These include: the two-family
district (RB), the low density multiple -family
residential district (RCL), the medium density
multiple family residential district (RCM), the
townhouse residential district (TH), the cove
townhouse residential district (CTHR), and the
high density multiple -family residential district
(RCH).
Commercial
The General Commercial district (CA) allows for
the widest range of retail businesses, including
supermarkets, small bakeries, departments stores,
restaurants, beauty shops, office buildings, hotels,
funeral homes, auto sales, recreational facilities,
and transit stations. The Village Commercial
District (VC) provides for convenience shopping
and personal services in close proximity to a
residential neighborhood. The Central Business
District (CBD) encompasses the downtown area
and includes commercial and entertainment uses
that rely on a community wide or regional market.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-10
In addition to the CA, VC and CBD districts there
are also three business park districts: Business Park
- Commercial District (BP-C), Business Park - Office
District (BP-O), and Business Park - Industrial
district (BP -I). These districts allow for business
parks, professional offices and light industrial of
varying intensities.
Special Districts
The Campus Research District (CRD) provides for
a mix of office, research and development, and light
manufacturing uses with limited retail and service
in a planned business park setting designed to
provide for low -density, high -quality development
with increased amenities and open space.
The purpose of the Public Works Facility District
(PWFD) is to provide a district for public works
facilities.
The purpose of the Public Administrative Offices
district (PA) is to provide a district for public and
semi-public offices and related uses.
Overlay Zoning Districts
• The Floodplain Overlay District (FP):
regulates land use within floodplains.
• The Saint Croix River (SCR) Overlay
District: regulates development within the
river corridor.
• The Shoreland Management Overlay
District: regulates development near
lakeshores.
• The Neighborhood Conservation District
(NCD): helps preserve the traditional
neighborhoods in Stillwater.
Implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan
By law, zoning must be consistent with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan of a city. Table 1.8
shows Stillwater's future land use categories and
the zoning districts considered by the city to be
consistent with those future land use categories.
Special Studies
There are a number of studies that have been
completed since the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. The
results of those studies have been incorporated into
the 2008 comprehensive plan update. A summary
of these studies can be found in Appendix A.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-11 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Table 1.8 : Future Land Use Categories and Corresponding Zoning
Future Land Use Categories
Corresponding Zoning Districts'
SRR, Semi -Rural Residential
< 0.4 units/acre
AP, Agricultural Preservation 0.1 units/ac
LDR, Low Density Residential
1- 4.4 units/acre
RA, One Family 4.4 units/ac
TR, Traditional Residential 4.4 units/ac
LR, Lakeshore Residential 2.2 units/ac
CR, Cove Traditional Res. 3.1 units/ac
LMDR, Low -Medium Density Residential
4.4 - 9.7 units/acre
CCR, Cove Cottage Res. 4.4-6.2 units/ac
RB, Two Family 5.9-8.7 units/acre
CR, Cottage Residential 7.3-9.7 units/ac
MDR, Medium Density Residential
6-14.5 units/acre
TH, Townhouse 8.7 units/ac
CTHR, Cove Townhouse Res. 14.5 units/ac
RCL, Low Density Multi -Family 6.2 units/acre
HDR, High Density Residential
12+ units/acre -no max.
RCM, Medium Density Multi -Family 15.6 units/ac
RCH, High Density Multi -Family 29.0 units/ac
NC, Neighborhood Commercial
VC, Village Commercial,
CA, General Commercial
COM, Commercial
CBD, Central Business District
BP-C, Business Park Commercial
BP-O, Business Park Office
DMU, Downtown Mixed Use
CBD, Central Business District
BPI, Business Park/ Industrial
BP -I, Business Park Industrial
IB, General Heavy Industry
CRD, Campus Research & Dev.
RDP, Research & Development Park
CRD, Campus Research & Dev.
INST, Institutional
PA, Public Administrative Offices
PWF, Public Works Facility
PR, Park & Recreation 2
LR, Lakeshore Residential
CTR, Cove Traditional Residential
RA, Single Family Residential
TR, Traditional Residential
CCR, Cove Cottage Residential
RB, Two Family Residential
CR, Cottage Residential
TH, Townhouse, Cove Townhouse
RCL, Low Density MF
RCM, Medium Density MF
RCH, High Density MF
PROS, Park, Recreation, and Open Space
WA, Water
Water
OS, Open Space 3
--
RAIL, Railway
Railroad
ROW, Right -of -Way
Right -of -Way
Marina
PROS, Park, Recreation, and Open Space
1 Densities represent the maximum permitted in district. Corresponding zoning district means that the future
land use might be appropriate in the district if compatible with surrounding properties.
2 Park and recreation includes public and private property used for park and recreation uses.
3 Open space does not include parks, cemeteries, trails, golf courses, etc. It includes undeveloped property
that is ravine, shoreland, river islands, steep slopes, creek, or bluff.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-12
Figure 1.3 : Zoning Map
MANI Ell Er ma 16
Emu! EL ma ma am
=1111110111m 11 761E7 177,.71%
Inn E P.
gr Ng -
in MI
PT- rm
MM 111111111-Fai_m_..X.
MI
.2 MEI InCTIV,Will,
riiirmappl
.,rprogari. Flak: trim. .L
IF! 77:1F:776a1CIL:: Ear Q3
•• min
EMIM mr_iiiipt. %IF
WEVPRIN.71Te,4 Tharacmori
milArvit _ sails
NE a.1-1.1
• 7,Ezi it,11
MilllatiN hi - HIRAI MMICI
ggi2lAkkil0 &Pk ‘e,
44"llir_outOP-12121QrAgetT114-IMITIIM EN Valm iim.111VI red N.M\vaiMEMII
CommLI 1 ity Development Departmen I
7„Qfling Districts
A-P,Agricultural Preservation
IRA- Single Family Residential
I=)RB- Two Family
ED TR, Traditional Residential
lID LR,Lakeshore Residential
CR, Cottage Residential
— CTR,Cove Traditional Residential
— CCR,Cove Cottage Residential
— CTHR,Cove Townhouse Residential
- TH,Townhouse
EDRCM- Medium Density Residential
I=)RCH - High Density Residential
M VC,Village Commercial
— CA- General Commercial
— CBD - Central Business District
ED BP-C,Business Park - Commercial
BP-O,Business Park - Office
1—.ABP-1, Business Park- Industrial
— IB - Heavy Industrial
— CRD- campus Research Development
ED PA - Public Administration
ED TZ- Transitional Zone {Township}
r) Public Works Facility
CJ ROAD
— Railroad
CJ WATER
PLAN OF STILLWATER @]
Chapter 1 : Community Background - 13
Appendix A
Summary of Special Studies
"Trunk Highway 36", "Trunk Highway
95 and Downtown Stillwater - Existing
Conditions" and "Proposed St. Croix River
Crossing"
Trunk Highway 36 (TH 36) is a four -lane divided
expressway that connects the Twin Cities and
northern St. Paul suburbs with Stillwater and Oak
Park Heights. It is classified as a principal arterial,
a National Highway System (NHS) route, and one
of Minnesota's Interregional Corridors (IRC). TH
36 is an important facility serving the region's
population and businesses, as well as providing
linkages to recreation areas in Washington County
and Wisconsin.
Near the St. Croix River, TH 36 turns north and
connects with TH 95 (Main Street). It narrows
to a two-lane roadway as it enters Stillwater's
downtown, and becomes an urban collector
street. The narrower street and its substandard
turning radii restrict traffic flow to one lane in each
direction, and limit the effectiveness of traffic signal
operations. It also limits the ability of large vehicles
such as trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles to
make turns at intersections. Pedestrian traffic also
conflicts with vehicle movements, particularly on
busy summer weekends. Traffic is particularly
congested at Main Street and Chestnut, where TH
36 turns and crosses the Stillwater Lift Bridge to
Wisconsin and connects to Wisconsin State Trunk
Highway 64.
The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the St. Croix River Crossing
Project notes the following concerns related to
current traffic conditions on TH 36:
• Volumes on TH 36 in the upper bluff area
near the St. Croix River are approaching
capacity
• The report noted failing levels of service
at frontage road intersections along TH 36
between County Road 5 and junction with
TH 95, indicating that they are operating at
or over capacity. The distances between TH
36 and its frontage roads in the area between
Washington Avenue and Osgood Avenue
are very short. This limits the capacity
of the frontage roads, creates hazardous
conditions and long traffic queues, and
encourages local trips to travel on TH 36,
unnecessarily occupying its capacity
• The capacity problems along TH 36 and
through downtown delay emergency
response for Lakeview Hospital, the
Washington County Sheriff's Department
and Stillwater Fire Department
• The vehicle crash rate for TH 36 between
the south junction of TH 36/TH 95 and
at the east end of the Lift Bridge is about
90 percent higher than the average crash
rate for two-lane urban trunk highways in
Minnesota
• It is difficult for bicycles and pedestrians
to cross TH 36 in the upper bluff area.
Between 1984 and 2000, traffic on TH
36 grew about 2 percent annually. The
Supplemental Draft EIS for the St. Croix
River Crossing Project noted that because of
limited capacity into and out of Stillwater
on TH 36 (particularly on 36/95 into and out
of Downtown), traffic is diverting to other
routes as volumes grow. Two of the popular
routes for diversion include:
* TH 36 to northbound Osgood Avenue/
Fourth Street
* TH 36 to northbound Greeley Avenue/
Myrtle Street
Lift Bridge
In addition to being a historic icon, the Lift Bridge is a
key component of the Stillwater area transportation
system. It spans the St. Croix River, linking TH 36
and Stillwater to Wisconsin State Trunk Highway
(STH) 64 and Houlton, Wisconsin. The bridge has
two traffic lanes. The narrow lanes and geometrics
of the Lift Bridge limit the volume and speed of
traffic traveling across it, and its ability to manage
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-14
traffic after a crash or incident on the bridge.
The bridge lifts 21 times daily during the week
between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 22 times daily
on weekends and holidays between 8 a.m. and
midnight. Key concerns related to the Lift Bridge are
identified in the St. Croix River Bridge Supplemental
Draft EIS (2004) include the following:
• Bridge deck lifts cause substantial queuing
throughout downtown Stillwater and up
the bluff on the Wisconsin side. Long
queues result in poor intersection level of
service throughout downtown Stillwater,
and lengthen peak traffic hours through the
corridor.
• MnDOT field observation indicates that
traffic queuing during times when the
bridge is raised may extend as far south as
the TH 36/95 junction in Minnesota, and
north up the bluff and through Houlton in
Wisconsin.
• During times of the year with high
pedestrian volumes, the interaction between
bridge lifts, vehicles and pedestrians reduces
the capacity and operating efficiency of
intersections and roadways, and creates
hazards for vehicles and pedestrians
• During bridge lifts, traffic diverts to local
streets, collector streets, and other arterial
streets in seeking to minimize delay when
traveling through Stillwater. This diversion
traffic impairs the level of service on local
streets.
During the summer of 2005, MnDOT closed the
Lift Bridge for repairs. The agency monitored the
impacts of traffic during the closure. Traffic in
Downtown Stillwater fell dramatically.
St. Croix River Crossing Background and
Recommended Alternative
MnDOT's discussion of the proposed new St. Croix
River Crossing notes that:
"Severe traffic congestion in downtown Stillwater, safety
problems on approach roadways, and delays caused by
the operation of the Stillwater Lift Bridge have spurred
the discussion of a new bridge crossing in Stillwater for
many years. "Rush hour" delays and weekend backups,
especially during the tourist season, frustrate residents
and visitors alike.
"Development of downtown Stillwater and northwestern
Wisconsin as tourist destinations, commercial
development along Highway 36 attracting employees
and residents throughout the region, development in
Wisconsin, and the economic strength of the Twin
Cities metropolitan area as an employment center have
contributed to increasing traffic volumes on Highway 36,
Highway 95, in downtown Stillwater, State Highway
64, and across the Lift Bridge."
As owners and operators of the bridge, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Wis/
DOT) grew concerned about the poor condition of
the Stillwater Lift Bridge and operation of the lift
mechanism. Also of concern was the context in
which this bridge and its adjoining roadways sit.
The U.S. Congress has designated the St. Croix
River as a National Wild and Scenic River for its
scenic, recreational, and geologic values. Several
buildings in Downtown Stillwater, as well as the
Lift Bridge itself, are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. Historic archaeological sites
can also be found adjacent to the riverbanks - the
site of early industrial and recreational activities.
The river valley supports an abundance of wildlife
and aquatic species, including several endangered
species. The St. Croix River Valley is valued by
residents and visitors alike for its combination of
natural, historic, and scenic resources. Proposed
solutions to the transportation problem considered
alternatives to minimize potential negative impacts
on these resources.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-15 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Consideration of a replacement bridge crossing
over the St. Croix River near Stillwater began in
the early 1970s, but was not pursued because of a
lack of funding. In the 1980s, Mn/DOT, Wis/DOT,
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
began working with the communities of Stillwater
and Oak Park Heights in Minnesota, and St.
