Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-08 CPC Packetw� water "OLMNINt rGC9NIMISSIONT" CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, April 8, 1996, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. Approval of Minutes of March 11, 1996 AGENDA Case No. DP/SUP/V/96-15. A design permit and special use permit and variance to the height limits (4 stories and 50 ft. required and 6 stories and 70 ft. requested) for the construction of 60 condominium units and 9 townhomes located at 301 South Second Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Gerrad Realty, applicant. 2. Case No. V/96-10. A variance to the front yard setback (20 ft. required, 2 ft. requested) for the construction of a deck/porch on a house located at 324 North Fourth Street in the RB-Two Family Residential District. George Ghanem, applicant. 3. Case No. V/96-11. A variance to the sideyard setback (5 ft. required, 3 ft. requested) for the construction of a two -car garage at 1522 Meadowlark Drive in the RA -One Family Residential District. Jane Baggot, applicant. 4. Case No. V/96-12. A variance to the front yard setback (30 ft. required, 11.5 ft. requested) for the construction of a garage with a bedroom above at 305 Stillwater Ave West in the RB-Two Family Residential District. William and Dawn Tunison, applicant. 5. Case No. DP/SUP/96-13. A design permit and special use permit for the erection of a 30' x 60' temporary tent adjacent to the northern end of the Lumber Baron's Hotel located at 127 South Water Street in the CBD, Central Business District. John F. Berglund, Preservation Company Inc. 6. Case No. SUP/96-14. A special use permit for a 3,280 sq. ft. addition to the Stillwater Fitness Club and 9-car parking lot with a variance to the front and side lot setback requirements (20 ft. required, 6.5 ft. and 2.0 ft. provided) located at 110 South Greeley Street in the RB, Two -Family Residential District. Heidi Rosebud, applicant. 7. Case No. V/96-16. A variance for the construction of a two -car attached garage with a variance to the front yard setback requirement (30 ft required, 20 ft. requested) located at 322 South Grove Street in the RA - One Family Residential District. Denise Branch and Pete Cote, applicants. Case No. SUP/96-17. A special use for an eating establishment located at 317 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Scott Zahren, applicant. 9. Case No. DP/CUP/96-18. A conditional use permit for reconstruction of the levee wall from Myrtle to Nelson located in the Central Business, Bluffland/Shoreland and Flood Plain Overlay Districts. City of Stillwater, applicant. Other Items CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 1996 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairman Glenna Bealka, Dave Charpentier, Rob Hamlin, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald, Thomas Weidner, and Terry Zoller Others Steve Russell, Community Development Director Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of the minutes of Feb. 12, 1996; all in favor. Qg$Q No. V195-2 A variance to a sideyard setback (5 feet required, 0 feet proposed) for removal of existing garage and construction of a new 3-car garage at 510 W. Maple St. in the RB, Two -Family Residential District. Mike Madsen, applicant. Mr. Madsen withdrew his request for a variance. Mr. Valsvik, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved to accept the withdrawal of the request; motion passed unanimously. Mr. DeCurtin, 506 W. Maple, expressed his concern about the race cars being worked on at Mr. Madsen's garage. Mr. DeCurtin suggested the operation was a business. Mr. Fontaine noted that if the operation is a business, it requires a permit. He also told Mr. DeCurtin that if he has a complaint regarding noise, etc., such complaints should be forwarded to city officials; the Planning Commission has no authority over such complaints. There was also a concern raised about drainage coming off the garage onto the DeCurtins property. Mary Walker, 518 W. Maple St., asked whether there was some_ mechanism that would allow the DeCurtins to see the drainage before the garage is constructed. Mr. Russell noted that a drainage plan has to be submitted to the building inspector and such construction documents are public record. Mr. Russell told Mr. DeCurtin to put his concerns in writing and he would forward the concerns to the city engineer. Case No. V196-3 A variance to the parking requirements for rehabilitation of the existing UBC building to a new banquet facility, 101 parking spaces required, 0 spaces provided, at 301 S. Second St. in the CBD, Centra Business District. Mark Balay, applicant. Mr. Balay and Richard Anderson, building owner, were present. Mr. Weidner abstained from the discussion. Mr. Balay said the commissary portion of the project is nearly complete and Mr. Anderson is now considering how to utilize the remainder of the building. He pointed out parking requirements for the proposed banquet facility use are less than the requirements for a club, as proposed when the original SUP for the building project was granted. Also, he said when the SUP was granted, the primary public use of the building was not to open until 1997 when the parking lot on the UBC storage site was to be opened. Mr. Balay said the request for the variance was primarily intended to initiate a discussion of when and if the parking lot will be opened. Mr. Anderson wants to be part of any solution in providing parking spaces. Mr. Balay said the request for a variance could be continued until the Planning Commission and City Council have approved development plans for the UBC storage site. Mr. Russell gave an update on the development plans for the storage site. The biggest question, he said, is who will pay for the parking structure that the city is requiring the developer to provide. Mr. Hamlin noted in reference to Mr. Anderson's proposal, the requirement is not to physically provide 101 spaces, but to provide funds to assist in providing 101 spaces in the vicinity of his business. Mr. Russell said granting a variance at this time would confuse the issue; he said the parking issue needs to be resolved before considering a variance. Mr. Balay said the request was an attempt to initiate discussion of the issue; the city needs to look at the whole parking issue downtown and find a way to financially support a solution, he said. Linda Hinz, John's Bar, 302 S. Main St., agreed that parking is always an issue for downtown businesses. Business owners know they have to pay their fair share, she said, but want to be sure it is, in fact, a fair share. Also present for the discussion were representatives from Brine's and Barbara Ann's Fudge Shop. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Hamlin, moved to continue the requested variance indefinitely, with public notice given when the request comes back before the Planning Commission. Motion passed unanimously. Case UQ. DPJ�UPI96-4 A design permit and special use permit for auto repair use at 2255 Tower Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Kellison Company, applicant. Pete Vanasse, Kellison Co., and Rick Soderland, business owner, were present for the discussion. Mr. Kellison also was in the audience. Mr. Fontaine asked whether the applicant was aware of a letter from a neighboring business raising several concerns about the project. Mr. Vanasse explained that the outside storage area would be screened entirely with a masonry wall and six-foot high fence, similar to the fencing at Schoonover's. He said the applicant would be willing to save existing trees, as requested, as long as it does not interfere with grading. Regarding the drainage issue, he suggested it was the neighboring property owner that has a problem; drainage from this project will go back to the holding pond. Mr. Vanasse said the applicant would be happy to accommodate the neighboring property owner as much as possible. However, he said he felt that the conditional of approval requiring landscaping screening along the entire east property line was excessive. Members agreed that the fence provides screening and that planting several additional shrubs ought to be sufficient. Mr. Russell pointed out that Schoonover's has landscaping on all sides, in addition to the fencing. Mr._ Kellison suggested a compromise of planting four additional evergreens along the east property line. Mr. Kellison also questioned the conditional of approval requiring the applicant to return to the HPC for final review of the lighting, landscaping and fence plan. Mr. Russell suggested that condition could be changed to review by the Community Development Director. Mr. Hamlin moved approval as conditioned, with the language in condition of approval No. 7 changed to review by the Community Development Director and condition of approval No. 8 changed to planting an additional four evergreens along the east property line. Mr. Wald seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DPIV/9_�S Design permit and variance to the sign ordinance for second freestanding sign at 2270 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Kellison Co., applicant. Present for the discussion were Mr. Kellison, Mr. Vanasse and Lori Johnson, president of Central Bank, Stillwater. Mr. Vanasse provide a project overview, including materials, landscaping, etc. Most of the discussion centered on the requested sign variance, in particular the requested halo -lit signage on the front of the building. The applicants argued that the additional signage is needed to clearly denote the entry way, as the entrance is not on the Frontage Road, but faces the rear of the Target store.. Mr. Weidner questioned the need for an additional 45-square foot sign and suggested there were other ways to denote the entrance. Mr. Weidner also suggested that if the requested halo sign is to serve a functional purpose it should be placed lower on that building; if it is not intended as a functional sign, it is more advertising space. Mr. Kellison noted the request is not out of character with the business park. Mr. Russell said the HPC felt that lighting and the architecture of the building denotes the entry way and felt that some minimal signage, such as that at the Oakridge office of Firstar Bank should be sufficient. Mr. Hamlin pointed out that the total square footage of the three requested signs is within the ordinance guidelines. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved to changed conditions of approval No. 1 and No. 2 to restricting signage to that shown in A1.4 of the project drawings. Motion passed 6-3, with Mr. Roetman, Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Weidner voting no. _Q-ase Na. SUB196-8 A resubdivision of two lots of 2.5 acres and 1.75 acres into two lots of 3.0 acres and 1.25 acres. The lots are located between Tower Avenue and the TH36 Frontage Road just east of Target in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Kellison Company, applicant. Mr. Valsvik, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DP/VI - A design permit and variance to the sign ordinance at 14460, 14470, 14480 N. 60th St. for a master sign plan for the Early Childhood Family Center in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Mark Goder, Kingwood Management, applicant. Mary Harcey, Early Childhood Family Center, School District 834, went through the request for three signs -- one under the existing Goodwill pylon sign, a sign at the main entrance listing all the services located in the building, and a smaller sign at the secondary entrance. A canopy may be added over the front entrance at a later date. Mrs. Harcey said the Center is very difficult to find because it is situated so far off the Frontage Road; the signage should help correct that situation. Mr. Roetman, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval as conditioned; motion passed unanimously. Cue No. SUP/V/96; 7 Special use permit for a beauty salon in a home and variance to side and rear yard setback requirements for construction of a two-story addition to a house located at 1111 N. Third St. in the RB-Two- Family Residential District. Deanna Getschel/Tom Roberts, applicants. Ms. Getschel said she planned to operate her business on a part-time basis only. She will only have one client at a time. There would be no advertising, and parking is available in front of the garage. She also questioned the need for a side yard variance as the addition would merely extend the existing line of the house; only a rear yard variance would be required. Mr. Russell pointed out a variance was required when the house was originally constructed; the applicants purchased the home about a year ago. Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the request: James and Elaine Pederson, 1106 N. Second St. (in letter form); Ann Martin, 1112 N. Second St.; Mark and Lynn Finley, 1119 N. Third St.; and Tom Pedersen, 106 W. Wilken. Concerns raised included: operating a business in a residential district and on a substandard street; the slope of the lot and the potential for runoff; access during construction; and setting a precedence for use if the applicants should move. Mr. Fontaine reminded the applicants that they could still construct an addition to the home if it was done within the existing variance. They would need a special use permit to operate the business. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to deny the request. Mr. Weidner noted the applicants had paid two fees and suggested the request for the variance and special use permit be voted on separately. Mr. Hamlin accepted that suggestion. