The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-03-07 CPC PacketiiNvater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA March 7, 1990 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY MARCH 12 1990 AT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET. AGENDA Approval of Minutes - February 12, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. V/90-9 - required, five feet Variance to the sideyard setback requested) for the requirements (ten feet space at 406 South District. Virgil Crowder, conversion of a g Hemlock Street in the RA, Single Famil into living Applicant. Y Residential 2. CASE NO. DP/V/90-10 - Design Permit and Variance to the placement of a forty five the Sign Ordinance for square foot banner Office Building at 220 East Myrtle Street in the District. Tom Schweitz, sign on the Old Post CBD, Central Applicant. Business 3. CASE NO. SUP/90-12 service business at - A Special Use Permit to conduct 1405 South Sixth an over -the -phone Street in Residential District. Jeffrey H. Skinner, Applicant. the RB, Two Family 4. CASE NO. V/90-13 - A variance to (17 ft. frontyard and 7 ft. rearyard and 25 ft. rearyard required) for Hickory Street in the RB, Two Family Applicant. the front and rear setback requirements setbacks requested, 20 ft. frontyard the construction of a home at 322 West Residential District. Greg Holmquist, 5. CASE NO. V/90-14 - Variance to the Parking Ordinance for a foot office building at 201 North Second Stref?t in the CBD,,48Cengtraal Business District. George Speewalt, Opus Corporation, Applicant. 6. CASE NO. V/90-15 - Variance to the Parking Ordinance for expansion of a restaurant/takeout business at 826 South Fourth Street in the CA, General Commercial District. Donald Istel, Applicant. 7. CASE NO. V/90-16 - Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance (access to a public street) for the placement of a driveway over unimproved road, at Hazel and Third Streets in the RA, an Residential District. Don Baker, Steve Erban, and Joe Gould, Applicants. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 Planning Agenda - Continued March 12, 1990 8. CASE NO. PUD/88-71 - PUD Amendment for parking lot location for the Washington County Government Center office expansion at 14900 North 61st Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Washington County, Applicant. OTHER ITEMS: CASE NO. SUP/89-31 - A Special Use Permit review to locate a portable trailer ticket booth for the Minnesota Transportation Museum train ride attractions at the North end of Hooley's parking lot in the CBD, Central Business District and the Flood Plain/Bluffland/Shoreland District. Aaron Issacs, Applicant. STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1990 TIME: 7:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Fontaine, Glenna Bealka Don Valsvik Judy Curtis Ann Purig-Terwedo, Chairman Warren Pakulsi Angela Anderson Assistant Planner MEMBERS ABSENT: Duane Elliott, Rabb Hamlin, Jay Kimble Steve Russell, Community Development Director Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Warren Pakulski, seconded by Don Valsvik to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1990 as submitted. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS --------------- Case _No. 619-REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF VARIANCE TO CONVERT SECOND LEVEL OF A GARAGE FROM STORAGE SPACE TO HABITABLE SPACE. GARY AND MARY WILLIAMS, APPLICANTS. Gary Williams presented the proposal for nonbedroorn living space modification for construction of an attached garage. The use would require insulation only. There will be no plumbing installed. Discussion followed without audience comments or objection. Motion by Dori Valsvik to approve the modification of the existing storage space to living space. Seconded by Judy Curtis. Unanimously approved. Case _No. _SUP/90-2-A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FIVE QUEST ROOM BED AND BREAKFAST INCLUDING SPECIAL EVENT ACTIVITY AT 210 EAST LAUREL STREET IN THE RB , TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. VERN AND SHARON STEFAN, APPLICANTS. Vern Stefan addressed the commission members with the request to conduct special events with groups of approximately 50-75 people, as previously approved for the residence. The owner/manager will reside in the house, which has been a bed and breakfast facility in the past. Stefan emphasized that he intended to comply with every condition and would not sell alcohol on the premises. Stefan desires to retain the character and inhance the premises, along with contributing to the present climate of the City of Stillwater. STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSSION 02/ 12/90 Judith Murphy expressed concerns on changing the structure of the house, more than one bed and breakfast in the area, and the sewer system. Murphy further stated that the house was on the Historical Register and any outside changes would distract