Joseph Township in Wisconsin to identify possible
solutions for a replacement crossing. The 1987
Scoping Decision Document/Final Study Outline
for the Highway 36/State Highway 64 St. Croix River
Crossing identified four broad corridors for a new
river crossing both north and south of downtown
Stillwater as well as two corridors in or near the
downtown area. The 1990 Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) analyzed three of these
corridors, along with a "No Action" Alternative
and a Transportation System Management (TSM)
Alternative, which examined various options to
maximize use of the existing transportation system.
In April 1995, Mn/DOT, Wis/DOT, and FHWA
completed a Final EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
for a replacement bridge about 6,300 feet south
of the existing Stillwater Lift Bridge. A Record of
Decision (ROD) was issued by FHWA in July 1995,
and work began on the final design of the river
crossing and the approach roadways. Right-of-
way was acquired, and site preparation work was
initiated. In 1996, the National Park Service (NPS)
evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project,
as proposed, would have a direct and adverse
effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and
recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix
River was included in the National Wild and Scenic
River System. As a result of this finding, federal
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the U.S. Coast Guard could not be issued for the
project, and the project was not allowed to proceed.
In April 1998, the U.S. District Court upheld the
NPS determination.
In an effort to determine whether any crossing of
the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was
feasible near Stillwater, Mn/DOT and Wis/DOT
completed an independent review of the project.
Between June and September of 1998, Richard
Braun, former MnDOT Commissioner, conducted
extensive discussions and meetings with many
individuals and organizations, and facilitated
public meetings with the 21-member St. Croix
River Crossing Advisory Group that included
representatives from federal and state regulatory
agencies, local and regional units of government,
environmental groups, historic preservation
groups, and chambers of commerce.
Braun recommended a four -lane, deck -tied, steel
arch bridge on an alignment 3,600 feet south of
the existing Stillwater Lift Bridge. The proposed
bridge would cross the river perpendicularly and
would be shorter than the 1995 Final EIS Preferred
Alternative. The alignment would also take
advantage of an existing ravine on the Wisconsin
bluff, thereby reducing potential impacts on the
Lower St. Croix Valley. A large majority of the St.
Croix River Crossing Advisory Group agreed that
they could accept the Braun recommendations.
Following the Braun process, NPS, FHWA, Wis/
DOT, and Mn/DOT executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) specifying the intention
to use the Braun recommendations as a basis for
a new bridge crossing alternative that would be
evaluated in a Supplemental EIS. The agreement
also stated that the NPS Section 7(a) review for
this alternative would be completed concurrently
with the Supplemental EIS. The Supplemental EIS
was completed in 2004, and concurred with the
recommended alternative. The new crossing and
proposed improvements to TH 36 are expected
to improve traffic conditions through Downtown
Stillwater and along the TH 36 Corridor.
At the time of this writing, the proposed location of
the new bridge is 6,300 feet south of the existing Lift
Bridge. The Braun alternative is no longer being
considered. This was the preferred alternative
selected in June 2006. On March 14, 2012, President
Barack Obama signed Public Law 112-100
legislation authorizing the St. Croix River Crossing
project.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 1 : Community Background 1-16
Construction of the new bridge and related
improvements is anticipated to begain in 2013
but could be later with bridge completion scheduled for
2016 and completion of all project elements planned by
2017. In addition to the new St. Croix River Bridge,
the project would includes the following:
• TH 36 would be converted to an access
controlled freeway between TH 5 and TH
95.
• The Lift Bridge will be converted to a
bicycle/pedestrian facility.
• New multi -use pedestrian and bridge paths
will be added along the TH 36 frontage
road system, along TH 95 from Downtown
Stillwater, on the north side of the new
bridge, and connecting the new bridge to
STH 35 in Wisconsin. A loop trail system
would be created between the Lift Bridge
and the new river crossing that would be
connected to the larger regional trail system.
• The Lift Bridge will still operate to allow
passage for navigational and recreational
boats, however the schedule could be
different from the current schedule.
Related Planning Issues for the Comprehensive
Plan and
Downtown -Man:
• Construction of the new St. Croix Bridge
and closure of the Lift Bridge will positively
reduce traffic flows in Downtown Stillwater,
and will provide opportunities to improve
the pedestrian environment. How should
the Downtown Plan and Comprehensive
Plan anticipate these changes and address
them?
• How should the plan respond to the
proposed new pedestrian and bike trails that
are planned with the new St. Croix Bridge
and on the Lift Bridge? How should the
design for parks and trails on the Stillwater
Riverfront respond to these opportunities?
In July 2015, the City of Stillwater adopted a
new Trails Master Plan to plan for two major
additions to the regional trail system
connecting to downtown Stillwater: the
Brown's Creek Trail completed by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in
2014 and the St. Croix River Crossing Loop
Trail. An update to the city's Downtown
Master Plan will begin in Fall 2015 to respond
to changes and opportunities resulting from the
new trails and river crossing.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1-17 Chapter 1 : Community Background
Chapter 8 - Parks and Trails
Introduction
THE City of Stillwater has acknowledged the importance of
providing park, trail, and open space opportunities that
enhance the quality of life of its residents and visitors. Parks
and recreation facilities are essential in promoting community
wellness, connecting the individual to ecological value and
stewardship, promoting cultural understanding, and fostering
economic viability.
Parks, Trails and Riverfront
Goals
Goal 1: Provide a variety of passive and active parks and
other leisure, recreational and cultural opportunities that are
conveniently located, accessible, affordable, safe, physically
attractive and uncrowded for all Stillwater residents.
Goal 2: Enhance and expand existing recreational facilities
for Stillwater residents based on the recreational needs of the
community and its neighborhoods.
Goal 3: Work to develop an area -wide interconnected
recreation and facilities plan with other local governments, the
school district and Washington County.
Goal 4: Reinforce the riverfront as the focus of the downtown
Stillwater open space system and as a significant cultural and
historical amenity.
Chapter 8 Contents
Introduction 8-1
Parks, Trails and Riverfront - Goals 8-1
Park Standards -
Objectives, Policies, and Programs 8-2
Efficient Use of Facilities -
Objectives and Policies 8-2
Park Location and Design -
Objectives, Policies, and Programs 8-3
Existing Park System 8-3
Park Classifications 8-7
Local Trends 8-10
Sustainability 8-10
Future Needs 8-11
Trails and Pathways 8-14
Trail System 8-15
Jackson Wildlife Management Area 8-16
Implementation 8-17
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails 8-1
Park Standards
Objectives
Bring the amount of Stillwater's park land into
compliance with the city's adopted minimum
standards: community park land at a city-wide
total of 3 acres per 1,000 population; neighborhood
park land at a city-wide total of 7 acres per 1,000
population; park facilities within one -quarter mile
or less of residents, no major physical barriers
within that one -quarter mile distance.
Provide a balance of active and passive recreation
opportunities, including facilities to serve the
varied interests of the population.
Designate adequate park sites for the future
development of the city.
Provide for an annual evaluation, maintenance and
replacement of recreational facilities.
Policies
Policy 1: The city shall require all new development
to dedicate land or pay a park fee according to the
park dedication policy.
Policy 2: The city shall obtain and develop new
public neighborhood parks at a rate consistent with
new residential development and in keeping with
the city's basic guidelines for park development.
Policy 3: The city shall develop public community
parks consistent with growth of the city's population
and in keeping with the city's basic guidelines for
park development.
Policy 4: The city will provide recreation activity
sites to respond to the active and passive needs of a
diverse population.
Policy 5: The development of private sector
recreation facilities in the appropriate locations
shall be encouraged. In addition to public park
improvements required of developers, the city
shall promote private open space and recreation
facilities in large-scale residential developments.
Programs
Program 1: The city shall study and pursue
various means of funding for acquisition, operation
and maintenance of park, open space, trail and
recreation facilities.
Program 2: Acquire and develop land in the western
part of the city for community park purposes.
Efficient Use of Facilities
Objectives
Maximize opportunities for the joint use of public
land and facilities such as schools, detention ponds
and area under the jurisdiction of other public
agencies that have land available for possible
recreation purposes.
Maximize the extended use of existing public
facilities for year-round and evening use.
Identify recreation areas that are owned by school
district or other public entities and seek permission
to use those lands for recreation programs or
facilities.
Policies
Policy 6: The city will work with the school district
in identifying and evaluating the potential for park
acquisition of school sites which might become
surplus school lands.
Policy 7: Joint development of community
recreation facilities together with local schools and
surrounding governments shall be encouraged.
Programs
Program 3: Develop and implement a program for
year-round use of some recreation facilities.
Program 4: Explore methods to integrate a trail
system with the systems of surrounding local
governments and Washington County.
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
8-2 Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails
Park Location and Design
Objectives
Locate new neighborhood parks in areas not
necessarily adjacent to schools in order to better
distribute urban open space and to enhance
neighborhood identity. This is especially applicable
in the South Hill and Oak Glen planning areas,
where there are insufficient neighborhood park
facilities.
Design park and recreational facilities to serve the
recreation and social needs of residents of all ages,
economic situations and physical abilities.
Establish a volunteer program to help maintain
and enhance neighborhood parks.
Add landscaping, sculptures and seating. Vary
the landscaping, improvements and construction
materials used in different parks to help establish
park and neighborhood identity.
Policies
Policy 8: Residential developments adjacent to
parks or open spaces should be encouraged to
provide direct access to and common open space
contiguous with such areas.
Policy 9: In considering the location and
redevelopment of parks, the city shall give thought
to sites based on maximum geographic and
handicapped accessibility, proper topography and
visibility (for the safety of park users).
Policy 10: In the design and maintenance of parks,
consideration should be given to minimize the
impacts on the environment.
Programs
Program 5: Continue a regular patrol of parks to
provide for the safety of park users.
Program 6: Design, install and maintain
standardized park signage for all city parkland and
trails.
Program 7: Develop and implement neighborhood
park plans based on the priority list developed by
the Park and Recreation Commission.
Existing Park System
The City of Stillwater has developed 34 park and
recreation facilities, identified in Figure 8.1. These
facilities total approximately 348 acres, and include
the following:
• Community parks, including:
* Pioneer Park
* Lily Lake Park
* Lowell Park
* Northland Park
* Sunrise Park
* Brown's Creek Park
* Public Works Park/Boutwell Cemetery
* Teddy Bear Park
• Neighborhood parks, including:
* Washington Square
* Meadowlark Park
* Ramsey -Grove Park
* Staples Field
* So. Broadway - Triangle Park
* Schulenburg Park
* McKusick Park
* Benson Park
* Anez Ridge Park
* Legends Gazebo
* McKusick Lake Park
* Creekside Park
* Settlers Park
* Heritage Park
* Legends Park
* Prairie Park
* Bergmann Park
* Liberty Square
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails 8-3
• Recreational facilities, including the St.
Croix Valley Recreation Center, Lily Lake Ice
Rink and the Skateboard Park
• Open space and nature areas, including:
* Kolliner Park in WI.
* Brown's Creek Nature Preserve
* Long Lake Nature Area
* Croixwood Open Space
* Long Lake Open Space
* McKusick Lake Wetland Area
* Nightingale Park
* Fairy Falls Open Space
* Lakeside Open Space
In 2013, Washington County purchased 17 acres known as
the Palmer property southeast of the intersection of
Highway 96 and Manning Avenue adjacent to Millbrook
Park. Plans indude developing the western portion of the
site for active recreation and restoration of the eastern
portion along the trout stream. The Brown's Creek
Watershed District considers improving the stretch of the
Borwn's Creek on the property as a high priority in the
district's attempts to re -introduce trout in the upper reaches
of the stream. The property is viewed as a future trailhead
for the Lake Links and Central Greenways regional trails
that intersect in the property and the Brown's Creek State
Trail one-third of a mile to the south.
In 2014, the city partnered with Washington County and
the State of Minnesota to purchase 15 acres of shoreline
north of downtown Stillwater for open space and natural
area. The wooded property, formerly owned by the Aiple
family, has approximately 3,300 feet of frontage on the St
Croix River as well as a beach.
Two other facilities that provide important
recreation opportunities are the Jaycee's Fields
and the Old Athletic Field, both owned by School
District 834. As these fields provide numerous
public benefits, it is the city's hope to acquire them
if the school district ever considers selling them.
It is the city's desire to continue to offer these two
sites for public recreation purposes.