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to deny the variance based on the lot size and percentage of building on the lot; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hamlin, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to deny the special use permit. Mr. Roetman noted the Planning Commission has granted such requests in the past with conditions of approval, for example, regarding parking, signage, etc., placed on the business. Motion to deny the special use permit passed 7-2, with Mr. Roetman and Mrs. Bealka voting against denial. Other business • Mr. Russell briefly reviewed a request to extend a second -level deck at a home at Linden and Fourth Street. The request will be on the April agenda for action. • Mr. Russell updated members on the plans for construction of a commercial building at 450 N. Main St., in the flood plain overlay district. When the plans were initially presented to the Planning Commission in February, it was not certain whether a variance would be required or if the applicant could meet dry flood -proofing standards to avoid the need for a variance. He said the applicant would be flood -proofing the structure; that requires a conditional use permit which was to go before the City Council on March 19. • Mr. Russell passed out copies of the Liveable Communities Act for members to use as a reference document. • Mr. Russell updated members on additional information the Metropolitan Council asked for in reviewing the city's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Valsvik, seconded by Mr. Hamlin, moved to accept some language changes and format changes as requested by the Met Council. The motion was made in the form of a resolution; all in favor. • Mr. Russell passed out some draft documents related to the Zoning Ordinance revisions that will be made as the City begins implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Mark Putnam, designer/landscaper for Charles Cudd, developers of the Newman/Kroening property, suggested some of the proposals, including a natural resources/environmental constraints for expansion area lands, represented some sweeping impacts for developers. Mr. Putnam asked for time to study the proposals further; it was agreed to hold a workshop session at 7 p.m. March 25 to discuss the proposals. • There was a discussion regarding protocol the Planning Commission follows when conducting its public hearings. Mr. Valsvik, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording secretary PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. SUP/V/96-15 Planning Commission Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 301 South Second Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: Gerrard Realty Type of Application: Special Use Permit and Variance r% Project Description: Special use permit for residential use in Central Business District, CBD, with a variance to the height requirements, 50 feet allowed, 70 feet and 7 stories proposed. Discussion. The request is to construct 74 housing units, 65 condominiums and 9 townhouse units with 165 parking spaces on a 76,245 square foot (1.75 acre) site. See attached site location map. The site includes the UBC lumber material storage yard 63,485 square feet and a portion 12,760 square feet of the US West Building site. The City of Stillwater owns the UBC storage site. The developer has an option to purchase the US West site. Building and parking covers 56,094 square feet or 75 percent of the site. Project Setting. The project site is located at the foot of Chillicothe Hill. Surrounding the site to the south is the CUB parking lot (elevation 807) and CUB corporate office - to the west is Third Street. A duplex, an office/residential use and condominiums are located along Third Street. The elevation of the street runs from 760 at Olive to 790 near the CUB entryway. The Olive Street parking lot (50 spaces) is located to the north of the site (elevation 710). To the east of the site is the old UBC retail store and grand garage parking lot and restaurant. Gordon Iron Works is also located to the west. The planning commission previously approved the conversion of the UBC retail space to a deli/commissary (Case No. SUP/95-33 attached). The site is located on the edge of the Downtown Central Business District. Downtown Plan. The adopted Downtown Plan examined downtown parking needs and identified the sties at the corner of Olive and Second Street as the location for a downtown parking structure. Three sites were located in the plan; UBC retail, UBC storage and Olive Street parking lot (see map). The downtown plan indicates a need for 200 parking spaces in the South Main Street area,The plan also indicated that certain downtown site may be appropriate for multifamily housing. A site just north of the Desch Building along Main Street was identified as such a site. Comprehensive Plan. The recently approved (December 1995) comprehensive plan took a fresh look at future housing growth in the exiting city and through city expansion and identified sites along Second Street as appropriate locations for infill housing (see attached comp plan land use map and housing section page 6-3) appropriate site for infill multifamily housing. goal for the city to provide attached housing. that can accommodate multifamily housing. The plan identifies the project location as an The livable communities program also sets a This site is one of a handful of sites in the city Proiect Utilities. The site is serviced by city water, sewer and storm sewer. A major sanitary sewer line runs through the site and will have be relocated. Water service will have to be obtained from Third Street and storm sewer runoff minimized. The storm sewer is at capacity and methods to reduce site runoff will have to be incorporated - into the design of the project. The city engineer is reviewing the utility improvements necessary to service the project. The Fire Chief has indicated concerns for lack of access and fire protection. The applicant is aware of his concerns and will work with the fire chief to meet fire and building code requirements. Traffic impact. The project contains 74 condominiums units and provide 2 parking spaces per unit plan guest parking. The city's traffic engineer has reviewed the projects traffic impact with the existing street system and concluded that the system has adequate capacity to accommodate trips generated by the project (see attached memo form Glen Van Wormer, 4-5- 96). Traffic conditions in the area should improve from the UBC use. Desi n Review. In August of 1995, the project applicant, Gerrard Realty, approached the city council and requested city consideration of purchase of the UBC site from the city for a joint housing/city public parking project. The council agreed to consider a residential use on the site so long as 100 -150 public parking spaces were provided. The council commissioned, at the request of the city's HPC, design guidelines for the site. The enclosed Bluff City Site Design Guidelines resulted . The Heritage Preservation Commission recently reviewed the project at its meetings of February 5, March 8 and April 1. At its April 1 meeting, the commission conceptually approved the project with conditions of approval regarding, signage, lighting, landscaping, materials, colors and roof treatment. The HPC felt the development concept followed the Bluff City Site Design Guidelines in terms of pedestrian orientation, setback, proportion and height, materials and finish and parking. Some commission members felt that design, materials and color selection could further break up and reduce the massiveness of the development (bluff city site design guidelines attached). Parking. The Downtown Plan identifies the need for 200 parking spaces in the South Main Street area. A purpose for the city's involvement with UBC was to secure the site for a public parking lot. The current housing development plans before the planning commission contains 165 parking spaces. The parking ordinance requires two parking spaces for each condominium unit or 148 spaces. The US West site, is being used as part of the project. The US West site currently contains 26 parking spaces. With the construction of the proposed project, parking for the US West building will be eliminated or reduced to six spaces. The building contains 14,000 square feet and as an office use would required 47 spaces. Currently US West owns the building and uses it to house telephone switching equipment. Of the 14,000 sq. ft., there is 3,000 square feet of office space not used by US West. At some point in the future US West may move out. A new use would most likely need more than six spaces. With the purposed project in place, only six parking spaces would be available to support the building. To maintain the current parking availability for the US West building, 20 spaces should be provided on the Andiamo development site for US West use. These parking spaces could also be used as condominium guest parking after normal working hours. If the US West building was converted to some other non -office use, the shared visitor/US west Parking arrange may not work. Special Use Permit. A special use permit is required for residential development in the CBD Zoning District. The downtown plan and comp plan indicates the appropriateness for such areas in downtown locations. The proposed location is along Second Street at the edge of the downtown bluffline. Other uses along Third Street are residential. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses with the possible exception of Gordon Iron and Metal Yard across Second Street. Variance Setback - The required and proposed setbacks are shown on the site plan (first page of plan submitted). The CBD regulations require 15 front, 10 side, 20 rear. Exceptions in the CBD district can be granted for infill lots were setbacks can be similar to the adjacent building. The proposal seems to fit the exception provisions. In this case, the US West building and other building to the north along Second Street are set at the front property line typical of downtown main Street development. The proposed development would continue the 0' setback pattern. Side or rear setbacks are next to steeply sloped treed or vacant lands with minimal impact on adjacent buildings. Height - The CBD height regulations allow a height of 50 feet or 4 stories in the CBD district. The proposed development contains 8 levels, two below grade garage parking levels and building components of various levels (4 - 6) above the parking. The site survey map shows site elevations with the building foot print overlayed on the site. The site slopes up to the south and west from 720 to 750, 730 being the main existing site floor level, 740 around the edge and 750 up the slope. The floor of the first parking level is 721. The top level of the highest building element (along the south bluff is 800). For comparison purposes the CUB parking lot at 807.4. Using a site base level of 730 the highest building is at elevation 800 or 70 feet tall. To accommodate the 50 foot height limit two stores of the highest building component would have to be removed. The site is unique in its location and topography and the building sits back from adjacent structures and the street. The highest element of the building is over 150 feet from adjacent buildings or pedestrian areas. For a variance to be granted the following findings must be met: That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and that, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. Based on a review of the proposal the site conditions and exiting land use and comprehensive plan policy findings 1 and 3 can be made. Recommendation- Special Use. Approval. Finding: The project use is compatible with the downtown area and adequate parking is provided. Variance: Setbacks - approval. Heights - denial as proposed, reduce height in south building component. Findings: The site is unique because of its location and topography. Other buildings in the area are set out to the front property line and adjacent buildings are setback from the proposed construction site because of topography. The height of the 70' tall building does not impact adjacent views. The main south building component is 70 feet tall. The required height is 50 feet (most of the building components conform to height requirements). Conditions of Approval: The developer shall show evidence of ownership of US West building before project plans are approved. 2. Twenty (20) parking spaces shall be permanently set aside for US West building use in the parking structure. 3. A minimum of 175 parking spaces shall be provided on the developed site. 4. The US West building shall be used for office use only unless approved by the planning commission and city council. 5. Provision shall be made for the sanitary sewer line relocation. 6. All fire protection concerns of the fire chief shall be addressed before building permits are issued. 7. Storm water run off rates shall be reduced through project design as approved by the city engineer. 8. The main south building components shall be reduced in height to meet the height requirements of the district. 9. The treed sloped areas shall be protected from development impact. 10. The city of Stillwater shall have assurances that 125 additional public parking spaces shall be constructed in a ramp over the Olive and Second Street lot. 11. Two parking spaces shall be provided for each residential unit (parking shall come with unit an not be provided separately). 12. The conditions of approval regarding landscape plan, lighting plan, signage building materials and material colors from the Heritage Preservation Commission shall be meet before building permits are issued (DR/96-29). 13. A detailed grading, drainage/erosion control plan shall be approved by the city engineer before a building permit will be issued. Attachments: Application and plans Location map Site survey (topography) Memo from Glen Van Wormer 4-5-96 Memo from city coordinator 4-4-96 Letter from Fire Chief Letter from Ann Pung-Terwedo Bluff City Site Design Guidelines Comp Plan Housing Infill Policy 6087824478 GERRARD REALTY CORP 126 P02 MAR 22 '96 15:29 Case No: �?