The city completed Master Plans in 2005 and 2006
for three parks (Millbrook, Brown's Creek Reserve,
and Boutwell Cemetery), in the western portion of
the community. The city has either completed or
has programmed funding to complete these parks
in the Capital Improvement Program. In addition
to the existing parks, the city has land for both a
community park and a neighborhood park in the
Millbrook development. Additionally, the Aiple
Site, currently owned by the City of Stillwater,
is anticipated a Master Plan was adopted in
March 2015 for Bridgeview Park, along the St.
Croix River south of the Lift Bridge. This plan
includes options for a municipal dock, trails
and park facilities to be developed as a
community park after completion of the future St.
Croix River Crossing.
The historic and older portions of the community
include larger community parks, such as Lowell Park
and Lily Lake Park, and smaller neighborhood parks
scattered throughout the older neighborhoods. The
larger parks are associated with the city's higher
quality natural resources and views, and provide a
variety of recreational facilities, as well as locations
for significant community events.
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
8-4 Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails
Lily Lake Park, located on the southern edge of Lily
Lake, is one of the larger recreation facilities in the
older portion of the community. This park contains
softball fields, tennis courts, a basketball court, a
sand volleyball court and an indoor ice arena with
one sheet of ice and seating capacity of 787. The
park also has a picnic shelter with six picnic tables,
B.B.Q. grills, playground equipment, single picnic
shelters scattered on the beach, swimming beach,
and boat launch with dock and fishing pier.
In the Downtown Area, master plans have been
completed for Lowell Park and the Aiple
Bridgeview Park property. These plans swill be
being reviewed and coordinated inform the
anticipated 2015 update of the downtown plan, to
take into account the proposed recent flood levee
improvements and the future St. Croix River
Crossing with its loop trail and conversion of the
lift bridge to a pedestrian and bicycle bridge.
Over the past 10 years, the city has added new
parks and recreation facilities as the Annexation
Area in western Stillwater has developed. Many
of these parks are associated with significant
natural resources, such as the Brown's Creek
Park and Nature Preserve as well as the Long
Lake Nature Area. Others provide neighborhood
and community recreation facilities for new
neighborhoods. The city recently completed
development of a neighborhood park as part of
Brown's Creek Park site on Neal Avenue, just south
of the Zephyr railroad tracks. This park will provide
recreational facilities as well as trail connections
to Brown's Creek Park and Nature Preserve and
residential neighborhoods to the south and east.
This park will also serve as a trailhead for the
Brown's Creek State Trail. The proposed Boutwell
Cemetery Park focuses on preserving and
interpreting a historic area associated with early
settlement. The Millbrook development near
South Twin Lake will include a larger community
park and additional trails.
The St. Croix Valley Recreation Center serves
a regional need. It provides indoor recreation
facilities for all ages, including facilities for ice
skating, hockey, soccer and walking. Its facilities
PLAN OF STILLWATER
Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails
may be rented for special events. Lily Lake Ice
8-5
Rink serves as a secondary facility to the Recreation
Center and provides additional ice during high
demand times.
In recent years, the city completed special studies
of its park and trail facilities in the Annexation
Area, including a long-term development and
management plan for Brown's Creek Park and
Nature Preserve. This plan includes detailed
recommendations for restoration of natural
communities, provision of interpretive facilities,
and development of trails within these areas. It
also discusses needs for maintenance of these areas
and associated trails that link these areas to the
city's trail system.
PLAN OF STILLWATER 0
8-6 Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails
9_
1
CITY OF STILLWATER PARKS INVENTORY
Park Name
I
Pioneer Park
2 w/ 6 tables
ea
I I
x
2
23
indoor
I
x
x
Band Shell & Scenic View &
Bulletin Board
2
Lily Lake Park
I w/6tabin
2
6
2
2
17
indoor
2
x
2
sand
3 lighted
I Rill
w/light
l
Beach and Fishing Pia
Faotbatl onballtiekl
3
Washington Square
I w/ 4 tables
I
2
6
3
indoor
I
x
1
I
4
Lowell Park
5
x
15
20
I
itrloor
I
x
Gazebo & Scenic View&
Fishing
5
Northland Park
I
3
x
3
2
x
2
x
2
I
I
1
10
rttiba
3 cowls
lighted
2 lights
Roller Hockey (starrier)
6
Sunrise Park
2
7
1
x
x
x
x
l
7
Meadowlark Park
2
1
4
x
sand
lights
1 Tull
1 lights
8
Ramsey -Grove Park
2
3
2
2
3
x
x
I full
lights
Sledding Hill
9
Staples Field
I
2
x
I
x
I
I
3 w/
lids
t tut
lights
(closed)
I
basketball coot closed
10
So. Broadway - Triangle Park
2
I
x
I half
I
II
Schuler berg Park
1
2
2
x
I
I
I
Sledding Hill
12
McKusick Park
I
I
13
Benson Park
..
I
12
4
sand
I full
1
14
Anez Ridge Park
2
6
I
x
x
I
grass
15
Kolliner Park in WI (Soar access ants)
16
Nightingale Park
x
Pried
17
Brown's Creek Park
I
I
5
5
x
x
x
18
Brown's Creek Nature Preserve
2
2
x
Cross Country Skiing
19
Legends Gazebo
Gazebo
20
Croixwood Open Space
21
Long Lake Open Space
22
St Croix Valley Rec Center
I
x
2
3
itrloor
indoor
2
Corsessions
23
McKusick Lake Trail &Dike
1
2
3
Boardwalk
24
Creekside Park
I
I
I
2
x
wetland area
25
Settlers Park
9
1
2
x
x
x
1
1
2
26
Heritage Park
I -eatables
3
x
12
2
x
x
x
27
Legends Park
1
4
3
x
x
1
1
sand
1
28
Long Lake Nature Area
x
Lake View
29
Public Works Park
I
x
I
I half
cenetary
30
Prairie Park
4
2
x
x
I
31
Bergmann Park
3
6
2
I
x
x
x
I
I
wetland area
32
Teddy Bear Park
2
2
indoor
x
Arepli heater
33
Liberty Square
I w/ 4 tables
pond
34
Skateboard Park
I
2
and BMX bits;
facilities
Figure 8.1: Park Facility Inventory, 2008
Park Classifications
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks provide for the recreation
needs of a surrounding residential neighborhood.
These parks provide a location for informal
play and opportunities for social gatherings
that promote a sense of community. They also
provide open green space and visual relief for
a surrounding neighborhood that can be highly
developed. Park sizes can range from 1 to 15 acres
but are typically less than 5 acres. They are located
as central as possible to a neighborhood they serve
and are usually accessible from a trail or sidewalk.
Neighborhood park features include picnic areas,
playground equipment, a multipurpose playing
field and/or playing courts. Neighborhood parks
are typically spaced at quarter mile increments.
Community Parks
Community parks serve as a focus for the
community's recreation, social, and cultural needs
and activities. They can provide a wide array of
recreation opportunities ranging from active to
passive. Community parks may be located to
take advantage of significant cultural, historic, or
geographic features. Some community parks will
serve the entire city depending on their purpose.
Parks should be strategically located and uniformly
dispersed throughout the community. Community
parks are larger than neighborhood parks generally
requiring 15 acres or more. Park features include
athletic complexes, large picnic shelters, large
natural open spaces, playgrounds, and internal
trails.
Open Space
Open space serves to protect important natural
areas in the community. They also provide a visual
relief for a surrounding neighborhood that can be
highly developed. Due to the sensitivity of the
areas it is not anticipated that these areas will be
developed for active recreation uses. Rather for the
most part they will remain in an undeveloped state
will offer selective passive uses including trails and
picnic areas.
Table 8.1: Stillwater Parks and Open Space
Category
Existing
# of
Parks
Ac
% of
System
Future
# of
Parks
Ac
% of
System
Neighbor-
hood Parks
19
60
16%
20
61
15%
Community
Parks
8
111
30%
10
134
34%
Open Space
6
202
54%
6
202
51%
Total
33
373
100%
36
397
100%
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails 8-7
Figure 8.2 : City Parks & Trails Map
I-
I;.
5I
0•
(I
Millb
ok
Community
•
Bewn'r reek State Trail
Public
Works
Park
ii
die Rutherford
rr; , Elem. School
Trr
�/ \I1
i iula+i� �r Ilk i
t 11111o• 41111 a• ♦ 1
ettlerPa��l+�
Llbert ,Square\Iw at
I�1rso����+��j a: �
•-17p dr emu~
IM...r 1 .4 ,fr Heritage Park
:"i' `
0.11*rIj 1+� i 1-
.■L�,r}r„, ,/i
111111C1` Zit
=..T.4,,..-110411.k
4,,,,,..,
Millbrook
Neighborhood.Park
. / I
Browns Creek Natural Preserve
��" '�. I-_.-rr'Oak Glen}
Legends
Park
PI
Bergma
l Park7il'l
',FAH niimril
it
15
Coixwood
O• n
Long
Lake
1
4
Browns {,Golf Course
C_ reek J
Park 1
1
irialtaiiN
Ifl11fi j46 *P►
Creekside.Park
I�■
Northland Park
SunriParii
a
�lilrtPr��1 kI .
ot jet-.���-,�1......... -im— ill ��er it it•L ;,• 111 1°
i1 •II. �► lJlmis
l
fib,
i►� rl�v may' Iilll !lg..� rt" 11 1
11 Ili ■ js R 747sey ll■ f I a,IS .
�� , _ . — R
`S= ■. Prk l�®I� II art Ill II j 14f '
:17.7411-1141
1111, I1I.I Ill —.11wigBB ae�-1= p1JIIIF■, 1�i ■ :I ..r = _ yi. III -■�rr1' 'i� i t11f1 1 )w M1IIY in i Ir11 e llr111111 ilUi1Li�.�;' -�.r wy� �� r �y a' `�w�rIr 8� I!�Lil Lake','�� �t�1� srWashingtoElem. School,' Square(6.11411fritiOn40,...,
Orliriraclip
se�i'~ �1'1111,41
riII:�
11
mai Jim
64
McKusick Lake
Trail & Dike
Oak Glen
Golf Course
Lake
M
--Brown's Creek State Trails„�
rown's Cree
12r1
cffl
Schulenbelg'Park 11-
Stillwater
Country Clubr`'t r.
S I
!
�Fi■
rr
i ri1 r 7�'O �I .
. C3�i■'iWr _.'J�I<r
ltiy �a
■�
�r_
4ICtIR
rr,-10,1A r�111T
cicusiil�i� IRI�IM
�p 1 ' ' llllll[+II1111�1A14! I .
1 nn�lr: Ilu1 nuurl"
��✓McKusick *''4111;1i1 g1'4G11111:•i
_Aire ig
ill ■ 11 WI Illl:r ■ e! rill e� -i'. -" vie.
:I11- 1147. 11Li aL__ nlll 1111
NI li, Ait AIM ■ rr. ao ..1.
n .....
Le
Stonebridge
EIem:ISchool
Staple
■L
1 �11111
ii11 l:
I1111I U
Meadowlar
Park
St. Croix
111 Valley,
Recreation
1111111/
111111111
■uurl'
IIIIIIIIM
Field
.Ii
lt
E U
IIlli•r
1111J11
I'11111111111 I iminit
II
!r111111
EN
Eff
III11
err
Centernun Minim
I11!il�
rr
n
Efld
e Heights SchooP�
A
11111 1
i hI
VIE
IN -
RN
yer
au
Mr-JA
J
L
OP
o
Pioneer,Park
6
i;1'�r�■�IM IIII• inn �1 ".
f i l
�.C, j1II� I1II y I III u®
M �1 ■
MR
Bil m
MA rarr �>_WM
Ma m
rit
:,I sk
�U
��Mg � Mak 1101111.
� 4fJ1
=: I►�`
J��
66
•1Inlllnlr
nil
Stillwater
Junior High
o!III111•
+{Ctll III
i--
Ism
z
Rid
e
,riL1'�.i'd iir _ IIIIIIIIlI ',
, 11
I
M
-
so
t
1,
i
.,
C7
Mitt
I"V
I►
Br
isea
-
1 ■ 1111' 10 I
moorIN NS INr. �, r, .a_�1
f�,�: � 1I ■rl 1 ■
en Space
fir
oiaTa
♦S
I♦
•
♦ I
I
♦ Fut ire_ Loop Trail
♦ ..
•
•
•
•
Kolliner
Park
Teddy Bepr Park
Triangle Park
G
etic
1 Id
LEW
MI
MIMI
mit ik
•
jilwater
14)1 THE BIFTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Parks and
Trails Plan
2008 Comprehensive Plan
800 0 800 1,600 Feet
— Existing Trails
— Proposed Trails/Sidewalks
Natural Trails
Future DNR Trails
— Future Upgrades to Trail
— Future MNDOT Trails
= Bridge
Underpass (Future)
Current Stairs
Existing Park
Future Parks
Golf Course
School Properties
Right -of -Way
Open Water
#Bonestroo
PLAN OF STILLWATER g
Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails 8-8
Figure 8.2A : City Parks & Sidewalks Map
w •...
Mill rook
Neighborhood Park
Browns Creek Natural Preserve
CCrrouxwoo
Open Space
Long
Lake
ongLake
Natural Area
' .---.+- 0 Glen
Browns Golf Course,
Creek -
Pails , -. 'T IA
1111•1 ,.
'.IIY. �^Mr.ndnwlark
-_:_-Brown's Creek
Ili
-ier �1� �j ll mini!
/ k. , -�I� ME II11111i
II wr a1l■rM i .iiH.i.
v� 6411111111C - il1111.11111
'Ill
��tl1a■
Stonebridge
Elem. School
`McKusick Park
w' its
.Tar: r.■
+ 1:111■ii■unln 1r,•Bar' Ili
uw1 iIrl ° ■ ■.■ III u. Avivriiiner,-
uti1�. ii+14� Lily Lake.-��. ■tom
•N:ill'LVO r 4� , Elem. Schoolsnit `ITrrlll
III111111 Ilgll■*,.. -tiii��
II■■Iul II■If117 I+ 1
..• • 1iiii EM ;11111111 1-0,EN -- • ,.
■I L,.u1
�I!_.■III
.. ", �el . � . 1 q� if;
,E�wls , 111 a11►+��
1ots .5t • jlin sm.
i1 1r ft' 4. i.
.lt. �� ��l1 Sunrise
i:1r
,a, _IHu ■�■ _■te.-.pprsi■.�
_ �..
�saI•\g r pips ra!It
71l.1l1l1l■4li#r!g _=MIT loll►XII."11,
:nen In n111Hut 1I1 .I., t
III■IE III: .IIIIIII - ! z�
�A =qf■1■lr ■imii■ ■{ Ito „I ti %
1111311IIII- IIIIIIIIIIIBM III III1 ��'
(MINIM IIiiiiimil'hili;■i.ii�! '+
1.,
1■imam cum; Iiii IIII■ n w
111
II=
Square yllu I ;* . '- . _� • j - =h1
.1 iIII ■En..II ,■ ._ :
■■111■~!ll All Ill • ■ ••■ I.r_ -_ __ •": ■ _
!III■ lift' u■ ■= _: ■ _ __ ■_ _p
IIII� I�� 1�■ L117_ ; ii =n � C■
mm
11111IIr_■:
b4k\11I11: -;
:III Ut Bras
•■
ir
• rI.jy
lr
Walt
i,'m-
® ■■ l �` 1M
NZ JIIIIII■ gapia
1rI1 ■■Ili es.
MIT.■ 11■Ill=.
■Trull ■il■I-
Win ■illl■ ,.
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MIHNESOTA -
Parks and Sidewalks
2008 Comprehensive Plan
800 0 800 1,600 Feet
Sidewalks
L _�.] 2030 City Limit
Existing Park
Future Parks
Golf Course
School Properties
Right -of -Way
Open Water
Bonestroo
December 8, 2008
I:/51 0/51007001 /gis/maps/park n sidewalks.mxd
PLAN OF STILLWATER g
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 8 : Parks and Trails
8-9
Chapter 9 - Transportation
Introduction
THE transportation chapter (Transportation Plan) is a vital
part of the City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan. The
transportation plan acts as a guideline for the city as it plans
for future infrastructure needs and transportation facilities. In
addition to a multi -modal analysis, this chapter will provide a
brief description of the existing roadway system and provide
recommendations for a general future transportation plan
based on projected growth.
The plan incorporates the findings of recently completed
regional and local transportation studies. Washington County
is currently in the process of completing its 2030 Traffic Study.
The 2030 Traffic Study includes updates to the Washington
County traffic model based on various growth and roadway
improvement scenarios. In recent years, several detailed
studies of specific corridors and planning areas within the City
of Stillwater have been completed, including:
• St. Croix River Crossing Project — 2006 SFEIS (2006,
MnDOT, WisDOT, FHWA)
• TH 36 Partnership Study (2002, MnDOT)
• Boutwell South Area Plan (2002, City of Stillwater)
The City of Stillwater has experienced significant growth in the
past ten years and is expected to grow even more by the year 2030.
The Metropolitan Council, as part of its regional forecasting,
projects that the City of Stillwater will have a population of
19,100 by year 2010 and 19,900 by 2030. These projections reflect
an increase of approximately 4,000 people when compared to
the year 2000 population. Increases in population will put a
greater demand on the existing transportation facilities in the
city. In addition to improving regional connections, there is
0 PLAN OF STILLWATER
Chapter 9 Contents
Introduction 9-1
Goals & Policies 9-2
Existing Roadway System
Characteristics 9-5
Demographic Projections 9-8
Functional Classification of
Roadways 9-11
Access Management 9-14
Roadway Capacity Issues 9-16
Transportation Issues 9-18
Transit 9-25
Aviation 9-27
Implementation 9-29
Chapter 9 : Transportation
9-1
also a need to improve east -west and north -south
transportation facilities within the City of Stillwater.
The city must work closely with the regional, state,
county and adjacent municipalities in the planning
of roadways and transit infrastructure to provide
access and mobility for residents and visitors.
The City of Stillwater is also home to one of the
three major St. Croix River crossings in Washington
County — the Stillwater Bridge. Future projected
growth in the area has put an increased demand on
the Stillwater Bridge. In November 2006, the U.S.
Department of Transportation signed the Record
of Decision for the St. Croix River Crossing. The
construction phase for this bridge is planned to
start as early as 2014, but could be delayed beyond
thatbegan in 2013 and is anticipated to be complete
in 2016. Once the new St. Croix River Crossing
Bridge (TH 36) is built and open for traffic, the old
lift bridge (Stillwater Bridge) is planned to be used
as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge.
Goals & Policies
As part of the 2008 City of Stillwater Comprehensive
Plan Update process, the City Council approved a
set of goals, objectives, policies and programs in
March 2008. The set of goals, objectives, policies
and programs are a refined compilation of the items
found in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan as well as
area plans officially adopted by the City Council
since then. In addition, several new items have
been added through feedback obtained during
neighborhood visioning sessions which occurred
during the fall and early winter of 2007.
Transportation Goals
Goal 1: Provide efficient and environmentally
sound transportation.
Goal 2: Develop a coordinated transportation
system that provides for local as well as area -wide
traffic.
Goal 3: Make it easy and convenient to travel in and
around Stillwater, tie allowable new development
to the capacity of roadways; limit impact of non-
residential traffic in neighborhoods when possible
and develop a comprehensive sidewalk, trail and
bikeway system.
Goal 4: Support construction of the new interstate
bridge and TH 36 corridor improvements to
provide for regional traffic demands and to relieve
cut -through traffic Downtown and in residential
areas.
Goal 5: Develop and locate new roads sensitive
to historic structures and sites, as well as natural
features.
Goal 6: Provide an integrated system of roads,
bikeways, transit lines, and pedestrian paths. The
transportation system should minimize the impact
of through traffic.
Transportation Objectives
Maintain the carrying capacity of through streets
while minimizing the negative impact on adjacent
residential areas through landscape treatment and
street design.
Reduce through traffic impact in residential areas
by means of road design and traffic management.
Work with Mn/DOT and Washington County to
study and improve state highways and county
roads where needed.
Plan new development areas to coordinate with
planning for the roads that provide access to the
development sites, i.e., CR 15, CR 12, CR 64, TH 96,
TH 36.
Enhance the function, safety and appearance of
Stillwater's streets, highways and major entryways
into the city.
Utilize pervious and other green technologies for
stormwater treatment associated with parking
lot and street improvements where possible and
economically feasible.
Use topography and other site planning methods
to minimize the visual presence of parking lots.
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
9-2 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Maintain existing public stairways throughout the
community, particularly in the downtown.
Study the use of the railroad line right of way
for potential uSe as a walkway and/or bikeway
connecting downtown to the city areas to the west.
Explore alternative active transportation and
transit opportunities for Downtown Stillwater.
Transportation Policies
Policy 1: Create a unified, continuous system of
arterials and collectors.
Policy 2: Designate segments of local residential
streets so that traffic flows onto collectors or
arterials.
Policy 3: Work with other governmental agencies
on a new TH 36 bridge, TH 36/CR 15 improvements
and the planning and construction of a Frontage
Road between CR 15 and CR5.
Policy 4: Work with MnDOT, County, local
government agencies and local businesses/
employers to address transportation management
methods to relieve bridge traffic congestion
concerns.
Policy 5: Ensure that planned transportation
infrastructure, capacity and access will
accommodate proposed land use and development.
Policy 6: Improve traffic and parking in and around
commercial areas.
Policy 7: Continue to enforce traffic laws for safety
in residential areas.
Transportation Programs
Program 1: Develop an area -wide coordinated
road improvement program with MnDOT and
Washington County.
Program 2: Prepare corridor/traffic studies with
Washington County for the following minor
arterials: Greeley/Owens, and Third/Fourth Street
at Churchill.
Program 3: Provide a collector parkway connection
from County Road 12 to Olive Street. Continue to
explore the Brick Street option for this collector
parkway.
Program 4: A comprehensive streetscape plan for
planting and improvements shall be developed for
major streets. This would have aesthetic and traffic
calming benefits.
Program 5: Develop a comprehensive signage
program. This program will identify key gateways
into the city; will create gateway
signage/monuments; will create consistent
directional signage; and will direct regional traffic
to downtown Stillwater via routes that avoid
residential neighborhoods.
Program 6: Keep the parking plan and parking
management programs up to date for the
Downtown.
Program 7: Provide bicycle parking locations and
attractive racks at key locations including parks,
downtown and commercial centers.
Program 8: Work with State, regional and other
partners on a transit plan.
Program 9: Consider developing a parking plan to
improve the usage of underutilized public/private
parking in Downtown Stillwater.
Transit Objectives
Develop pedestrian pathway and bikeway plan to
provide for recreational and commuter trips.
Work with Washington County and the state in
developing park and ride lots, trailway systems
and other programs to reduce auto use.
Increase transit ridership and support transit
service for transit dependent residents, particularly
senior citizens, provide adequate transit facilities
(bus stops, transfer stations) to support transit use,
and cooperate with the regional transit authority
and Washington County to provide conveniently
located park and ride facilities at major transit
stops.
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-3
Transit Policies
Policy 8: Promote safe travel for pedestrians and
especially school aged children going to and from
school.
Policy 9: Encourage transit use through subdivision
design, land use planning and education.
Policy 10: Use Travel Demand Management
strategies to make most efficient use of existing road
systems and minimize impact on adjacent areas.
Policy 11: Plan and construct a city-wide bikeway
system throughout the city to connect major activity
centers and scenic open space area.
Policy 12: New and upgraded bridges, crossings
and overpasses and TH 36 Frontage Road shall
include bicycle lanes where feasible.
Transit Programs
Program 10: Develop Implement the 2015
Trails Master Plan fora —bikeway system
facilities.
Program 11: Consider aAmending the
subdivision ordinance to require bicycle facilities
according to bikeway facility plans.
Program 12: Develop and promote traffic safety
and education programs.
Program 13: Continue implementing the sidewalk/
pathways maintenance and improvement
program.
Program 14: Develop a plan for sidewalk and trail
snow removal.
Program 15: Improve the appearance of bus stops
and better integrate into neighborhood or area
design.
Program 16: Encourage MnDOT to provide
continuous bicycle paths/lanes both along both
the north and souththe Highway
36 frontage roads from CR 15 to TH 95 and also
along TH 95 from Oak Park Heights through
downtown Stillwater to TH 96 at Brown's Creek
and perhaps beyond to the Boom Site.
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
9-4 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Existing Roadway System Characteristics
This section provides a brief discussion of various
roadway system characteristics, including roadway
jurisdiction, traffic lane availability and the most
recent traffic volume information.
Roadway Jurisdiction
Roadways within the City of Stillwater fall
under the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota,
Washington County and the City of Stillwater.
Figure 9.1 illustrates roadways under State and
Washington County jurisdiction within the city.
All other unidentified roadways in Figure 9.1 are
considered municipal, or under City of Stillwater
jurisdiction.
Typically roadways with higher mobility functions
(such as arterials) fall under the jurisdiction of a
regional level of government. Roadways that serve
larger geographic areas (thus resulting in longer
vehicle trips and higher traffic volumes) fall under
the jurisdiction either the State or the County.
Roadways serving localized areas (shorter vehicle
trips and lower traffic volumes) fall under the
jurisdiction of the City of Stillwater.
Roadway Lanes
The majority of the roadways in and around the
Stillwater area are two-lane facilities, with one lane
flowing in each direction. There are some more
traveled routes with exclusive left and/or right turn
lanes at critical locations.