�� �, `/!o /s Date Filed: -�/� , ) % .; Fee Paid: f Receipt No. ]PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT_ Certificate of Compliance CrIY OF STILLWATER ✓ Conditional or Special Use Permit 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET _ Design Review STI)L.L'W'ATER, MN 55082 Planned Unit Development Variance [��,�, Le•„ ,- , Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FFLi' S270 — 7-0 00 -$100+S50Am SIG The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project ;J D 1 C�►� 2'rJ 57.. �?�'A,Ssessor's Parcel fining District Description of Project—T S►iU VOG "I hereby state thefor'egaing statements and all data, bfz orrnation rrrul Mde?wr Submitted herevith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and corrtct. I fiather sertrbi 1 will tanepTy ivtth the perrnit if it is granted and resed_" Property Owner T Representative 5 Mal€izi Address Ggl Ma€ling Address 2.- 10 Telephone No. a Telephone N Sxgnatur P Signatur SITE AND PROJECT DFSCRWTIIO yv Lot Size (dimensions) c, x _Z �- Total build' floor Area Land Area 1& �G V �� oc7 srl. it. Existing sq. fit. Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed, = t 7p sS ft. Principal ��! Paved Imi+ervious Area s, Ft. Accessory Number of Off street parking spaces provided.-b-- (`)ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAYBE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION 57./gyp REVIEW 'i�►��1•}•R�l+*Y� �,I�,'Loc� Revised 9/19195 408 20 EI QI mj \-I- 400 30 36 32 31 3r a � 213 \ tr ? ,0121 7 3 307 W- 301 30�{5t 32p .{�(ZAA�h 30 40 2r0 41 229 110 437 436 k 110 G N G , t y 604 ,p4fz,l q 501 515 �r '0 9 16 1 51 522 City of Stillwater Fn� 225 �5EN MEMORANDUM ❑ ST. PAUL, MN ❑ MINNEAPOLIS, MN ❑ ST. CLOUD, MN ❑ CHIPPEWA FALLS, W1 ❑ MADISON, Wl ❑ LAKE COUNTY, IN TO: Steve Russell FROM: Lew Moran DATE: April 5, 1996 RE: Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request Please find the enclosed "Planning Administration Form" requesting a Conditional Use of the U.B.C. Property as well as Variances for height and setback. The following descriptions are illustrative of the need for this request. The site is currently not zoned to accommodate housing. Gerrard Realty is proposing to construct 65 condominium units and 9 townhomes on the site for a total of 74 residential units. The condominium units would range in size from 1250-1650 Square Feet. The townhomes would be 1800 Square Feet, 6 located on 2nd Street and 3 located on Olive Street. In order to complete this project, conditional -use would have to be granted to permit multi -family housing. The site and the immediate area includes areas of relatively flat topography, ranging from 719.0 - 730.0 in elevation, and substantial hills, climbing to over 808.0 feet in elevation. The building incorporates 2 levels of below -grade parking for residents and guests as well as 6 stories of housing. The proposed finished roof will be at 800.0 feet in elevation, a height well below the level of the Cub Foods parking lot which is at 807.0 feet. The building massing conforms generally to the elevation of 3rd Street, maintaining a similar profile. The portion of the site previously used for lumber storage is at 730.0 feet in elevation, and is the area most level. The City Planning Guidelines provide for 50' in height, although the "Bluff City Site Design Guidelines", developed for the U.B.C. Site indicates that a building of "multiple massing" might be viewed positively if it also did not exceed "808.0 ft, and the profile of 3rd Street which ranges from approximately 793.0 ft at the south down to 768.0 ft at the north." The current design conforms to these guidelines. In order to develop the property, a variance allowing for building height to exceed the 50' recommended limit for portions of the southernmost site would have to be granted. It is our belief that the additional height of the building would not affect views of the surrounding river valley. Also, the local ordinance requires setbacks of 15-0" front -yard and 20'-0" side/rear-yards. The current design includes the location of 9 townhomes located along 2nd and Olive streets, a design feature which enhances the street "presence" of the project while maintaining a massing which is similar to the U.S. West building, in that these townhomes are constructed at the property line. The "Bluff City Steve Russell Page 2 April 5, 1996 Site Design Guidelines" indicates that the development of this parcel should consider maintaining a "downtown" appearance, implying the location of new development along the property lines adjacent to 2nd and Olive Streets. A variance would have to be granted to allow for the townhomes to be located along the 2nd and Olive Street property lines. In addition, an efficient layout of condominium and parking spaces requires that the building be located within the setback area along a short section of the western property line as well as along portions of the southern property line. It does not appear that this would unnecessarily encroach upon neighboring property. These areas have been identified on a site plan for your review. If I can be of additional assistance in illustrating these points, please call me at your earliest convenience. Ltm Enclosure C: P. Gerrard, M. Balay CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BARRETT M.STACK STILLIVATER, MINN. 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel. No. 439-5630 UNITED BUILDING CENTER, a.k.a. Laird Norton Co., SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOlti 301 South Second St., Stillwater, MN 55082 DESCRIPTION: Per Parcel Description I"urnishrd: (see Sheet 3 of 3 Sheets) /.I NOTES: Orientation of this bearing System is assumed. o Indicates 5/8" I.D. iron pipe set marked with a plastic plug inscribed RLS 13774. Underground or overhead public or private utilities on or adjacent the parcel were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless noted otherwise. Outside boundary was surveyed per parcel description furnished (see sheet 3 of 3 sheets). Adjoining parcel descriptions were not researched or compared with desc. furnished. Note fence line and bituminous pavement encroachment along the n'ly line. Contact the City of Stillwater Public Works Dept. at 439-6121 for field staking and exact loc. of remainder of 40" San Sewer line loc.on this parcel. Exact loc.presently unknown. This sewer line is not defined by easement. h NW �..c EA S 7-O./ / vz- S TE /eE 7' a° !Vz Cae. y ds. 35 V W � ` v n ` 1} •! I S7- e,?2S' r.r dtaG. - if J!r/P. }�- r S 7I 3V IA' y Ii fart fAw D.9 $ h o0 S7T%c fT "W �i /z°• ~Tire s. 3. �bG 9 o!r . h s0 ti' ti�'4C-' ❑ zarz kr i h; k: � N p1 Q[/6/eg44 fi<e e3 48 54 f r. i to Fx4HC TNLO l� Lor 6 X" I Q�i'�[dPEfi /r,erly [''•r i � r /}/[[SOa ilryf/fy rtr sv,r•/c'rt•t^+ Irr.ya F .5% 3Z0 Sy. Fr. t ti •p ti o MAVNAlE 6 At ` k Y�. 11 �1 �i�1 t JY rY'Y fMAW 1 Z— rCrY♦,� F�F t 1 �� <�,•,Lf� YF� r r Ate , •Ivy:' ' ZZ + N ', hY1i '\'�3�'�= '' '.': . �z��.fr 3 /s/.7/u j 35 e `° 1 !,)`.'v. r•j' :�; — ,/j;y' ''r i I hereby ccr6ify dial this snrvty, plan, ur rrP..n ea. prepared by me or under my direct super%kimi and thrt I duly Krgisirrrd Lana Surveyor under ibt- Lta, of _— am a the Statt of hiinnr na. Datc SQ0t 11 1992 Iteg.Nu. 13774 0 S ii�iw ater - �47 THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA, L. STATE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS CITY OF STILLWATER ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT In the Matter of the Planning Case No. SUP/95-33 Request By: Andiamo Enterprises The above entitled matter came to be heard before the Planning Commission on the 8th day of May, 1995, on a request for a special use permit pursuant the City Code for the following described property: 301 South Second Street - 10692-4700 LOT 26 BLK 29 LOT 26 N OF NELSON ALLEY EX N 22 FT & 10692-4750 LOT 26 BILK 29 PTS OF LOTS 26 & 27 BEING NLY 22 FT OF LOT 26 & SOUTH OF OLIVE ST ON LOT 27 �21 ��ow, C Purpose: A special use permit to convert an existing lumber retail sales business and stroage buildings into a commissary (commercial catering kitchen), deli and future night club, banquet facility. - - Upon motion made and duly approved by the requisite majority of the Planning Commission, it is ordered that a special use permit be granted upon the following conditions: 1. Phase I deli/commissary area can be constructed with this approval. 2. The banquet/night club Phase II can be constructed to open when or after Second Street UBC storage lot is available for parking (Spring 1997). 3. All commissary venting shall be through the roof to minimize noise and visual impact on the area. 4. Exterior improvements for Phase II and III shall return to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review and approval before any Phase II or III improvements are made. 5. The deli shall be limited to seating for 20 people as proposed in the development. 6. The plans as approved by the HPC for the first phase improvements are the approval plans for the project. 7. All fire and building code requirements shall be met. 8. All employees shall park in the existing public parking lot at Second and Olive. Dated this 18th day of May, 1995. Steve Russell, Community Development Director CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 Ig A D-E-1 I STREET I I N u Y eLMwj I ST I MR I r/ IV. Z�z 7- E the trend to restore older houses continues. In the middle 1950's, many people chose to improve their houses. This trend seems to be occurring .gain in the early 1990's. Many houses that were listed as fair at the beginning of the survey have since been improved. Of the 3,742 structures surveyed, 64 percent were in good condition, 28 percent were in normal condition, 7 percent in fair condition and 1 percent in poor condition. The study concludes that approximately 300 structure are in need of minor or major repairs. This compares to 200 structures in 1980. Good condition housing is important to community character. The city would like to improve the condition of its existing housing and enhance the residential quality and character of Stillwater's neighborhoods. Quality housing requires adequate city facilities and services. The city can support residential development only in those areas where city facilities and services are viable )r will be provided by the development. The city Will extend utilities and services only into the most viable expansion areas and will maintain development fees at a sufficient level to finance infrastructure cost. Older neighborhoods should be maintained and upgraded. To that end, the city will seek the cooperation of the Washington County HRA and lending institutions for financing structural improvements and neighborhood investment. The city will endeavor through the development approval process to insure that Stillwater' community character, housing quality and physical and visual environment are preserved and improved and that natural features are incorporated into the design of residential developments. Infill Development and Affordable Housing The existing Stillwater housing stock is Stillwater's most affordable source of housing. Preserving the stock of existing housing units in its neighborhoods especially around the downtown and in infill areas avoids expensive costs associated with new construction and extension of public facilities and services and provides sites close to exiting services and facilities, Regulations that encourage rehabilitation and infill are demolition control ordinances, housing replacement ordinances and sensitive code enforcement. Non -regulatory measure to promote rehabilitation and infill include infrastructure maintenance, reuse of city owned lands for infill housing, housing rehabilitation assistance programs, participation in first-time home buyer programs for existing housing as well as new housing. Infill Housing Infill hosing development promotes housing affordability by using existing infrastructure and services rather then requiring expensive extension of roads, water and sewer lines and other facilities. The city expansion areas are primarily residential areas and do not have mixed uses within close proximity of housing like the older existing city neighborhoods. New URTPA residential development is at relatively low densities, two - four dwelling units per acre in part to preserve open space and environmental quality. The new areas will have an extensive open space recreation trail system but be dependent on the auto for work and shopping trips. Car pool or van pool parking locations are designated in the plan. During the comprehensive planning process a hard look was taken at trying to create new city development areas in the spirit of old communities with a mix of land uses, high and low densities, wide architectural diversity, mix of housing types and affordability including assisted housing - less transit dependent more pedestrian oriented. From that review it was concluded that many of the planning and design principals of the past are 6-3 still viable but have to be applied to Stillwater's unique environmental setting and social -economic conditions. The over riding concern for newly developing URTPA areas is environmental quality and natural resource protection and rural character. This has been the trend since the early 1980's and has resulted in strict environmental protection ordinances and regulation. The environmental priority and regulations have effected the design possibilities and public acceptance of new urban density development. The URTPA is comprised of three areas. Each area contains unique natural resources that are safeguarded through this plan. An extensive