Due to the population density and large amount of
regional travel within and through the area, there
are a few roadways within the City of Stillwater that
contain more than two travel lanes. These include
TH 36, portions of TH 5 (Stillwater Boulevard North),
Curve Crest Boulevard, Washington Avenue South
and CSAH 15 from TH 36 to CR 12/Myrtle Street.
There is one three -lane road with two driving lanes
and a dedicated center turn lane. This road is
Market Drive.
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
A basic planning tool used to determine the ability
of a roadway to accommodate existing or projected
traffic levels that utilize a roadway, is to apply the
volumes of daily traffic along that facility.
Figure 9.2 details the most recent average annual
daily traffic Counts (AADT) for various specific
segments of roadway in the City of Stillwater.
Traffic count information was taken from the City of
Stillwater Municipal State Aid roadway counts and
official traffic volumes counts listed on MnDOT's
website.
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-5
Figure 9.1 : Roadway Jurisdiction
DELLWOOD RD N
MCKUSICK RD N
w
80TH ST N
75TH ST N
TH ST N
•
DD TRL
80TH ST N
•R
&•D TRL
OCH PL
S:p AV•
2ND STN;; 62ND STN :'ND STN
77TH S
MCKUSICK RD N
OOD CIR
EAGL RID TRL
80TH ST N
MINAR LN N
' 75TH STN 75T TN
ND STN
EDGEWOOD
FAIRLAWN
WOO.:
SKYVIE T
m
0
ONG LA
DSTN
75TH ST N
LN
TERLACHEND
DRIFTWOOD LN
CA
ORLEANS ST W
CURVE CREST BLVD W
TOWER D
90TH ST N
JOHNS
TOWER DR
N,s
Zc
oy
v
OAKHILL Cl N
WNE CIR
DOWLARK
LINDEN
OUT ST
RIVING PARK RD
ING PAR
WILLOW
POPLAR ST W
ILKINS ST
A
ELM ST W
HICKORY ST
W ILKINS
EN' W
MOORE ST W
AMORE S
E ST W
ELS E
OW E
0
4
z
ELM ST
Z
z
CHU'■•TW■■■■■� O
p LAKE .T
mut
y HA • T W ■i E• ■,
PA
m - w 65TH � ti fi�
ittainmok
■11 ..
—MO
PE
BOYS ST
z
RETT DR LT'
SHELTON DR
TH STN 64TH STN
N
Kolliner
Park
58TH 5
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA '4)
Figure 1: Roadway
Jurisdiction
2008 Comprehensive Plan
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Federal
State
County
Municipal
VI■11■11e
,■II■IInt 2030 City Boundary
August 13, 2008
Data Source: The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, City of Stillwater
Prepared by:
ITEMS
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑o
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-6
Figure 9.2 : Existing 2005 Traffic Volumes
TELLWOOD RD N
MCKUSICK RD N
80TH ST N
TH ST N
FOTH ST N
7100 75TH ST N
J DD TRL
J. •D TRL
ST LOCH PL
SELLER. AVE
2ND STN!L 62ND STN 6•ND STN
1950
36000
MCKUSICK RD N
ATWOOD CIR
EDGEW00Dr.T
FAIRLAWN D
SKYVIEW CT
PINE ST
TOWER DR
OAKHILL C N
DELLWOOD RD N
•
—flNI-sr■u■u1nOailkami--Mil
ST W
H'
WILLOW W
DAL • DER WAY
In
cc
MEADOWLARK DR
LINDEN 'T W LINDEN '.T W
LObKOUT ST
TWO_IVESTW 0
RIVING PARK RD
POPLAR ST
POLAR ST W
MOORE ST W
S AMORE ST
TCROIXA W
STILLWATERA E W
W ILKINS T W z
ASPEN
ELM STW
HIC
PINES W
A (K
D
6600
OAK GLEN L
ORLEANS ST W
12300
30200
29
NDEN ST W
OTT ST W
CHIL ST W
8300
co
65TH ST N
0
WIL INS
36
SIP i$d
cLSON $T
1°1147
1n P
y
rn r
TW S STE
15 I
P111411111
...l . -'•TH STN 64TH STN
w p
a 8
JO Im
607H ST
22000
59 HSTN
Kolliner
Park
•
58TH S
iliwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Figure 2: Existing (2005)
Traffic Volumes
2008 Comprehensive Plan
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Existing Volumes (2005)
501 - 2000
2001 - 10000
10001 - 20000
20001 - 65000
�YY�YII�YYY�'
2030 City Boundary
■YY■YY1
Source: 2005 M.S.A.S Traffic Volumes
Minnesota Department of Transportation
August13, 2008
Data Source: The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, City of Stillwater
Prepared by:
ITERIS
PLAN OF STILLWATER g
11111111111111111111111111111111101111II IIII IIII I IIIIIII IIII III IIII IIIIIII (IIIIIII I IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII III IIII IIII IIII IIII III III I II I I IIII III IIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-7
Demographic Projections
The Metropolitan Council has prepared socio-
economic projections for the years 2010, 2020 and
2030 for City of Stillwater. These projections are a
part of the Regional Development Framework that
was adopted in 2004 and updated in the year 2005.
These projections are utilized by the Metropolitan
Council to plan for its regional systems. The city
is in general agreement with these projections;
however, due to the recent economic conditions
the 2010 population and household forecast
were modified to reflect the slump in the housing
industry. The City's forecast is shown in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Population, Households and
Employment Projections
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Population
13,882
15,323
18,400
21,300
19,900
Households
4,982
5,797
7,200
8,100
8,600
Employment
7,040
10,719
11,600
12,500
13,600
Socio-Economic Data
The Metropolitan Council also provides the Traffic
Assignment Zones (TAZ) that they utilize in their
regional planning model. The regional model TAZs
are based on a regional level of growth. As part of the
Washington County Traffic Study, specific growth
areas were identified and the regional model TAZs
were split into smaller zones to account for future
growth and allow for more detailed planning.
The revised TAZs are shown in Figure 9.3: Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ). Household, population,
and employment projections by TAZ are included
in Table 2.6 on page 2-20.
Year 2030 Traffic Volume Projections
Traffic volume projections for major roadways in the
City of Stillwater have been estimated for the year
2030. These estimates are based on the city's Land
Use Plan, Washington County's 2030 projections,
the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and other
studies completed by the city. The estimates are
utilized to help identify future potential corridors
of congestion as well as potential lane and right-of-
way needs for the future.
As part of the current comprehensive planning
process, the City of Stillwater has worked in
conjunction with Washington County on traffic
modeling for the 2030 volume projections. As such,
this report incorporates the Washington County
traffic modeling data and results by reference. The
2030 traffic volume projections assume that the
new St. Croix River Crossing is completed. When
completed overall traffic patterns in Stillwater will
change.
Traffic that currently crosses the Stillwater Lift
Bridge in Downtown will use the new river
crossing resulting in traffic volume decreases along
CSAH 5, CSAH 12, Myrtle St, and throughout the
Downtown area.
The 2030 daily volume estimates are shown on
Figure 9.4: Future Traffic Volumes (2030).
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-8
Figure 9.3 : Traffic Analysis Zones
MCKUSI66:RD N
80TH ST N
75TH ST N
60TH ST N
KUSICK RD N
0TH ST N
J DD TRL
07
2ND STNH
MCKUSICK RD N
EBSTER GI O�
�S >
BpTNs
rNaorH sr N
5TH STN
MINAR LN N
A
75TH STN
EAGL RID
ti
2ND STN 20
75TH T N
EDGEWOOD
FAIRLAWN D
N Gr,..
SKYVIEW
ONG LAK
62ND ST N
/ rc
ti
SST N TO STILLW
1.
SWENSO
OAK GLEN L
ICK D MC
K RD
TERLACHEN D
DRIFTWOOD LN
CR
LIE CT
07
A
07
Kolliner
Park
ORLE NS ST W
00TH ST N
JOHNS
PINE ST
07
tt
PT
WNE CIR
AGER WA
MEADOWLARK D
LINDEN W
OUT ST
RIVING PARK RD
MAPLE ST
AURELS
LI •ENS WH
OPLAR ST W
MOORE ST W
AMORE S
T CROIXA
STILLWATERA
WILKINS
MSTW�
M®
MA LE S
A
ING PAR D
AND: RSON
HAN
1135 MA
65TH STN F- _
w
ERETT DR d
RAINBO
H
SHELTON DR
SHELTON D
07
Z
60TH STN
CT
R\ET
D ST N
62ND S
UP'ER63RD ` N
3RD ST N
63RD ST N
1132
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MIHNESOTA -�
Figure 3: Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ)
2008 Comprehensive Plan
111
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
TAZ boundary
XXXX TAZ number
Streets
d1■11■11e
12030 City Boundary
■11■11l
Note: The TAZ boundaries shown are as per the recent
Washington County traffic forecast study.
August 13, 2008
Data Source: The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, City of Stillwater
Prepared by:
!TERN
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑o
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-9
Figure 9.4 : Future Traffic Volumes (2030)
DELLWOOD RD N
MCKUSICK RD N
80TH STN -: DTH STN 80TH ST N
75TH ST N
50000
77TH ST N
7100 75TH ST N
62ND ST N
62ND ST N
54000
MCKUSICK RD N
N BOTH ST N
Z
MINAR LN N
z
75TH STN
62ND ST N
OWE CREST BIND
60TH ST N
75TH ST N
SWENSON S
OAK GLEN L
2200
75THSTN 64
DRIFTWOOD LN
ORLEANS ST W
TOWER DR
FRONTAGE RD W
ORLEANS ST
TOWER DR
FRONTAG
DELLWOOD RD N
APLE ST
MOORE ST W
OLIVE ST W
OAK STW OAK ST W
PINE ST W
4TH ST N
3RD ST N
D ST N
U
TH ST N
.--I 46000
Kolliner
Park
♦
♦
♦
•
•
7HE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA -b.)
Figure 4: Future (2030)
Traffic Volumes
2008 Comprehensive Plan
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Future 2030 Volumes
Base Scenario
�i■u■uf.
■u■u.
371 - 2000
2001 - 10000
10001 - 20000
20001 - 35000
35001 - 65000
65001 - 151000
2030 City Boundary
Note:
The future 2030 traffic volumes shown are based on
the recent Washington County traffic forecast study.
Future bridge alignment shown on map is not exact
location.
August 13, 2008
Data Source: The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, City of Stillwater
Prepared by:
YTERIS
7,1000.
PLAN OF STILLWATER 0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-10
Functional Classification of Roadways
The functional classification of roadways provides
guidelines for the safe and efficient movement
of people and goods within the city. Roads are
categorized based upon the level of access and/or
mobility provided.
Classifying the function of a roadway system
involves determining what role each roadway
should be performing with regard to travel within
and through the city. The intent of a functional
classification system is the creation of a roadway
hierarchy that collects and distributes traffic
from local roadways and collectors to arterials in
a safe and efficient mariner. Such classification
aids in determining appropriate roadway widths,
speed limits, intersection control, design features,
accessibility and maintenance priorities. Functional
classification helps to ensure that non -transportation
factors, such as land use and development, are
taken into account in planning and design of the
roadway system.
Figure 9.5 shows the functional classification map
for the City of Stillwater. A brief discussion of
the various functional classifications is provided
below:
Principal Arterials
Principal arterials connect major activity centers to
other major activity centers and carry higher traffic
volumes. They provide regional connections with
longer trips. Their emphasis is focused on mobility
rather than access, and as such private access
should not be allowed. Access on these roadways
is limited and spacing of intersection points along
each principal arterial varies from two to three miles
for a fully developed area to three to six miles for
a developing area. TH 36 is a prominent principal
arterial roadway in and through the City of
Stillwater area. Located at the southern boundary
of the city, TH 36 connects the City of Stillwater to
the rest of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Minor Arterials
Minor arterials connect urban service areas and
rural principal arterials to larger towns and other
major traffic generators capable of attracting trips
over similarly long distances. They serve medium
to short trips. The emphasis for minor arterials
roadways is on mobility and spacing ranges from
1/4 to 3/4 of a mile in metro centers to one to two miles
in a developing area. They connect with principal
arterials, other minor arterials, and collector streets.
Based on their function, minor arterials are further
classified into A -minor augmenters, relievers,
expanders, connectors, and B-minor arterials.
Within the City of Stillwater, Myrtle Street east of
Owens St is classified as B-minor arterial, TH 95 is
classified as A -minor collector and the following
roadways are classified as A -minor expanders:
• Hwy 96 from CSAH 15/Manning Ave N to
Hwy 95
• CSAH 12/Myrtle Street from Manning Ave
N to Owens St
• E Chestnut St between 3rd St S and Main St
• Orleans St between CSAH 24 and 4th Ave S
• Paris Ave N between Lookout Trail N and
Orleans St
• CSAH 15/Manning Ave N between TH 36
and Hwy 96
• CSAH 5 which covers Stillwater Blvd
between TH 36 and Olive St W; Olive St W
between Stillwater Blvd and Owens St; and
Owens St N between Olive St W and TH 96
• CSAH 24/Osgood Ave from TH 36 to
Orleans St W
• 3rd Street South from Orleans St W to
Chestnut St
E❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-11
Collector Streets
The function of collector streets is to collect traffic
from local roads to arterial roadways. Unlike
arterial roadways, which provide more emphasis on
mobility, collector roadways serve a dual function
of providing both mobility and access. Collector
road spacing ranges from 1/4 to 3/4 mile in a fully
developed area to 1/2 to one mile in a developing
area. Collectors are further broken down into
two categories --major and minor collectors. The
location of these collector roadways is shown in
Figure 9.5.
Major Collectors
Major collectors generally connect to minor arterials
and serve shorter trips within the city. Shorter
trips consist of travel points within a city such as
neighborhoods to neighborhoods or neighborhoods
to business concentrations. In highly urban areas,
they also provide connectivity between major
traffic generators. A trip length of less than 5 miles
is typical. These roads supplement the arterial
system in that mobility is slightly emphasized over
access.
Minor Collectors
Minor collectors provide the connection between
neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas
and the major collector/minor arterial system.
Access is slightly emphasized over mobility in
minor collectors.
Local Streets
Local streets are the most common classification
of roadways. Their main function is to provide
access to land uses. These roadways generally
have lower speeds and serve shorter trips. Local
streets generally connect to collectors and other
local streets.
❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
9-12 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Figure 9.5: Roadway Functional Classification
ESTHSTN OTH ST
DD TRL
DON Ft
SE I AL]
RTNLD6'rf ry^ND5TN
MCK.US CKRDN
OOD CIF
}
M+'SOTH STN Q
NO ST N
EPG£'A'OOD
FAIRLAWN
SKYVIE
TERLRCHEN ❑
ORLEEANS ST W
90711 ST
NNE
WILLOW W
POPLAR 5T W P
CORE ST W
LAAL HOER WAY i' O
MEADOWAR'N
LINDEN
OUT ST
RIVING PARS R1)
DRI
ORLFANS ST
TOWER AR
o
LAKEtT
CHM CHIL ST 1':
r_
FUND RSON ST W
E F
CREST s W
FRONTAGE RO IN
BOTH ST N
ES1H ST N�
A RV FALLS RD N
DOK _T
G2ND 5
9T H ST N
ER GSRD
lUwater
THE HEATHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Figure 5: Roadway
Functional Classification
2008 Comprehensive Plan
•
s
t 50,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Legend
— — Principal Arterial
- -- A Minor Augmentor
A Minor Reliever
A Minor Expander
- -- A Minor Connector
- -- B Minor
II 1
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local Streets
2030 City Boundary
August 13,2008
Data Source The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, Metropolitan Cound
Prepared by:
1TERIS
PLAN OF STILLWATER @]
Chapter 9: Transportation 9-13
Access Management
Access management guidelines are developed
to maintain traffic flow on the network so each
roadway can provide its functional duties, while
providing adequate access for private properties to
the transportation network. This balance of access
and mobility is the focal point to effective access
management.
"Mobility," as defined in this Transportation Plan, is
the ability to move people, goods, and services from
one place to another via a transportation system
component. The degree of mobility depends on
a number of factors, including the ability of the
roadway system to perform its functional duty, the
capacity of the roadway, and the operational level
of service on the roadway system.
As applied to the roadway system in Stillwater,
the term "access" is the relationship between local
land use and the transportation network or system.
There is an inverse relationship between the amount
of access provided and the ability to move through
traffic on a roadway. As higher levels of access
are provided, the ability to move traffic is reduced
(Figure 9.6).
Figure 9.6: Relationship between Access and
Mobility
P KOPCRT II Of FACIE
Aim imait
t 01 L E GTO MS
L 0GALIt
El PLAN OF STILLWATER
Each intersection or driveway access creates a
potential point of conflict between vehicles moving
through an area and vehicles entering and exiting
the roadway, also known as "crash potential". These
conflicts can result from the slowing effects of
merging and weaving that takes place as vehicles
accelerate from a stop turning onto the roadway, or
decelerate to make a turn to leave the roadway. At
signalized intersections, the potential for conflicts
among vehicles is increased, because through
vehicles are required to stop at the signals. If the
amount of traffic moving through an area on the
roadway is high and/or the speed of traffic on the
roadway is high, the number and type of vehicle
conflicts are also increased. Types of increased
crashes are rear end and right angle in nature.
Accordingly, the safe speed of a road, the ability to
move traffic on that road, and safe access to cross
streets and properties adjacent to the roadway all
diminish as the number of access points increase
along a specific segment of roadway. Because of
these effects, there must be a balance between the
level of access provided and the desired function of
the roadway.
In addition, studies have shown that businesses
suffer financially on roadways with poorly designed
access, while well -designed access to commercial
properties supports long-term economic vitality.
Access management is a combination of good
land use planning and effective design of access to
property. All land use planning should incorporate
sound access spacing guidelines.
Key points when reviewing access management
include the following:
• Adequate spacing of access points
• Adequate sight distances
• Avoid offset or dogleg intersections and
entrances
• Encourage development of turn lanes
• Consider consolidating accesses or
relocating accesses
• Encourage proper driveway design
including width, radii, and sight angles
I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 III111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II
Chapter 9 : Transportation
9-14
Access standards and spacing guidelines are
recommended as a strategy to effectively manage
existing ingress/egress onto city streets and to
provide access controls for new development and
redevelopment. The proposed access standards
(driveway dimensions) are based on MnDOT
State -Aid design standards. The access spacing
guidelines for Stillwater are consistent with
Washington County and MnDOT. The hierarchy
of the functional classification system should be
maintained when applying the access spacing
guidelines to a roadway network. Since arterial
roadways have a function of accommodating larger
volumes of traffic and often at higher speeds, access
to such facilities must be limited in order to protect
the integrity of the arterial functions.
Washington County Access Spacing Guidelines
Through access management, Washington County
strives to maintain the integrity of the roadway
system by preserving the balance between safety
and mobility of the roadway system. The County
strives to adequately service the through traffic on
a roadway with the limited ability to improve the
system while simultaneously providing adequate
access to serve development. The County can then
stipulate the specific access spacing requirements
for various county roads through plat reviews and/
or specify the best location and requirements for
access through their access permit process.
Several benefits are established by the use of proper
access management guidelines. These include a
significant reduction in crash rates on highways;
ensures the value of public infrastructure projects
and extending the functional life of existing
highways by increasing capacity, thereby decreasing
the potential need for improvements.
Table 9.2 outlines Washington County's current
access spacing guidelines. It is important to note
that the guidelines associated with the principal
arterial classification are consistent with Mn/DOT's
guidelines for principal arterials. These guidelines
are also consistent with Washington County's long
term goals for roadway segments.
City of Stillwater Access Spacing Guidelines
For roads under the jurisdiction of the City of
Stillwater, the city's practice is to follow generally -
accepted access spacing guidelines laid forth by
Washington County. The city realizes that due
to various circumstances, access may be granted
outside the parameters set forth in the accepted
guidelines.
Table 9.2: Washington County Access Spacing Guidelines
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
> 7,500 AD1'
f < 7,500 AD'1'
Private Residential
Driveway
No direct access
No direct access
-1
-1
-1
Commercial Driveways
No direct access
No direct access
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
-1
Non -continuous
Residential Streets
No direct Access
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
-1
Local Streets and
Collector Streets
1/2 mile
1/4 mile
1/4 mile
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
Minor Arterials
1/2 mile
1/2 mile
1/2 mile
1/2 mile
1/2 mile
Source: Washington County
County reserves the right to increase the minimums based on other criteria
(sight distance, speed, traffic volume, etc.)
(1)Determination based on other criteria (sight distance, speed, traffic volume, etc.)
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
9-15 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Roadway Capacity Issues
The year 2030 traffic projections are used as a
planning tool to help test the ability of a roadway
to accommodate future volumes. In addition to
the number of lanes provided, the daily capacity
of any individual roadway is based upon many
factors. Number of access points per mile, number
of all -way traffic controlled intersections per mile,
percentage of truck traffic, and the physical grade of
the roadway are examples of some of these factors.
For planning purposes, however, a generalized
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold for roadways
is used. Table 9.3 shows the generalized ADT
volume thresholds, set by Washington County, for a
roadway type and number of lanes in terms of level
of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions within
a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service
measures as speed and travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, and driver comfort
and convenience. Six levels, LOS A to LOS F, are
generally used for traffic analysis. LOS A is the best
Table 9.3: ADT Volume Thresholds for Facility Type
with free flow conditions and little to no delay. LOS
F is the worst with congestion, long delays, and
forced flow. Table 9.4 provides a brief description
of Levels of Service. These values can be used for
planning purposes.
The table above takes into consideration several
roadway characteristics. These characteristics are
then applied to roadway segments being compared
to the values listed in Table 9.3. The roadway
comparison parameters are listed below:
• Capacity assumptions per lane
• Peak hour percentages
• Directional orientation
• 1/4 mile all -way intersection control spacing
Facility Type
Maximum
A
ADT Volume
B
at Level
C
of Services
D2
E
2-Lane Roadway -
Without Turn Lanes
3,000
4,500
6,500
8,500
10,000
With Turn Lanes
4,750
7,200
10,300
13,500
15,900
With L Turn Lanes3
5,250
7,900
11,400
14,900
17,500
With L and R Turn Lanes3
7,500
11,250
16,250
21,250
25,000
4-Lane Roadway -
Without Turn Lanes
7,100
10,700
15,400
20,100
23,700
With Turn Lanes
9,600
14,400
20,700
27,100
31,900
With L Turn Lanes4
10,100
15,200
21,900
28,600
33,700
With L and R Turn Lanes4
12,600
18,900
27,200
35,600
41,900
1ADT Volumes above LOS E maximum threshold would be considered LOS F.
2LOS D is usually the lowest acceptable LOS allowed by most agencies within the metro area.
3Also considered the planning capacity for 3-lane roadway (one through lane in each direction with
a center, two-way left turn lane) without or with a right turn lane.
4Also considered the planning capacity for a 5-lane roadway (two through lanes in each direction
with a center, two-way left turn lane) without or with a right turn lane.
El PLAN OF STILLWATER
Chapter 9 : Transportation
9-16
Table 9.4: Level of Service Description
Level of Service
Description
Lower volumes
Little to no delay
Unimpeded movement
f [I 1
B
Minor delays
Reasonably unimpeded operation
Slightly restricted movement
OLD
® 1 I 1
Stable conditions
More restricted movements
Speeds controlled by higher volumes
1 1[ 1 I I I I
mil [ 1 1 I
D
Higher density traffic
Volumes near capacity
Some noticeable congestion
1 I I I I I ICM
[ I I] [ I I] 1 1 1) [ I l i
E
At capacity
Major delays are common
Lower speeds
Nil 1 1 1 1 1 I I] [ I I I
1
1 1 1] i I 1 1 rTi1 [ 1 1 1 Hi
F
Failing condition
Significant delays
Very low speeds with stop and go traffic
=1:1:010MCMCCOO I
III 11 1 1 11 1 1 it 1 1 11 1 ll limn
The 2030 traffic volumes, viewed in conjunction
with the volume thresholds shown in Table 9.3
utilize Level of Service D as an acceptable service
level. Roadways that would appear to require
corridor expansion consideration include:
• CSAH 5 north of TH 36,
• CSAH 24 from TH 36 to 62nd St,
• CSAH 5 north of CSAH 12 to TH 96.
Additionally, local observations would suggest a
few other local roadways might require corridor
expansions in the future as they reach a Level of
Service D. Roadways that need further studies to
explore current conditions and the necessity for
future corridor expansion include:
• Myrtle Street east of CSAH 5,
• Brick Street between CSAH 5 and CSAH 12
2030 perceived future volumes on these roadways
are right at the LOS D capacity tolerances. CSAH
15 (Manning Avenue N) future volumes are right at
capacity levels; however, this roadway is receiving
capacity improvements that started during the
summer of 2008. Main Street (TH 95) downtown
Stillwater is already overcapacity. Relief to this
roadway is slated to be addressed by a future St.
Croix River crossing near the intersection of TH 95
and TH 36 south of downtown. Other roads may
require some improvements pertaining to access
management.