trail and park system will be provided for the enjoyment of the neighborhood and the community at large. Each area will contain a range of single family housing, large lot, small lot and attached housing. Employment and shopping opportunities will not be provided within walking distance except for the R & D office park area, and public transportation will not service the new areas. Park and ride or car pooling lots will be provided for commuting to the Twin Cities and other distant employment locations. Infill opportunities within the City of Stillwater were studied and sites were located in the downtown and on the north edge of the West Stillwater n DUJIi &bb n ef k areas. CI C Is very I'I tI e vacant land in the downtown but the City of Stillwater over the last five years has purchased or leased four parking lots that could provide sites for housing development in the air spaces over them. The lots are located along North Main Street and Second Street at Mulberry and Olive. As many as 300 multifamily housing units could be developed over these sites. As with all projects in the downtown, good design and fit is important for a project to be successful. Additional household in the downtown area would enliven the area as a residential area and support many of the downtown business. The Second Street sites would be particularly appropriate for additional senior housing. (Rivertown Commons, a senior project, located on Second Street has a 200 person waiting list). Besides the downtown, the West Stillwater Business Park is developing as a new community center. Goods and services are provided within walking district of residential areas. Parks, trails and sidewalks have been constructed for pedestrian transport. Local circulation and MTC commuter bus services are available. A senior center and assisted housing is located near the area. In the downtown, city services are in and could accommodate the development without additional infrastructure costs. While preparing neighborhood plans opportunities for small scale infill sites can be considered. Neighborhood character and fit will be an important consideration in older residential areas around the downtown as it is in the downtown. Innovative Zoning Techniques: Zero lot line, cluster and mix use zoning Innovative residential site planning techniques such as zero lot lines developments or cluster development result in cost savings by allowing more compact lot sizes and arrangement of infrastructure at greater densities then possible using traditional zoniliig. The modification of development standards including minimum lot size, setbacks, street widths, off-street parking requirements maximum lot coverage, sidewalks and site improvements requirement reduce costs. Cluster zoning allows increased density on concentrated portions of proposed a development, reducing infrastructure costs and preserving open space. Cluster development is usually a part of a planned unit development, PUD, and combined with zero lot line development. The illustration shows a cluster development concept plan and describes the benefits of the urban cluster development. pu BLUFF CITY SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES r d x e: , y ]� ►`� WIN m AR fib U tF r� z HISTORIC DOWNTOWN STII.,,LWATER, BLUFF CITY SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES PREPARED FOR CITY OF STILLWATER HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF STILLWATER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MARK S. BALAY ARCHITECTS 226 E. MYRTLE STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 (6I2) 430-33I2 DECEMBER 1995 "Every increment of construction must be made in such a way as to heal the city. Every new act of construction has just one basic obligation: it must create a continuous structure of wholes around itself." Christopher Alexander from A Nc \v Tlieo ry o f Urban Desi en INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Bluff City Site Design Guidelines is to provide design direction for one of the remaining large vacant sites in the Downtown Area as shown on the map below. The Downtown Design Guidelines generally apply to the site and Nvere used as a starting point for developing these more site specific guidelines. Bluff City Site Design Guidelines can be organized in two areas,one context and setting guidelines to fit the project into the urban fabric and twospecific project design elements. Design areas such as proportions, height, setback, scale, materials and color provide direction for fitting site development into the overall cityscape. The Downtown is a place for pedestrians. Guidelines that help develop a pedestrian friendly project are building materials, colors, textures, access ways, signage, lighting, parking and landscaping. By following the Bluff City Site Design Guidelines, a project that fits in and enhances the downtown cityscape and is comfortable to the pedestrian can be achieved. SITE LOCATION sr turn% Gfvry f'�•. L.�II � '+ i I ss � � ' i lr`jf—1 .I IL E ls` ,`�` �.� t{I ' ill; �r—�;i llJ'iI.�.al 111 �I � �i .I 4�' WillII�i�! 1 .► Ilt i s r1LBVATE1Z DOWNTOWN 1::; i-*,) I View No. 1 Pedestrian view looking South along Second St. from Olive PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DESIGN 1) The current Stillwater Downtown Plan calls for the elimination of vehicular traffic from Nelson Alley. Any development on this site should not rely on vehicular access from Nelson Alley. Nelson Alley will become a pedestrian way linking this site and the area to Main Street and the riverfront. Refer to the STILLWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN, December 1988 for further information 2) Pedestrian oriented design is a major factor along the East property line, Second St. south from Olive St. a) Coordination with entrances and exits to any parking garage levels should be carefully designed for safety and appearance. b) Pedestrian visual and physical access to the site should be encouraged with design elements such as lighting, plazas or arcades. c) Small tenant uses; personal service, and retail shops, should be considered along this street to promote pedestrian use and activity. d) Since there will be public parking in this shared parking ramp the design must support safe pedestrian circulation in and out of the public parking areas. 3) Pedestrians whom have parked in the Riverview Parking Lot at the northwest corner of Third and Pine above the site will be attempting to find their way to the downtown area. Possible pedestrian traffic through the site should be considered in the project design process. 4) If the site is extended to connect to Olive St_ west of Second St., then pedestrian circulation from Olive street should be designed to create an attractive safe entrance through the use of lighting landscaping and specialty paving. SET BACK 1) The current Zoning Ordinance stipulates a 15 foot front yard setback at both property lines on Second and Olive Streets, and side and rear yards of 20ft. 2) Required public and private parking requirements for this site dictate the need for a parking ramp structure at the base of any constructed building. The actual physical structures required for the development on the site will therefore be located either in front of the parking ramp or above it. This will result in a proposed building of considerable size. Dependent on design additional setbacks will have to be negotiated beyond the required setback at the streets to consider a suitable intensity of development. 3) The current zoning ordinance earmarks sites like this one, with bluffs and ravines. for case by case consideration to protect the overall appearance of the downtown area. Any developer should consider incorporating additional building setbacks into the upper floors of proposed design solutions in order to address these site specific issues. In the case of this site, and the proposed use, the condominium unit elements will be the majority of the buildings visual bulk and should reflect additional setbacks beyond those required or "step backs" at upper levels to be contiguous with the existing cityscape. 4) Adjacent structures are considered when applying setback standards. The building on the corner of Second St. and Olive St. is situated on the front property lines. Specifically the proposed design solution should reflect this on the Second Street elevation to maintain a downtown urban appearance. View No. 2 Distant View looking West up Nelson Alley I dffl� "17 Lrv- J PROPORTION AND HEIGHT 1) The current zoning ordinance sets a maximum of four storys or 50 feet for the height of the building as measured at the front of the property. The preliminary staff analysis as that rule applies to this site is halfway south on the east property line and straight up 50 ft. for determining the maximum elevation that any building on this site may not exceed. Examining an aerial topographic map of the site that elevation would be approximately 778.0 ft. Clearly though, development of the intensity being proposed will not be able to remain within this limitation nor would the proportion of a simple block building at this height no matter the use be acceptable in the cityscape. Modification to this requirement may be necessary to implement these design guidelines and accommodate the mixed use development. 2) The current zoning ordinance gives a specific definition of building height which changes based upon the design the roof of the structure: " Height, Building. The vertical dimension, measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the from of the building to the highest point of ceiling of the top story, in the case of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the average height between the plate and ridge of a gable, hip, or gambrel roof." 3) A more open ended height limitation would require "multiple massing" of any structure proposed and set absolute limitations for height at the surface elevation of Cub Foods building parking lot to the south, approximately 808.0 ft., AND the profile of Third street which ranges from approximately 793.0 ft. at the south down to 768 ft.. at the north. Any successful solution should relate height limitations to the topographic contours of the site and adjacent areas. This tivill produce a more custom but logical three dimensional height pocket for development. 4) Proportions on this site should apply to the view from downtown Stillwater as a whole into many small parts. The structure should not be a single are mass in distance view. It should be broken up visually into parts that are in proportion to the other masses of buildings in the downtown cityscape or the bowl around downtown. Also the proportion of silhouetted new building elements should respond to the silhouettes of St. Mary's church, St. Michael's church, and the Historic Courthouse which all protrude from the landscape canopy. Any proposed - structure on this site will stay well below the profile of the landscape canopy. In winter many "below the bowl" structures are evident and should be considered for proportional consideration from the top of the bowl as well as in bowl locations MATERIALS / FINISHES-COLOR-FIXTURES-SIGNAGE-LIGHTI\G-EQUIP;•IE\T 1) The selection of materials for the exterior of the building should relate to other materials and colors appearing in the downtown and read as a coordinated rational design. Appropriate colors include; dark slate gray for roof top colors and Redbrick and gray limestone colors for walls. 2) Developmental Submittals should utilize photographs and actual product samples to amplify and confirm the design drawings. Fixtures should be presented „1th technical data as well for analysis of size, color and functional impact. (see submittal requirement letter) 3) Signage should be represented by layout drawings with color selections to amplify perspective sketches. Signage on this site should be of a "micro" scale to provide identification, direction, and explanation NOT ADVERTISEMENT. The focus of signage should be at a pedestrian scale, not to be viewed from a distance as any part of the cityscape. An exception would be any retail space on Second St. which should be designed to the downtown standards for retail stores. 4) Presentation of representational drawings such as perspectives, and elevations with representational colors may only be presented on a preliminary basis, to assist the design team in determining if the design is developing in a suitable direction, Final approval may only be completed when technical information is provided which further documents the representational drawings. (see submittal requirement letter) 5) Lighting on this site should be solely utilitarian. Project lighting should be solely for circulation. Exterior lighting at unit porches should be carefully designed so as not to set-up some visual pattern on the exterior of the building. The building faces should not be lit by any device active or passive. 