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
9-17 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Transportation Issues
Several transportation -related studies have been
prepared for various roadway corridors in and
around the City of Stillwater. The purpose of these
studies was to investigate transportation/traffic
concerns and interests by Mn/DOT, Washington
County, and city staff and residents. In doing so,
planning measures and timelines can be established
in which to address these concerns and interests
and right-of-way can be identified for future plans
or transportation purposes. This is especially true
in western Stillwater, where approximately 556
acres of net developable land exists, or about 9.6%
of Stillwater's total 2030 municipal acreage. Where
possible, improvements to the local roadway system
should be considered prior to future development
of open acreage in the Western Stillwater area.
With this in mind, the city has worked closely with
Washington County on the transportation element
of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in order to ensure
a consistent approach to area transportation needs
and goals. In addition, right-of-way needs for
future transportation elements in the city will be
acquired as property develops wherever possible.
In general, the required right-of-way widths
will be in accordance with current city practice.
Typical required right-of-way widths for various
street types are shown on typical street sections as
presented in Figure 9.7.
Downtown Stillwater
Congestion issues in and around downtown
Stillwater are magnified by the TH 36 Bridge
crossing area and caused by overcapacity of traffic
volumes on roadways that have limited expansion
capability. This situation has also negatively
affected the pedestrian experience downtown. This
capacity issue has been identified by MnDOT and
the area is scheduled to build a new St. Croix River
crossing near the intersection of TH 36 and TH 95
south of downtown is being constructed to divert
traffic from the area. This new river crossing will
cause traffic pattern shifts in and around the
downtown area. At a point shortly before the
completion of a final plan set for a new river
crossing (within the next several
g PLAN OF STILLWATER
years), an interim downtown traffic management
plan should be created and implemented. This
plan will require a large scale coordination effort
among MnDOT, Washington County, the City of
Stillwater, the local Chamber of Commerce and
business owners and residents in the Downtown
Stillwater area.
Key Intersections and Roadway Extensions
As part of Washington County's Intersection
Control Ranking System (ICRS), 80th Street at
CSAH 15, McKusick Rd (CR 64) at CSAH 15 and
TH 96 at CSAH 15 are monitored for increased
traffic control on a yearly basis. These intersections
are important to the overall travel flow along
Washington County Roadways. The IRCS is
a program utilized by Washington County to
quantitatively and qualitatively rank the importance
and improvements needed for intersections under
the jurisdictional authority of the County. City
roadway facilities adjoining these intersections
should be evaluated in the same schedule as
Washington County in order to maximize potential
collaborative efforts to improve city facilities.
Curve Crest Boulevard and 62nd Street
Another planned roadway extension is the Curve
Crest Boulevard and 62nd Street Connection. This
section of roadway located just north of TH 36
between CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue) and CSAH
5 was originally analyzed in the report, "Special
Area Plan North 62nd Street Area," by Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik & Associates dated October, 1998.
This report details the need to establish a frontage
road between CSAH 15 and CSAH 5 as a reliever
route to TH 36 as future development occurs. The
report also details a signalized intersection at Curve
Crest Boulevard at CSAH 5 that ties into the 62nd
Street segment. This segment of 62nd St will serve
as a collector in the City's road system.
❑o
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-18
Figure 9.6A: Curve Crest Boulevard and 62nd Street Options
CAMMIK,R RESEARCN
AND DEVELOPMENT
OPTION 3
OPTION
STILLWATER, MN
NORTH 62ND PLANNING AREA CONCEPT PLANS
+Le!IxaS,+�n
v� ii'vT/+i
JIMA1ir f;
DI EN 1RF
— GREEJnnY'
CORAINOR
• PtDEST
E%ISTI
SINGLE-r4kLV
REGIONEL
51'001 WPM
PONDS
PRDNrAG2 RAND
CNAPLE RESEARCH
AND ❑EVELDP?ENT
CSAH 5/Owens Street/Myrtle Street Intersection
The location of the junction of CSAH 5/Owens
Street/Myrtle Street in the central part of Stillwater
positions it as a chokepoint due to the convergence
of three heavily -used roadways. In addition,
CSAH 5/-4e-_Owens Street is one of the few north/
south routes through the city. This situation has
captured the attention of both Washington County
and the City of Stillwater. Washington County
recently completed an intersection and pedestrian
study at this key intersection. Deterioration in
performance and safety concerns at this intersection
inherent with its current layout and traffic control
system have been noted by both the city and the
county. Washington County held an open house
related to the results of the study and received
much feedback on the plan, particularly related
to on -street parking and pedestrian crossings.
Washington County is -currently taking the results
JJ sGriHSrI(M
AsphAdo, E .graces
of the study and feedback under consideration and
has no immediate plans to make changes to the
area. Additionally, the construction of the nNew
St. Croix River Crossing is expected to reduce
traffic volumes in this area.
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
11111 1111 1111 I 111111 11111111 1111 III 11111111 11111111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111111 1111 1111 1111 III 11111111 1111 1111 1111111 11111111 III 1111 11111111 1111111 1111 1111 11111111 11111111 1111 1111 1111 III 11111111 1111 1111 1111111 11111111 1111 III 11111111 1111111 1111 1111 11111111 III 1111 1111 1111 11111111 11111111 1111 1111 111111111111111 1111 111111111111111111 1111 1111 11111111 III III
9-19 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Figure 9.7: Typical Street Cross -Sections
40'
80' ROW
q.
13.0' BLVD
19.5' To Back to Back
8.0' 5.0'
2.0" S/o e
ROW
40'
DESIGN GRADE
0.02'/Ft.
PARKWAY VERTICAL
URB & GUTTER
TIP OUTn
SEED AIL)
PARKWAY TYPICAL SECTION
80' R.O.W.
Ct.
40'
19.5' BACK TO BACK
DESIGN G RAC) E
0.02'/FT
40'
ROW
13.0'
2.0% She
RO1A
10'
5'
WALK
7'
18' B-B
18' B-B
<a
0
III
COLLECTOR ROAD TYPICAL SECTION
22'
PLAN OF STILLWATER
I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I II I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I III I II I II I I II I I II I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I II I I II ( I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I II I IIII III I II II I I IIII IIII I I IIII I III II I I II I II I I III I I I I II I II I I III I II I II I IIII III I II I I I I III I I II I II I II I IIIII III II I I III I II I III II I I IIII III IIIIII IIIII II I I I I I II I I III II I I II I II I I III I II I II I II I I III I II I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIII III II I II I IIIII III IIII IIIIII I IIIIII IIII I II IIIIIII I IIII II I IIIIIII I III III I II I II I I III II I I II I II I I III I I I I II I I I I I III I II I II I I II I I II I I I I II I I II I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I II II I I III ( I I I I I I II I I III I II I I I I I II I III I II I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I
Chapter 9: Transportation 9-20
Brick Street
Brick Street is a local street in west central Stillwater
that has a tendency to be utilized as a north/south
shortcut from CSAH 5 to CSAH 12 for travelers
attempting to avoid the intersection of CSAH 5/
Owens St/Myrtle Street. Perceived overcapacity
based on observation by concerned citizens and
city staff has brought this section of roadway to
the attention of the city. Without an immediate
improvement plan for the intersection of CSAH 5/
Owens Street/Myrtle Street, Brick Street is expected
to continue to experience use as a cut -through
route.
Brick Street currently has a 36' cross section face
to face of curb with one lane of travel in both
directions and parking is allowed on both sides
of the road. During 2007, recorded Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) on Brick Street was 2,500. Applying
a Washington County accepted growth rate factor
of 1.5% to the 2007 traffic volumes results in traffic
volume estimates of 2,600 for 2008 and 3,500 for
2028. Comparing actual Average Daily Traffic
Volumes (ADT) to MnDOT State Aid road section
guideline volume thresholds, shown in Table 9.3,
details that Brick Street traffic volumes are within
county recommended capacity levels for a Level of
Service D on a two-lane roadway. Future traffic
volume projections are still within the 8,500 ADT
roadway capacity volumes listed for a two-lane
roadway.
A discussion about widening Brick Street in order
to provide optimal capacity for cut -through traffic
was held with the Comprehensive Plan Steering
Committee. Widening Brick Street from 36 to 58
feet allows for a three -lane section, consistent
with Washington County roadway cross-section
design standards. This widened section would
accommodate traffic volume increases and allow
the continuation of parking on both sides of Brick.
Though some challenges exist on the west side of
Brick Street between CSAH 5 and CSAH 12 in the
area of grade correction and a radio tower on the
adjacent church property. The Steering Committee
discussed options for the eventual widening of
g PLAN OF STILLWATER
Brick Street and determined that the best course of
action at this time, for the perceived traffic increases,
would be to restripe the existing roadway as three
twelve -foot lanes (center turn lane and two regular
traffic lanes, one on each side).
This recommendation would require that parking
on Brick Street between CSAH 5 and CSAH 12 be
eliminated in order to keep existing right-of-way
and curbing in place (see Figure 9.8). This approach
will allow the City of Stillwater to accommodate
future increases in traffic volumes on Brick Street
with a minimal initial cost and disruption to
property owners. One challenge with this scenario
is the displacement of current parking usage along
Brick Street. Residences would lose the ability to
park on Brick Street and would have to park along
Ramsey Street West or in driveways and garages.
Overflow parking from Our Savior's Lutheran
Church located in the northwest corner of CSAH
5 and Brick Street would be required to move from
Brick Street. The Church is considering expanding
its current parking lot or adding parking elsewhere
on its lot.
The 2015 Trails Master Plan identifies Brick Street
as a bike route connecting existing and planned
multi -use trails along CR12 to downtown
Stillwater via Pine Street and Third Street. This
route provides a lower traffic, gentler slope
alternative to following Myrtle Street downtown.
Impacts to this vital link in the city's bikeway
facilities plan should be considered before
implementing any changes to lane configuration or
roadway expansion.
Because of the ongoing County study at the
intersection of CSAH 5/Owens Street/Myrtle Street,
permanent infrastructure improvements to Brick
Street should not be implemented until a plan has
been set forth for area -wide improvements. At that
time, roadway capacity needs on Brick Street should
be reevaluated. At the present time, Washington
County has no intention of incorporating Brick
Street into the county road system.
In addition, current traffic levels do not justify
❑o
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-21
intersection control improvements at Brick Street
and CSAH 12 or CSAH 5. However, the Trails
Master Plan does identify the need for a safe
pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Myrtle Street at Brick
Street. Brick Street was identified as the best
candidate for a crossing location because of speed
limits, topography and sight distance.
PLAN OF STILLWATER [Q]
1llllll111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111llll11111llllllllll11111111111111llll11llllllllllllll1111111111111lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1111111111111lull1111111111111llllll❑1111111111111vun11111=lum LLllllllllllllllllllun111llullll1111111111 ullllll
9-22 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Figure 9.8: Brick Street Widening -Discussed
Alternative
Church
1
12+---12=- tt--12'
Widening with existing curb in place
CR 12/MyrtleStreet
Notes:
- Existing street width 36'
-12' Center left turn lane
- 12' Through lanes
- No parking lanes
Ramsey Street
Olive Street
PLAN OF STILLWATER
Chapter 9: Transportation 9-23
CSAH 15
Washington County ha identified the need to
increase capacity on CSAH 15 north of TH 36 in the
City of Stillwater. A technical memorandum dated,
August 13, 2007 titled "Washington County Critical
Needs" by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. identified
the need for continuous north -south corridors
through Washington County and noted CSAH 15
as a target route. Prior to this study, Washington
County has programmed CSAH 15 to be improved
to a four -lane section from TH 36 to 1/2 mile north of
CSAH 12 in 2008 (construction completed in fall of
2008) and included the section from 1/2 mile north
of CSAH 12 to TH 96 in their 5-year CIP plan for
improvement. With this widening, the intersection
of CSAH 15 and CSAH 12 will received a
permanent fully actuated signal system.
CSAH 12 at Maryknoll Drive
Intersection
In 2014-2015, the city extended Maryknoll Drive
north of CR12 to Boutwell Road just east of
Newberry Court North. The new public road was
constructed to serve the new Minnesota National
Guarge readniness center and Stillwater Fire
Station. The new roadway was required to ensure
fire department response times and maintain
acceptable functioning of the County arterial
system. The intersection with be signalized with
turn lanes and will also provide access to areas
planned for new residential development.
Boutwell Avenue and CSAH 12, while at the same
time not allowing a direct through -street in the area
that may encourage additional cut -through traffic
through the Croixwood neighborhood. Steering
Committee and City Council members support
unlimited access to areas both north and south of
the Northland Avenue intersection from CSAH 12
as long as no traffic from the north side of CSAH
12 can cross south over CSAH 12 and enter the
Croixwood neighborhood. This scenario is shown
below in Figure 9.9.
CSAH 12 at Northland Ave Intersection
Future development and concern by neighbors
related to traffic near the intersection of CSAH 12 and
Northland Avenue prompted the City of Stillwater
to investigate potential travel routes through the
area. Initially, a north/south Neal Avenue collector
from CSAH 12 to Boutwell Road N. was analyzed,
but rejected because of concerns voiced by
Croixwood neighborhood residents about potential
cut -through traffic in their neighborhood. With
adjacent neighborhood concerns in mind, Steering
Committee members and City Council reviewed
several alternative methods of providing access
to the future residential neighborhood between
PLAN OF STILLWATER [Q] 0
vuumunwMnnnrnnnnernnnr rn e¢eWWhtLLLLILLtlLLWtlWW nlmane]mmnullanullntivtlatl1111uuua1tultttultultuuuuuuultuumllumumtlllfunutla11u11uuvnlllluuuntlHmntluutl/tlauutWatiaauunnvauuawmuuuuu1
9-22 Chapter 9 : Transportation
Current traffic volume levels do not justify the need
for all -way intersection control at the location of
this intersection. However, traffic volume could
increase with future development and potentially
reach levels that would justify intersection control in
the future. Washington County has stated however
that it has no desire to add future intersection
control improvements as designed. The reason is
that it would not be a full access intersection. If
the county were to acquiesce and approve such
intersection control improvements, their cost may
have to be borne solely by the city.
As proposed and supported by the City Council
and committee, the intersection's features would:
• Allow westbound movement onto CSAH 12
from Northland Avenue,
• Restrict southbound movement from
northern areas off CSAH 12,
• Limit conflict points through clear
channelization at intersection, improving
intersection safety,
• Allow all movements from Northland
• Avenue (east, west, and northbound),
• Is consistent with Washington County
Intersection Spacing Guidelines along an A -
minor expander at one -quarter mile.
PLAN OF STILLWATER
Chapter 9 : Transportation
9-25
Figure 9.9: Northland Avenue Intersection
1'
-.r;
CSAH 12175th Street Nonh
@] PLAN OF STILLWATER @]
9-24 Chapter 9: Transportation
Transit
With the projected increases in population,
households, and employment, the need for
additional and expanded transit facilities is
apparent within the City of Stillwater. With the
increase in population, there will be a need for
improved transit service to transport residents to
the Twin Cities and other major employment areas.
The transit objectives and programs listed in the
first section of this chapter outline the transit needs
of the city.
The existing transit service in Stillwater is shown
in Figure 9.10. The city is currently served by one
express bus route (No. 294). This route provides
express commuter bus service to Downtown St.
Paul during rush hours on weekdays at a 30 minute
frequency and serves the communities of Bayport,
Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Lake Elmo, Oakdale
and 3M. There is one park and ride lot located at
the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center. An informal
car pool parking area also exists on TH 36 at
Manning Avenue. The park and ride facility at the
St. Croix Valley Recreation Center (Market Drive
between Orleans and Curve Crest Blvd.) utilizes
the south half of the lot and has a capacity of 100
vehicles. The TH 36 & Manning Avenue car pool
area (located on the TH 36 northern frontage road
just west of its intersection with Manning Avenue)
has a capacity of 15 vehicles.
Metro Transit also operates a dial -up service - 246
St. Croix Circulator. The St. Croix dial -up service is
available within the limits of Bayport and portions
of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. It connects to
St. Croix Mall and the Target/Cub Foods shopping
areas. It also connects with Route 294. The St.
Croix Circulator operates Monday through Friday
from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
The City of Stillwater falls within the Metropolitan
Transit Taxing District. Stillwater is within Market
Area III. Service options for Market Area III include
peak -only express, small vehicle circulators,
midday circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA,
seniors), and ridesharing. Dial -a -ride services are
provided by Human Services Inc. and St. Croix
Valley Circulator.
Metropolitan Council's 2030 Transportation Policy
Plan identified TH 36 as a future express commuter
bus service thoroughfare. The route will originate
at either the existing St. Croix Valley Recreation
Center Park and Ride lot (Option A - Figure 9-10)
or, after completion of the St. Croix River Crossing
project, the route will originate at the intersection
of Highway 36 and Highway 95 (Option B -
Figure 9-10). Final determination will be made
by the Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit
after completion of the Transit Feasibility Study
as outlined in the St. Croix River Crossing Project
Supplemental Final EIS dated July 2005.
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-27
Figure 9.10: Existing and Future Transit Service
DELLW OOD RD N
MCKUSIGKRD N
80TH ST N
75TH ST N
36 & Manning
160TH ST N
TH STN 80TH STN 8tTH ST
ND ST N
20
H9��'il��l■n■li�t1■1
LW
SWENSON S
z OAK GLEN
75TH ST N
75TH ST
2e
TERLACHEND
WOOD BLV
SKYVIEW CT
0
Option A
6
ON G LA D
62ND ST N
J
To/From St. Paul
■
■
■
K RD
Y Z r
RIFTWOOD LN
FAIRY FALLS RD N 2
o+
9 �U
lP 11■11■11■11U11■11it1■Hl11■R■11U11■11■11■1ue11■Qf11■P
• 9
OAKHILLCI N 0 ((/ O
S
♦,A41.1 —: 1 /111
JOhIN`�T ",T
T0, WILLOW STW WILLOW .TE
�e
�pC POPLAR STW POLAR ST W
FT
P
V
'') .
, s 2
/ \",
DAL_AGER WAYz 0
w z
N
� z , TCROIXAVEW
S 3 p \9 RREY LN
A O�
3 O z
� Wy DRIVING PARK
j OR ANS STW y� Z ORI FANS ST I IN C
St Croix Va ` y • Recreation Cente % z
3, m C' - DW
�v QQ IIII
RVE CREST 9L110�I
90TH ST N
WNE CIR
MOORE ST W
MEADOWLARK D
LINDEN 5T W
LOOKOUT ST
PINE STW PINE STW
IVING PARK RD
z
S
STI LWATERAVEW
[ILKINS 5T
HICKORY ST
LIN BEN S-W�
MY"TLE ST W
WILKINS 5T W z
APEN ST W
ELM ST W
ORY ST W
MAPLE S
N LAUREL ST
LI DEN S
N RTH.T
ES
n C
rc
LIVE ST W
WIL 'RD.TW
w ABBOTT ST W = O
0 LAKE ST
CHUPCHILL STW 2
2
3 z
-
H FRONTAGE RD W
AND=RSON
AMORE ST W
I-
I-
WILKINS
HAN OCK
65TH ST N l-
ERETT DR
Option B
ST
ELM ST
MARSH ST W
F y
MA•SH53E
er
404
.�'
•
•
o.
0
Kolliner
Park
I
,ak.
/O
64TH ST N
DFS 63RDSTN 'I 3RD STN 63RD STN
- I
SH TON DR
SHELTON c
z
591-H ST N
58TH S
■11■11■11■u■1 on•in
S
1 1( a Ater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Figure 10: Existing and
Future Transit Service
2008 Comprehensive Plan
0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
•
•
O
Bus Stops Bus
Shelters Park
and Ride
Park and Pool
Existing Bus Route No. 294
Future Express Commuter
Bus Route
j1■11■11e
i 2030 City Boundary
August 13, 2008
Data Source: The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, City of Stillwater
Prepared by:
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑o
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-26
Aviation
The closest airport to City of Stillwater is the Lake
Elmo Airport located in Baytown Township (see
Figure 9.11). The airport is owned and operated by
the Metropolitan Airports Commission and serves
as a reliever airport for the Minneapolis -Saint
Paul International Airport. The airport has two
runways under 4,000 feet long and is designed to
accommodate primarily the private and recreational
flyer operating single- and twin -engine propeller
aircraft. Lake Elmo Airport serves the business
sector with higher performance single- and twin -
engine aircraft and an occasional small jet aircraft.
The facility is served by a fixed -base operator and
an aircraft maintenance provide.
The City of Stillwater recognizes the need to
protect navigable air space both in terms of flight
path and communications interference. The
city's existing zoning regulations accomplish the
task of protecting the flight paths through the
establishment of maximum structure height. Even
in the most liberal instance, structure height would
not pose a problem for the safe operation of aircraft,
since the highest building permitted in the city is a
50 foot tall agricultural building. And, if approved
through the Special Use Permit process, the tallest
tower allowed would be 100 feet. Should a project
be proposed with the potential to interfere with
air traffic, the city will notify the Federal Aviation
Agency according to the requirements found in
Federal Regulation Title 14, Part 77 using FAA form
7460.
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-27
Figure 9.11: Regional Airport
05TH ST N
89 HSTN
HSTN
RD STIJ
36THS
32-ND S N
N
Ny i
lT
110TH STN 110TH STN 110TH STN 1101-HSINfj
105TH S N
w
a
80TH STN-'
HST
TH St
37TH S
4TH ST
2
15TH S. N
TH ST N
7TH ST N
LWOOD D N
:8TH ST N
75TH STN `r
69TH ST
66TI{
LWOOD R.N •LL4.
MCKUSICK
TH ST N
175TH ST N
er Bus Se ice
50TH ST N
>� I
39TH ST
0TH ST
2TH STN
10TH ST N
HUDSON BLVD
HUDSON RD H
•}J 2= D )•ai •D E•LLbbulam` ' -r
` kr �LR +LA E RD
107TH ST N
S
STN
H STN 00TH ST N
p. WOOD
11=115A11
56TN
1 5
53RD ST N
RD
DST" 1 51•TSST NN5
N
S
Lake Elmo
Airport
CI z w
w <
a
HSTN
N
TH ST N
10TH ST N
TATE 94
DSON
Q
Q
Z
15TH STS
Q
22ND ST S
30TH STS
O 0
H ST N
0
TH ST
z
6 H ST/
TH ST
ATF 94 INTERST E
J
J
0TH ST S
LLEY CREEK TRL S
OTH STS 30TH ST S
F
NDSTN Z
0
DIVISION ST 8
A 5TH
N
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Figure 11: Regional
Airport
2008 Comprehensive Plan
0 2,2504,500 9,000 13,500 18,000
Feet
Legend
Existing Bus Routes
Future 2030 Transitways
2030 City Boundary
August 13, 2008
Data Source: The Lawrence Group, SRF Consulting Group,
Washington County, City of Stillwater
Prepared by:
[TEN
PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑o
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 9 : Transportation
9-28
Implementation
To implement the transportation plan, the city will
consider the following implementation measures:
To develop a coordinated transportation system
that provides for local as well as area -wide traffic,
the City of Stillwater will:
• Develop an area -wide coordinated road
improvement program with Mn/DOT and
Washington County. (Program 1)
• Prepare corridor/traffic studies with
Washington County for the following Minor
Arterials: Greeley/Owens and Third/Fourth
Street. (Program 2)
• Provide a collector connection from County
Road 12 to Olive Street. Continue to explore
the Brick Street option for this collector.
(Program 3)
To better integrate roads into new residential
neighborhoods, as well as into natural settings, the
City of Stillwater will:
• Develop a comprehensive streetscape plan
for plantings and improvements along
developed or major streets. This would
have aesthetic and traffic calming benefits.
(Program 4)
To make it easy and convenient to travel in and
around Stillwater, tie allowable new development
to the capacity of roadways; limit impact of non-
residential traffic in neighborhoods when possible
and develop a comprehensive sidewalk, trail and
bikeway system, Stillwater will:
• Develop a comprehensive signage program.
The program will identify key gateways
into the city; will create gateway
signage/monuments; will create consistent
directional signage; and will direct regional
traffic to downtown Stillwater via routes
that avoid residential neighborhoods.
(Program 5)
• Provide bicycle parking, locations and
attractive bicycle storage racks at key
locations including parks, downtown and
commercial centers. (Program 7)
• Work with State, regional and other partners
on a transit plan. (Program 8)
• Keep up to date parking plan and parking
management program for the Downtown
area. (Program 6)
• Consider developing a parking plan to
improve the usage of underutilized public/
private parking in Downtown Stillwater.
(Program 9)
To provide an integrated system of roads, bikeways,
transit lines, and pedestrian paths, the City of
Stillwater will:
• Develop Implement thea bikeway system
facilities in the 2015 Trails Master P-plan.
(Program 10)
• Consider aAmending subdivision
ordinance to require bicycle facilities
according to bikeway facilities plansthe
Trails Master Plan. (Program 11)
• Develop and promote traffic safety and
education programs. (Program 12)
• Continue implementing the sidewalk/
pathways maintenance and improvement
program. (Program 13)
• Develop a plan for sidewalk and trail snow
removal. (Program 14)
• Improve the appearance of bus stops and
better integrate stops into neighborhood or
area designs. (Program 15)
• Encourage MnDOT to provide continuous
bicycle lanes/paths both along both the
north and south the Highway 36 frontage
roads from CR 15 to TH 95 and also along-
TH 95 from Oak Park Heights north
through downtown to TH 96 at the Brown's
Creek area. (Program 16) along TH95 north
of downtown Stillwater to the Boom Site.
g PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Chapter 9 : Transportation 9-29