6) The careful design of BOTH the front and back of the building is critical to a successful design. Frequentiv back elevations are relegated to less costly materials since they may not be as prominent. Care should be taken to place materials so that the viewing distance is taken into consideration with the selection of material, Visual perception of the material it's scale and color is important; not necessarily actual physical properties of the material need be used, when the distance of viewing also restricts tactile examination. View No. 3 City Overview looking South,from distant Second Street PARKING 1) The current city plan for this site is a public surface parking facility for approximately 100-150 cars. 2) In order to allow development of this site the public requirement of 100-150 spaces must be met above and beyond the number of parking spaces required for the proposed building complex. Based upon limited land area of this site this development requirement may only be physically met with the construction of a parking ramp structure integral with the other components of the building complex. The public parking portion of this facility must be readily accessible to the public. Parking ramps are considered an eventual need in the current dowmtown plan. 3) This proposed residential use will probably require a three level parking structure per initial calculations (75 to 100 condo units). Two parking spaces are required per residential unit. There is an obvious potential for shared public private parking since peak demand times for various activities may accommodate sharing. The parking structure design solution must be safe for public and private use. LANDSCAPING 1) There are two major divisions of landscaping "micro and macro" that define the design needs of this site: A- Macro- landscaping is the distance view of the plant materials on the site and surrounding area. In view 43 the site has a bowl of mature vegetation surrounding it that is essential to the current green appearance of the Stillwater cityscape. ACTIVE STEPS MUST BE TAKEN DURING ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE, TO ASSURE THE CONTINUED HEALTH AND EVEN PROPAGATION OF THE EXISTING BLUFF PLANT LIFE. (The hill to the south is the property of Cub foods and the hill to the west is the property of the City.) B- Iviicro-landscaping is the on -site view of planting materials which accomplishes pedestrian - oriented goals of defining space, directing views, and visual screening. The landscape re�,ulations for the site require 209% landscape lot coverage and 80% building coverage. 04, 05,'96 10: 33 FAX 612 490 2150 .=SEN TO: FROM: DATE: SEH ST . PAUL 4-» ST I LLWATER K 0 0 2/ 0 0 4 MEMORANDUM G' MINNE4POLIS, AIN ❑ ST. CLOUD, nAN+ C C4!P F,'lA rr�LS, M _ MAu(SON, /V7 Steve Russell, Community Development Director City of Stillwater Glen Van Wormer Manager, Transportation Department April 5,1996 RE; Stillwater, Minnesota Condominium Development Olive Street and 2nd Street SEH No. A-STILL9601.00 As requested, we have reviewed the traffic impacts of the proposed high-rise condominium development at the southwest corner of the intersection of Olive Street and 2nd Street. The development is proposed to consist of 65 condominium units and nine townhomes. All units will be upscale and have approximately 1,500 square feet in the condominiums and 1,800 square feet in the townhomes. Most will have two bedrooms, with some having a single bedroom and a den. The development is a high-rise condominium in an urban setting which is close to entertainment, restaurants and shopping. It will generate trips at a rate lower than normal for a condominium and significantly lower than rates for single family units. The price, location and size also tend to generate less peak hour trips then normally found in condominium type developments. We anticipate that the development will generate 518 trips per day. The number of trips on Saturdays and Sundays will be reduced to between 300 and 400 trips. In the weekday p.m. peak hour, we anticipate the development will generate approximately 41 trips, with most being inbound. Trips will be distributed primarily to the south. Until the new St. Croix River Crossing Bridge is built, there will be a higher percentage using 3rd Street to the south and some combination of 3rd Street, 4th Street, Pine Street and Churchill Street. With the completion of the new river bridge, higher volumes will then be found on Main Street to the south. Little traffic is anticipated to use 2nd Street to the south navigating to Chilicouth Hill. Few vehicles will use Myrtle Street to the west or Main Street to the north. We anticipate that, in the summer, prior to the new river crossing bridge, approximately 155 vehicles will use 3rd Street to the south each day. In the p.m, peals hour, there will be approximately 19 northbound and three southbound vehicles. Once the new bridge is built, this volume should drop to nine northbound and three southbound vehicles. At the same time, there 04 05- 96 10:33 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH ST. P UL -�44 STILLWATER 10003i004 Mr. Steve Russell April 5,1996 Page 2 will be approximately 280 vehicles per day using Main Street to the south. Prior to the new bridge, there will only be approximately 10 northbound and two southbound vehicles added to Main Street in the p.m. peak hour. After completion of the bridge, this volume should increase to 18 northbound and five southbound vehicles. It is anticipated that most of the southbound traffic will use Nelson Street to the Main Street traffic signal. The northbound traffic will turn either at Nelson Street or Nelson Alley. Some may use Olive Street. Volumes on Nelson Alley are anticipated to be rive eastbound and six westbouzicl vehicles in the p.m. peakhour. Nelson Alley should have eight westbound vehicles. in the a.m. peak hour, Nelson Street could see approximately 20 additional eastbound vehicles. During the winter, we anticipate that more traffic will tend to utilize Main Street because of the lower traffic volumes and because of the grades on Olive Street. However, the impact should be less because of the significantly lower volumes of traffic on Main Street during the winter. Based on this analysis, it appears that only noticeable increase in traffic volumes will be on eastbound Nelson Street in the a.m. peak hour (20 vehicles), and on northbound 3rd Street and eastbound Olive Street in the p.m. peak hour _(20 vehicles prior to the new bridge construction). This equates to approximately one vehicle every three minutes. In downtown Stillwater, it is unlikely that this will add to the existing traffic problems. Very little of the traffic generated by this development will go through the major congested intersections of Main Street at Chestnut Street and Main Street at Myrtle Street. If you have any questions or need any of the background information, please call me. tlo c: Dick Moore, SEI-1 Tom Sohrweide, SEH April 4, 1996 voldt 4 wrcuceea fe*T� W. W., Vew e&4 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Committee/f.,Pv FROM: George W. Ness, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Gerrard Realty / U.B.C. Site Development The Stillwater Fire Department has some concerns about the project located at 301 South Second Street in Stillwater. The department needs to know what, if any accessibility, we might have in placement of our equipment, should there ever be a fire at this complex. We need to be able to place our equipment in the courtyard area as well as completely around the entire perimeter of the complex. The Stillwater Fire Department would like these issues addressed before this project proceeds. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thank You, George W. Ness, Fire Chief 216 Woz 4 ga*za Skeet, Ult 55092 (612) 4396120 (612) 439 1318 (612) 4391313 &x (612) 439-0456 =5EFI MEMORANDUM ❑ ST. PAUL, MN ❑ MINNEAPOLIS, MN ❑ ST. CLOUD, MN ❑ CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI ❑ MADISON, WI ❑ LAKE COUNTY, IN TO: Steve Russell FROM: Lew Moran DATE: April 5, 1996 RE: Fire Suppression Systems We are aware that George Ness has several concerns relating to the fire suppression systems to be included in the Gerrard Condominium development. We have had a preliminary discussion with him regarding their conceptual design and will be meeting with him upon his return to Stillwater, In the mean time, it may be important to note that the building and parking garage will be constructed of non-combustible materials, it will be sprinkled and will have a complete fire detection and notification system. In addition, we will work with our mechanical and electrical engineers to assure that the building systems fully support the fire departments need to protect residents and fire fighters in the event that a situation develops. ltm c: M. Balay, P. Gerrard April 2,1996 Steve Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 N, Fourth Stillwater, NIN 55082 Dear Steve, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the use and design for the proposed downtown condominium project on Second Street. The project fills a need in the downtown area and in the Stillwater area for high density, low maintenance housing. The housing also balances the uses in the downtown area, Since the late 1970's, the downtown has become a retail center, orientated to the visitor, By providing housing, that balance may shift to more of a locally based, downtown market which may cater more to the community. The townhouse walk-ups on Olive and Second Street are appropriate because they add to the character of those streets. Historically, Stillwater may have built walk-ups around the dowtown area.The brick building materials, detailing and roof elements are also appropriate, My greatest concern about the project is the large mass of buildings against a bluff]ine without the trees or vegetation as a background to break up that image. Since the Second Street facade reflects the images of a number of buildings, the materials do not; even though they have used brick, This leaves the impression of a campus or institution in the overall design of the project. The overall 70 ft. height of the structures is also a concern. The Downtown Design Guidelines and the zoning ordinance limits the height to four stories, 50 feet maximum, or within 10 feet of the adjacent buildings. These regulations were adopted in order to maintain an overall quaint, small town image of the downtown, area. As I recall, we used the Staples Block as a maximum building height. Z realize that the lot is quite deep and there is room for additional height but be- cause the mass of the building the whole project overwhelms the Downtown area. If the mass were reduced, maybe one of the towers could be 70 feet in height. Thanks Again! B t Regards, �� f � t. nn Puna-Terw•edo MEMORANDUM TO: Stillwater Planning Commission FROM: City Coordinator SUBJECT: Gerrard Development Proposal DATE: April 4,1996 I have the following comments and/or concerns in regards to the development proposal of Gerrard Realty: First of all I am concerned about the size of the development. The "mass" of this development appears to be considerably larger than what I thought was originally proposed. It now encompasses every square foot of ground available at the site and it also exceeds the height limit that has been established for this land use area. However, this is only a secondary concern. The Primary concern I have is the loss of available parking space this development will create. The UBC site was purchased for the purpose of building a parking lot at this location. This development will now eliminate this parking lot which could have been constructed at a cost of approximately $200,000 instead of the $1.2 to $1.5 million that will be required for a parking ramp at Second and Olive Streets. Even if the City were to sell the land at the $600,000 figure that is being proposed, there will still be a $600,000 to $900,000 financing need. Given all of the projects/improvements that are on the drawing board for the City at this time, the City will be hard pressed to find a source of funds for the parking ramp -even if a Parking District is established. However, It is not only the cost of the lot that is of a concern to me, it is the also the loss of the parking space capacity that is of greater concern to me. For example, just about every conversation I have had with business people and local residents, parking problems still exist in the Downtown area. Although I believe that the parking problems are more of a perception than an actual problem, this perception may be discouraging some people from shopping in the Downtown area. This leads me to believe that the City must still do more to provide parking in the Downtown. It is fortunate that we have the potential for a parking ramp at Second and Olive Streets. On the other hand, given the present parking problems and the potential for future parking demands/requirements, I question whether a parking ramp alone will meet the future needs. It may be that a lot on the UBC site and a parking ramp may be needed in the future. For example, the business that is being proposed by Mr. Richard Anderson at the former UBC Lumber Store will require (according to Mr. Anderson) at least 102 additional parking spaces. This approaches the capacity of the future parking ramp and points out the need to consider further parking requirements.. In regards to the future parking needs, a question must be asked about the future re -use of the National Guard Armory. What will the re -use be and will the re -use create additional parking needs? How and where will these needs be met? What other buildings in the Downtown area have the potential for creating additional parking demands? I would suggest that the City closely examine the parking issue to answer these questions before allowing this project to go forward. I realize that this housing project is something that is desired by many of the people who have reviewed the project - especially for this site. And I also think it is commendable that the development itself will provide enough on -site parking so as to not create any demands for the on - street or parking lot spaces. However, as I have said, the total use of this site for the development may help perpetuate real and " perceived" parking problems in the Downtown area. I would also recommend that the traffic patterns related to a development of this kind (and scope) be studied to ensure that the area has the capacity to handle the increase in average daily traffic created by the development. Finally, I would also recommend that the storm sewer system in this area be studied to determine how the large amount of impervious surface created by this development will impact on the existing storm sewer system. I recall some capacity problems in past years and I am concerned that the system be capable of handling this increased runoff. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/96-10 Planning Commission Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 324 North Fourth Street Comprehensive Plan District: Duplex Residential Zoning District: R-B Applicant's Name: George Ghanem Type of Application: Variance Project Description: Request for variance to construct a second level porch/deck addition (unenclosed) with two foot front yard setback. Twenty feet is the required minimum setback for the RB District. Discussion: The proposal is for the construction of a second level porch to an existing house. According to the plans, the house is currently setback approximately 10 feet from the front property line. The proposed addition of the deck would bring the second level structure to within two feet of the property line. The deck/porch will not be enclosed but open and protected by railing only. The applicant has provided a letter of application that describes the hardship or reasons for requiring the variance. The proposed structure is located at the second level and does not effect clear corner view. The residence across Linden Street to the north has a similar porch off the front of the house. The lot size is 60' x 150' and slopes to the east on North Fourth Street with the residence located to the front. Required Findings: That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and that, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. Recommendation: Approval Attachments Case No: V I0 Date Filed: r� Fee Paid: ` D Receipt No. S PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE(' Certificate of Compliance 70 Conditional or Special Use Permit SIDI 17 Design Review �— Planned Unit Development 270 Variance $70 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ,34O Zoning Amendment 300 Subdivision 100+ $5011ot Resubdivision $ 50 Total Fee The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 3 9, l,Q N FR S+ S i { �?L L, SC ,; Assessor's Parcel No, 106965 650 ( '? I-b Zoning District Description of Project C-uusr (5EE ATTACee-b LEiTE2) "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certift I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. Property Owner nRs . SOURr� Ni3 -Qi wr n Mailing Address _ 324 t-41 , „'�i 1511,)092 Telephone No.. 61 Q 11 a) 09 k i Representative - Mailing Address Telephone No. 612 lli 3 0 o g S 4 Signature CA�--If Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 60 x 150' Land Area E Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Principal 8 Accessory 0 101 Total building floor Area Q,,Q 6 U sq. ft. Existing_ q4❑ sq. ft. Proposed 2 sq. ft. (390e42 fnt Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided — ')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW ( i'96u h 1N62Y US T MP rr AT i AcHC�) ) Revised 9/19/95 February 5, 1996 Mr. Stephen S. Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Building Variance at 324 North Fourth Street, Dear Mr. Russell: At your instruction, I am writing to provide your office with the explanation needed to consider my request for building a deck/porch facing North Fourth Street. The deck/porch is crucial to our safety in case of fire or medical emergency, and provides a principal entry door (other than the basement door) to the house from the main street. It thus serves to accomplish the following crucial functions: 1. to provide the quickest access to the nearest escape point to safety in case of emergency (fire, ambulance, etc.) and a key exit directly to the street by all oc- cupants of the entire living space on the third floor and most of the second floor; PQ door currently exists to allow fast exit from two stories of our living quarter in case of emergency situations; and 2. to reduce the existing high risks of accident (e.g. falling) that would result from falling when walking out the door that leads to Linden Street (which is very steep, slippery and icy during several fall, winter and spring months), and hence to provide an easier access to N. Fourth Street for a senior residing in the house. For the above reasons and to make our house safer, I am requesting the City's per- mission to build the multipurpose deck/porch system. I will work with the City to have the project executed without affecting public properties, and without disturbing neigh- bors. As you also requested, I am including several figures illustrating the proposed work plan. Figure 1 provides a description of the property location as it stands on the intersec- tion of Linden Street and North Fourth Street. The eastern side on which the proposed deck/porch structure will be built is also shown. Mr. Stephen S. Russell City of Stillwater February 5, 1996 Page 2 of 2 Figure 2 shows a more detailed layout of the property as it stands in 1924. As indi- cated, the house had two decks/porches in 1924, with the structure proposed to be re- stored being one of them. Please note that the 402 North Fourth Street property (also at intersection of North Fourth Street and Linden Street) indicated the presence of a porch/deck in 1924 (like on our property), a structure which currently exists with a set back approximately 2 feet from North Fourth Street. Figure 3 provides a description of the proposed deck/porch structure with dimen- sions indicated. The boundary of the existing structure is shown by the solid line. A front view is shown in Figure 4 (picture of the house from N. Fourth Street). Currently, a four -foot pitched roof covers the entire North Fourth Street Side of the house. The proposed porch/deck would require an approval of 3.5 ft to 4 ft extension beyond the ex- isting roof limits, which brings the porch/deck width to 7.0-8.0 ft (the lower value being attributed to the narrowing of the porch/deck path due to an existing bay window). With an 8.0 ft approved width, the proposed porch/deck boundary will have a set back ap- proximately similar to the one approved for 402 North Fourth Street. Also shown on Figure 3 are the stairs that lead to the porch/deck. The needed modifications will be added to the existing concrete stairway. Figure 4 shows the existing structure with the proposed deck/porch and the new safety/entrance door location. Finally, we will comply with the City's requirements by using adequate number of posts to support the proposed deck/porch system and by adding any needed structural reinforcement. Please let me know if further clarifications are required to get my request approved. Thank you kindly for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, George V. A. Ghanem 324 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 612/430-0989 v 1 % Ql L El ■ N , L Y w L • J N \ .J06 .�IT AL4='� JI 31,3 O' 4o,? 'Ial 6 PIPE 3 :a Z �Zkb fl ti ■ h1a ;� k 193L5 NION1'j o I c;o� r in MW 6 T -rl ON 4(j Aff.x L.L 4% 01,119/1996 16:58 6124395085 JG HAUSE CONST INC PAGE 01 .EASE RETURN FIRST COPY AD KEEP THE SECOND COPY Y. q. C:711aU& P.O. Box 200 • Bayport, Minnesota 55003 Tel! (612) 439-0189 ■ Fax; (612) 439-5085 PROPOSAL .� _�.' '.�.. Ak4, -UHANEM _._. 5ubMITTED Tom.. �...... ... PAGE . — OF PAGES [■Ufl • �L7 AN. 1J. 1996 DNE 99 CI TY. STATEIZIr 916 w . Tl•1 a R:: I STILLWATEh, MN NAME AID LOCATION . - P"OkIl B 1 L FOR NI W WITH t:EL' AN' DEC1: OF E:X1ST1N(F1TCHLD ht3UF MTRUCTURE. 1P1: 'I'/1;..1• �:,;i'i a (16" ON cjiut 'k) TO 2X.11) PIN BEAM r; .it. 6" r;b:UAR ?Q''0'T,6 t 10' ON ("ENTER) DECK , .Pi!• O R & MATERIAL AL NECEaaARY FUR COMPLETE 60 MILL RUBBER ROOF. 41 : N:.,'r,h,,:. 1;;, r,; ; .,'EUXING' LIVER FLAT ROOF ON TREATED SLEEF B;R-13 tl.!ii,1.'! WITH 4"X 4'';�, 5' U. t:. WITH 2X4 RATE 4. 2AL' 13ALLISTEKL;. .1-A; (JIA UVER' RIM 3/8" ROUGH DOWN I'L'i Wt.:ri ►�. l: !'.1: „'f BOTTUM . 1N;;TAL), '::'.,TAIR:3 WITH 2XV) STRINGERS & 2X6 '1HEALS & .;i','I• EXISTING CCtNcRHTE STAIRS. $ 5964 - U4 WE PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum Of; MECHANICS, LIEN NOTICE oE� ABOVE PERSONS OR COMPANIES FURhiSHING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THE IM- PROVEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY MAY ENFORCE A LIEN UPON THE IMPROVED _ dollars .AND IF THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR BY THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, EVEN IF SUCH 'ARTIES HAVE NO DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER. UPON COMPLETION tiIINNESOTA LAW PERMITS THE OWNER TO WITHHOLD FROM HIS CONTRAC- Payment to be made. rolls SO MUCH OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AS MAr BE NECESSARY TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF ALL OTHER LIEN CIAIMANT5, PAY DIRECTLY SUCH LIENS AND )EDUC'T THE COST THEAEOc FROM THE CONTRACT PRICE. OR WITHHOi-D 4PAOUNTS FROM HIS CONTRACTCR UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF 90 DAYS FROM THE COMPLETION OF SUCH Wl"I"IOVEMENT UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR FUR- 'iSHEO TO ThE OWNER WAIVERS OF CLAIMS FOR MECHANICS' LIENS FOR THE APROVEMEN'r AND WHO PROVIDEC OWNER WITH TIMELY NOTICE. by hereby aomll service of ano err ova+ I- Irat cerlain Notice to Owner' requirea by Chapter Now This proposal may be ?47 of Laws 1973 ae above PI n',43 wllharawn by us it not acceple0 within days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL — The above prim, spee aliona, :crioition3, and rnerche.mrrs' lien noliC! are aatislactorfyy and are heret,y acL eolrad You are aulnorizao !o •?0 me work as 6900iIi6d. Payment will be Signature T1aaa aL ounnea above. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/96-11 PC Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 1522 Meadowlark Drive Comprehensive Plan District: One Family Residential Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Jane Baggot Type of Application: Variance Project Description: Variance to the sideyard setback (5 ft. required, 3 ft. requested) for the construction of a two -car garage. Discussion: The proposal is to construct a 22 ft x 24 ft two car on the northwest side of the home. Orginally the house had a two car tuck -under garage. The tuck under is being converted into living quarters. It is city staffs recommendation that a one car garage could be constructed and the applicant would not need a variance. Condition of Approval: Should the commission approve the request the following conditions are recommended: 1. All building codes regulations must be complied with. 2. The color and building materials of the garage shall match the home. Recommendation: The applicant construct a one car garage without the need for a variance. Findings: A hardship peculiar to the property was created by the owner remodeling the existing two -car garage into livible space. Attachments: Application Form Site Plan i� i Case No: V M6 r'1% Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.� PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review Planned Unit Development 7� Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE") 7( $ 7(V I -0- 270 $70 300 30 s l oo+s5oot $50 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project, I62-X _ Mt,-Iow Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project J) 0; 1 r ax "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence sicbmitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further cert!0 I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner Representative e Ad, f - -s Mailing Address 15 } r"-J� E✓ lHv- Ic Ob" ve Mailing A s 15 `AT 2'7 � /�; a r Telephone No. LI *3i - 3 - `) � Telephone No. Signature Aignature V Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total building floor Area Existing S�6 sq. ft. sq. ft. Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed sq. ft. Principal Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Accessory Number of off street parking spaces provided '`)ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 Jane Baggot 1522 Meadowlark Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 To City Planning Commission I am requesting a variance to build a garage three. feet away from my property line on the west side of the lot. This is the best possible site for a garage on this property. The only other possible site would be on the east side of the property: this side of the property contains a steep hill, numerous trees and we would need a variance for both the front and the back of the garage. Sincerely, Jane Baggot UL-Pd j ... _. •r��i-fix-, ....-. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/96-12 PC Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 305 Stillwater Avenue West Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential Zoning District: RB Applicant's Name: William and Dawn Tunison Type of Application: Variance Project Description: Variance to the front yard setback (30 ft required, 11.5 ft requested) for the construction of a garage with a bedroom above. Discussion: The request is to construct a single car garage (14 ft x 24 ft)attached to the house 11.5 ft_from the front property line. The proposal includes adding a second story above the garage for living space. There is a prevailing setback in this neighborhood with surrounding houses equally setback from the street. The proposed garage when constructed would project four feet in front of the house. City staff proposes there are more appropriate sites on the lot for the garage. Condition of Approval: Should the commission approve the project staff recommends: 1. Site the attached garage as far back on the site as feasible. 2. Gutter and eave troughs shall be installed to direct roof runoff to the driveway. 3. The color and building materials of the garage shall match the home. Attachments: Application Form Photos Site Plan 194 Case No: V Date Filed: ,3dl Fee Paid: Receipt No.: S/ PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance CITY OF STILLWATER Conditional or Special Use Permit 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Design Review lanned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE(') $70 $7QJ 17 -o- 27 70 D S300 S100+S5011ot $50 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 36S 57Tl LLU'Af6ZAo& V Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project /k0j n&'J E Ili' � 5ZN(-, (At . ��� F C4 6 &0 &d ek, _/4--5 ayyim' "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further cert!& I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. Property Owner,w<<[,.IAm �- flAvrf Mailing Address 3�515i�t�� v <rJ Telephone No� It) 351 7.0�J,8 CL,,s&,, LZvu Signature Representative Mailing Address Telephone No. Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) "o x 15o sue,' ` -: �'' Total building floor Area I �. ' s . ft. Land Area Lo L:o" s�- 'r { _ =` " Existing ! 't- sq. ft. 09 Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed So sq. ft. i;ec. Principal '`lE5 �' �v0rPayed Impervious Area `"' °' sq. ft. Accessory `- ' p `` Number of off street parking spaces provided (`)ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 March 20, .1.996 _ City cif Stillwater. Planning Cornmission / City.Council Members 21.6 North Fourth Street " "Stillwater, N1N..55082: Dear Council Members: Thank .you for your time and consideration in reviewing our request for a. variance'. Our hope is to to build a single car.'attached garage.with' a bedroom above on the east side of our.home: We feel this location is the best option for r our long arid narrow lot (40x150), and would eliminate the need for land elevation changes: We purchased this home at 305 Stillwater Avenue on December 30th, 1995. It had been completely rehabed after a very damaging fire.. Much time was. spent last summer cutting back the overgrown vegetation in the backyard with the idea of -building a 2 car garage in the southeast corner of the lot.: Building. in back of the home would require us to fill in 2 - 3 feet to level the area as it slopes downward and would otherwise allow rain and winter melt to run into the structure. Building there would also cut out a great deal of our backyard and much of the southern sunlight into the home. It would also make almost 1 /4 of our propertya driveway. Not only would it look unappealing, but it would be a nightmare to shovel. Another factor in our request is the desire for the room addition. After purchasing the perfect home for the three of .us ... we found out there would be. four. The addition as described would lend very easily to simply putting in a doorway in the upstairs hallway to allow entrance to the proposed new bedroom. The current floor plan would not be disrupted nor would any windows be blocked. Also, the neighboring house has no windows to that general area either. Lastly, we feel that the proposed addition would give aestheticly pleasing dimension to an otherwise basic box front. The proposed addition would extend 4 feet in front of the existing structure making it 11 1/2 feet from the right of way, or 281/2-feet from the street edge. There are currently no public sidewalks on our block. This four foot offset would allow us to put a service door on the west side of the garage. The proposed garage will be too narrow in front to allow more than the single vehicle garage door. Again, thank you for your time and consideration" William and Dawn Tunison 305 Stillwater Avenue West 351-7048 6t � +-,►�, c=.....�� � � ; n. 1. � �� �--� � 5 � � � ° � k v �p!1 ProposA--s c^jc,�l' cue s�, �z �4— -, J iOL" r Sim U S-e,.c +c, � 1 •I pr-HTY OF FLL TER PUBLIC LIBRARY. LWATF.R, MINI'L Ll k � • "1 �� ° �j � •ate 1 I d e,e c r,y,..vh a,..�l �� 1 4 _•. Ayci� W. ST I L LWATE R AV. 60fi wide "'" Sti.n L•Ow 9.:1ch T Non 7e �C� O�:Y' * "��� . 1-3 1 w ryl..� p;�4til��oN, S1no�7r1 R, ' I) ,a .• ti F;j JN S b x x ne o i a; 4 .� 3�0 .aoa i• �a b"Wp!•' W. WILKINS AV. 60ftw1de I IIIII � � �lj !� IIl}��lill III} ill !I!I� I Olt I I i Illliilil}!! If{ii I ! ! ~I -7 I' '{ III�III!�f� _ �t } ) I j I I II it 4 IIIlI'I ro PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO.DP/SUP/96-13 PC Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 127 South Water Street Comprehensive Plan District: Zoning District: CBD Central Business District Applicant's Name: John F. Berglund, Lumber Baron Hotel Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: A Special Use Permit for the erection of a temporary tent adjacent to the northern end of the Lumber Baron's Hotel. Discussion: The request is to erect a temporary 30' x 60' white tent next to the north end of the Lumber Baron's Hotel to be used for special occasions. The tent would be used periodically from May 1 through October 31 yearly. The applicant has indicated the request for the tent is to protect patrons from the rain. Conditions of Approval: The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the request at the April 1 HPC meeting and recommended the following conditions: 1. The tent can be used a maximum of six weekends in a calendar year. 2. On the selected weekends the tent can be installed of Friday and removed on Monday morning. 3. The tent shall be a netural color, no "circus" colors. Staff recommendation: 4. No amplified or broadcasts outside music after 10:00 P.M. Recommendation: Approved as conditioned. Findings: Attachments: Application Form 7AE1rim �' 2 NV,- , TheLUINI BER BARON' S �H 0 T E L A �'1L' I'[)iZ1:l\ 2N'N,:1AND CON Ff2J:NC[: CI.�i I f:lt March 19, 1996 To: The City of Stillwater: Attached is a written application for purposes of temporarily locating a 3o' x 60■ white tent adjacent to the northern end of our building but within our fenced in patio (see attached drawing labled exhibit A in place on or after May le 1996 and each successivewould and would be removed no later than October 31 of that same year; in addition to being removed intermittantly during the summer as use of the property dictates. The purpose of the tent is simply to cover a portion of our outside patio/deck to protect patrons from rain. The tent is white and is similar in a a in exhibit B attached, which was located OnnCityo the tent d few feet northeast of our property during the summer ofn1995. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, FO n F. Berglund Secretary St. Croix Preservation Company, Inc. , DBA Lumber Baron's Hotel 101 WATER STREET SOUTH STILLWATER, MN 55082 • 612-439-6000 • FAX: 612-430-9393 -,.'''_ate. - - - ' c+�.--!• �1_.. MAR- 3-9` 1 �ED 10 :16 CITY OF ST I LLWATER FAX NO. 6124390456 F, 02 Case No: 6-'51Q11,1 Date Filed:` Fee Paid: ) Receipt No.: ,5-- PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED; FEET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Certificaie of Compliance Cl"1 Y OF STILLWATER . �(c Conditional or Special Use Permit 7t /17 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET Design Review .0- STILLWATER, MN 55082 _ Planned Unit Development 270 Variance S70 Comprehensive Plan A iiencdnlent S300 Zoning Ai-nendment S300__ Subdivision S.I Q .50 o Resubdivision S_50 Total Fee The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all fonns and supporting material subnutted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 0 I S ItiAgA _f r'_ _ _ Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning, District Description of Project - A c r k 0 p��t� T - F-/vf �- Y - � A firs i�N1- -ro TO r Nc,ef�t f 1vp ' o F ftfr, f�u1 Lblv� frL_ _.1r17ArHf,0 "I hereby state the foregoing staternencts and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, tnie and correct. I f other certyv I will cornpiy with the permit if it is granted and used, Property Owner S1. _C9 V iX r "rVA-rent tG,TrAIc• Representative _ Mailing Address i f A n � J-r • Mailing Address _ Telephone No. Yf C 9 b Telephone No. Signature TA Signature r GE2�rU� J�rr.�f^�r SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SDI Lot Size (dimensions) x Total building floor Area_ _ sq_ ft. Land Area Existing sq. ft. Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed — sq. ft. Principal Paved Impervious Area _ sq. ft. Accessory Number of off street parking spaces provided MADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/1M5 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. SUP/96-14 PC Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 110 South Greeley Street Comprehensive Plan District: Two -Family Residential Zoning District: RB Applicant's Name: Heidi Rosebud Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: Special Use Permit and variance for a building expansion to the Stillwater Fitness Club. Discussion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,280 square foot addition to the existing building. The addition will be used to recover the gym space lost due to locker expansion within the existing facility. The applicant is purchasing the lot directly to the south of the gym, which will accommodate the proposed expansion and nine parking stalls. The parking lot and the front of the new addition will be landscaped. The variance is for the front and side yard setbacks ( 20 ft required, 6.5 ft and 2.0 ft provided). Staff is recommending the addition be stepped back another four to five feet to allow for lineal breakup of the building. It will also alleviate the need for a greater front yard variance. The proposed construction phases will begin fall of 1996 and be completed by the 2001. The phases are as follows: Phase I -Demolition of existing structures on purchased land to the south of the club. Phase II -Grade lot and provide gravel base for parking and provide perimeter landscaping. Phase III -Complete proposed addition and pave parking lot. The expansion will be constructed with the same materials and color of the exiting building. Condition of Approval: Staffs recommendation: 1. Step back addition four or five feet on the east (front) facade of building thus breaking the line of the building so that it does not appear so lineal. 2. Building meets all building codes. 3. City engineer review plans. Recommendation: Approved as conditioned. Findings: The addition will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. Attachments: Application Form Concept Drawings St /) Case No:-� Date Filed: `� y Fee Paid: Receipt No.: �- PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance CITY OF STILLWATER -7Conditional or Special Use Permit 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Design Review Planned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE"' 70 70 1 7 _p_ 270. S70 - 3$00 30 100+ S50 0 50 yQ1 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 116 3 - Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project AfWff+LvJ lArALt. 07 "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certifii I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. Property Owner -A%iat f� i3=�p Mailing Address /!0 J eec1 Y Telephone No. 6l Z o / Signature Representative _ Mailing Address Telephone No. Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) qO xf3 Land Area _ _S-0 5/10 Height of Buildings: Stori s Feet Principal 1ti�Si° Accessory Total building floor Area 7, 06nsq. ft. Existing . 2 3�_ sq. ft. Proposed r I.? eo - sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area D sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided (')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 Record of Action Date Application Filed Decision Authority Date of Action by Decision Authority Appeal Period Ended Appeal Files Appeal Decision Zoning Permit Issues Zoning Permit Signed by Owner Zoning Permit recorded with Washington County Development Certified as Completed Meeting all Conditions of Approval Comments PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/96-16 PC Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 322 South Grove Street Comprehensive Plan District: One Family Residential Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Denise Branch and Pete Cote Type of Application: Variance Project Description: A variance to the front yard setback requirement (30 ft required, 20 ft requested). Discussion: The request is to construct a 21 ft. x 22 ft. attached two -car garage approximately 20 ft. from the front property line. The justification for the request is the site topography and vegetation. The site slopes to the east, restricting construction. Also, there are mature trees that would have to be destroyed if the garage were moved back any father. The surrounding houses vary with structure setback to the front property line. The house to the south is very close to the street. There appears to be no prevailing setback in this neighborhood. In conclusion, this request will not impact the surrounding neighbbors. Condition of Approval: 1. Gutter and eave troughs shall be installed to direct roof runoff to the driveway. 2. The color and building materials of the garage shall match the home. 3. The garage shall meet all building code requirements. Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Findings: The granting of this variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the property due to the topography and mature trees. Attachments: Application Form Plans Photos Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance CITY OF STILLWATER Conditional or Special Use Permit 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Design Review i_�]lanned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE(') 70 7 170 -0- 27 70 30❑ •300 $100+$504ot 1._ The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Address of Project Zoning District PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Assessor's Parcel No. Description of Project Cfl. "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. 1 further cert�& I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner VZ- Mailing Address .1 Telephone No. l7 - - Os y 3 Signature ah &I-,- V -Y SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Representative 3ZZ [ ¢. Mailing Address _S�i uv t RA ff 51-0 2— Telephone No. 'K 2 d d a Signature h '�'ZC� 1 Lot Size (dimensions) 0/1x Total building floor Area sq. ft. Land Area Existing sq. ft. Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed -L sq. ft. Principal Paved Impervious Area E sq. ft. Accessory Gf ( Number of off street parking spaces provided MADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 City of Stillwater c/o Steve Russell 216 No. 4th St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Dear Mr. Russell, The property owners at 322 So. Grove Street, Pete Cote and Denise Branch, request a variance to build an attached garage in the front of the house, 21 x 22, per enclosed sketch. Because of the deep slope and mature trees in the back of the house and utility easements to the south of the house, this is the only place a garage can be built that is financially feasible. This would require a 10' variance from the current 30' front set back to a 20' front set back. Thank you for your consideration. Please let, us know if we can supply you with additional information for this request Sincerely, 4-eitt"Q f�""ep- IP Pete Cote and Denise Branch 430-0543. P.S. We are also considering an additional 15 x 22 area in the back of the garage proper to serve as storage and access to the south entrance of the home. 1�, 01 c PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. SUP/DR/96-17 PC Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: 317 South Main Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: Scott Zahren Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: Special Use Permit for an eating establishment Discussion: The applicant is proposing to construct a fast food restaurant on the central east side of the first floor in the Trump building. The approximate square footage of the proposed use is 300 square feet. The building inspector will need to review the use as it relates to the building codes. The menu will consist of Coney Islands, hotdogs, yogurt and beverages. There are no tables, but the restaurant will have a railing on the east and southeast walls.for the customer to place their orders. The applicant said the restaurant will appeal to people walking around downtown Stillwater, therefore will not be contributing much to the parking issue. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed sign at their regular meeting on April 1, 1996. They approved the sign that will be painted over the existing sign on the east side of the building that now says "Trumps Grill and Bar." The commission approved the conditions of approval and added that the proposed sign have border around the edge to give it a finished look. Condition of Approval: 1. All employees shall park in public permit lots. Recommendation: Approved as conditioned Findings: The proposal meets the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines, Sign Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Attachments: Application Form Conceptual Drawings Photos Case No: � Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: l,7 S PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED: FEE"' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance 0 CITY OF STILLWATER Conditional or Special Use Permit S7 17 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET '� Design Review ,, -0- STILLWATER, MN 55082 Planned Unit Development • 27 Variance 70 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $300 Zoning Amendment : 3( Subdivision S 100+S50110t Resubdivision S[ Total Fee The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project / .7 �Z"� ���_ Zoning District Description of Project Assessor's Parcel No. r - - '7 ..• C°��A�`y "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I fierther certt57 I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. Property Owner r.�� �'�t'_ _� Repr Mailing Address _._? 7 S': 'I &2nV- M fling Ado s wi_.7 �C•�� -i2 iL r Telephone No. —e. -- , z- Telep o No. ;?e �' Z Signature Q QA^ Signatu SITE AND PROJECT DESCRI ON Lot Size (dimensions) x Total building floor Area -�"� sq. ft. Land Area Existing _ �'c `� v` sq. ft. Height of Buildings: Stories i-cc. Proposed —i s ft. Principal Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Accessory _ Number of off street parking spaces provided (')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 RLD .op 0 _ x � tv 4J x U ' kin 11 AM I. L + s N r1 Cn, x x �� k s � � J 1M ..x x m K N ,k 7 131, V\ NA Pik \ k a a a rom 9,ti m vil N t),f � PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. CUP/DP/96-18 Planning Commission Date: April 8, 1996 Project Location: Levee Wall Comprehensive Plan District: Duplex Residential, Bluffland Shoreland/Flood Plain Overlay District Applicant's Name: City of Stillwater Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit Project Description: Reconstruction and extension of Levee Wall to Mulberry Point Discussion: The project is located on the Floodway Overlay District and requires a conditional use permit. The project is the repair and reconstruction of the existing levee wall from Nelson Street on the south to Mulberry point on the north. The project requires design review (see HPC action of April 1, 1996) and a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit is required because the levee wall is located within the floodway district. A requirement for approval of the levee is that the project will not adversely affect the capacity of the floodway or increase flood heights. Attached is the finding of no significant environmental effect made by the Corp of Engineer as a part of the environmental review of the project. The funding was based on the environmental assessment (December 1995) and section 6.2.10.1 Flood Level Increase, of that report. The report states the project will result in zero increase in flood surface elevation over those obtained without encroachment. Based on the environmental report it can be found that the levee project will not affect the capacity of the floodway or increase flood heights. Recommendation: Recommend approval to city council. Attachments Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No. : PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Certificate of Compliance (/Conditional or Special Use Permit ✓Design Review Planned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE(' 1 :70 r70 I7 -0- $2. 70 :7s 0 300 $S 00 100+S50 lot $50 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION �(/ Address of ProjectU�_ �� /Ll `L Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District_L,��� — Description of Project "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. Property Owner Cf Mailing Address All Telephone No..��f f / Signature Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Stories Principal Accessory Representative =2 Mailing Address Telephone No. Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION x Total building floor Area Feet sq. ft. Existing sq. ft. Proposed sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided (')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 a' a _ IS w6 _ � � fySllrSl r Management and Evaluation Branch Engineering and Planning Division FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, has determined the environmental impacts of the following project. FLOOD AND RETAINING WALL PROJECT STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ST. CROIX RIVER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA The purpose of the project is to provide bank protection and flood protection from, the waters of the St. Croix River for the historic center of Stillwater, Minnesota. Protection would be provided by the repair and extension of an existing retaining wall along the shoreline of the river and a floodwall constructed between the river and the urban business district of the city. A detailed description of the project features and selection criteria is presented in Section 3.0 of the Environmental Assessment. Alternatives to the proposed action are described in Section 4.0. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the following .. factors: 1) Only temporary negative impacts to natural resources and some long-term minor positive impacts to these resources would be caused by the action. 2) Permanent substantial positive social impacts would result. 3)_ There would be no impacts to cultural resources. A complete explanation of these determinations is presented in the Project Impacts section (Section 5.0) of the Environmental Assessment. Our environmental review indicates that the proposed actions do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. J. M. Wonsik Date Colonel, Corps of Engineers Di,9trict Engineer Environmental Assessment Flood and Retaining Wall Project Stillwater, Minnesota St. Croix River, Washington County, Minnesota DECEMBER 1995 W attractive place to dockf especially when compared to the rock-strewn shoreline currently being used. others indicated they would not tie their expensive craft to any kind of wall ;0.7 for any reason. '4 Access to several businesses may be affected during ..construction, including the A-ndiamo Excursion Boats, the Dock -Cafe, and the Rivertown Trolley. Timing of construction and communication with individual businesses are again the key to mitigating these effects. Minor short -terra adverse impacts would not be totally mitigated during construction. 6.2.7 Farmland No impacts to farmland would occur as a result of construction or maintenance of this project. 6.2.8 Food Supply No impact to existing food distribution channels is expected to arise as a result of this project. 6.2.9 Commercial Navigation No impact to existing commercial navigation on the river, which generally occurs south of the project area, is expected to arise as a result of the project. 6.2.10 Flooding Effects The flood and retaining wall project will cause no increase ---flood 1ev1~and some reduction of flood damage. 6.2.10. 1 Flood Level Increase A detailed hydraulic model was prepared as part of the hydraulic and hydrologic studies for the design memorandum he this project on . The model was run for conditions as they exist now and with the project in place. Under project conditions, riprap at the downstream end would encroach riverward from the existing bank and would extend about 15 feet into the lake bottom. This riprap would remove a maximum of about 650 square feet from the floodway. The lower retaining wall repair would encroach about 2 feet 8 inches riverward of the existing wall. This would remove about 15 square feet from the floodway. New walls upstream from the existing retaining walls would extend vertically from the shoreline to elevation 677, form a 16-foot 8-inch horizontal slab at that elevation and then extend vertically to elevation 681. This would remove a maximum of about 80 square feet from the floodway. The new retaining walls at Mulberry Point would be constructed at the existing shoreline, have a configuration EA-60 similar to that of the existing retaining walls and remove a maximum of about 140 square feet from the floodway. The hydraulic model run for the 1--percent (100--year) flood stage with all of the encroachments in place showed zero increase_ in water surfa- ceelevations over those obtained without eAcro_achments-.---.=This-could be expected because the river in _this area resembles a large lake with very low current velocity and nearly zero surface slope. Equal encroachments on the Wisconsin side also would not increase water levels because they would be located in the non -effective flow area caused by the elevated roadway to the highway bridge. 6.2.10.2 Flood Damage Reduction The proposed floodwall will extend vertically to elevation 691. A flood at that elevation without the wall in place would produce about $1,153,000 in damages at 1986 price levels and conditions as reported in the Corps of Engineers 1986 final feasibility report. Average annual damages under 1986 conditions 0-f development were identified as $304,000 in the Corps report. These average annual damages could be expected to be -'reduced approximately 50 percent with a floodwall to elevation 691. The seepage cutoff proposed for the floodwall will intercept seepage and reduce seepage damage to basements. The magnitude of reduction in seepage" damage is unknown. No analysis of average annual benefits and casts was de`eloped for the project design memorandum; thus, the ratio of benefits to costs is unknown, but could be expected to be well below= unity 6.2.10.3. Emergency Constructi-on _-Flood damage reduction above elevation 691 would require emergency construction of a flood barrier and a flood fight to be effective in protecting existing public and commercial resources. Coftnuation of zoning, flood insurance and -floodplain management will be required. These measures, in addition to the floodwall to elevation 691, will be required to provide flood damage reduction up to the level of the 1-percent (1007year) flood. Because no permanent flood damage reduction measures will be -provided to furnish freeboard above the 100-year flood, the downtown business district will remain in the regulated floodplain. An approximately 50-percent reduction in average annual damages (about $150,000) can be characterized as a substantial local _"benefit. However, because the benefit to cost ratio for flood damage reduction is well below unity, the benefit does not carry over to a positive, broad range, national impact. It appears that the shoreline erosion protection may have a benefit to cost .-ratio of about 2. This can be characterized as a minor positive national impact. EA-61