from the historical character. Neil Casey, 107 E. Laurel, requested a copy of the conditions of approval and expressed concerns aver special events. Discussion followed with members on signage, change in ownership, location and parking. The parking plan shows that all guest parking will be on -site leaving Laurel Street open for public parking. The conditions for approval were discussed with Stefan, and -it was agreed that an additional item would be added to the conditions of approval schedule "A". This item would allow for a one year review of the permit. Motion by Judy Curtis, with condition of a one year review included in the conditions of approval. Seconded by Glenna Bealka. Unanimously approved. Case No. SUP/90-3-A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A TWO GUEST ROOM BED AND BREAKFAST AT 102 EAST CHERRY STREET IN THE RCM, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. DAVID AND JANEL BELZ, APPLICANTS. David and Janel Belt presented the proposal for the bed and breakfast and stated their intentions to live in the home. Only breakfast is to be served in the home. Belz does riot consider the proposal as a new business, rather a change in location of an existing business. Ann Knutson, of 510 N. Third St., Chuck Doherty, of 306 Olive, and two other members of the audience expressed strong approval for the request. There was a common expression of support for changing the present property from rental property to a bed and breakfast. One audience member expressed disapproval, due to the fact that the ordinance states a three block distance between bed and breakfast facilities. Discussion followed among commission members regarding parking, along with the uniqueness of the situation. There would need to be four parking stalls, with two of the stalls to be provided for guests. Dori Valsvik stated that the favor of the neighbors was important. Commission members agreed that the location was isolated, the past track record of the owners was positive, and that the neighbors have expressed a strong approval of the request. Motion by Judy Curtis subject to ar, additional condition of a one year review of the permit by the commission. Seconded by Warren PakUlski. Unanimously approved. STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION 02/12/90 Case -No. -SUB/90=4-A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF A 15,C>00 SQUARE FOOT LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET AT 1214 NORTH FIRST STREET IN THE RB, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. MARIAN KONOBECK, APPLICANT. Marion Konobeck, applicant, presented the request and discussed the setbacks, along with plans to divide the lets in order to sell one parcel of the property. Assistant Planner, Ann PUng-Terwedo stated one neighbor, Clara Strand of 1220 N. First St., had called and expressed concerns ab�:: ,ut development and another house in the neighborhood. NO further audience comments. Discussion followed with members of the commission on the conditions Of approval and the lot size. Members agreed the property meet the lot size minimums. Motion by Gerald Fontaine. Seconded by Judy Curtis to approve the subdivision. Unanimously approved. Case-NoV/90_5-A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING TWENTY SQUARE FOOT PRICE SIGN WITH A TWENTY FIVE SQUARE FOOT PRICE SIGN AT BROOK'S FOOD MARKET, 2289-CROIXWOOD BLVD. IN THE CA, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. MARK OGREN, APPLICANT. Applicant was unable to appear. Discussion, among members followed. Assistant Planner, Ann Pung-Terwedo, explained to commissioners the sign size of five sq. ft. improves the existing sign, and is of a standard size from the manufacturer. Motion to approve by Don Va1svik. Seconded by Warren Paku1sk.i. Unanimously approved. Case-No_-V/90-6-A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A ROOF SIGN AND TWO, TEN SQUARE FOOT BANNERS AT 904 SOUTH FOURTH STREET IN THE CA, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. TOBY B. BRILL, APPLICANT. Toby B. Brill, applicant, presented the request for the sign variance and explained the proposal for the new banners to commissioners. The banners would be used on an intermittent basis to advertise various special events and miscellaneous specials. The banners are needed due to the nature of the surrounding businesses which block patron view of the building. The awning will not be replaced and the business needs higher identification. Discussion followed on the present sign, or, the top of the building. A member of the audience, Vern Stefan, stated that the sign was in violation of the City Ordinance and that the logo had to be removed. Members discussed the logo, need for additional signage, and the existing sign on the roof of the building. Gerald Fontaine stated that to approve both the banners and the sign on top of the building would be excessive. STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION 02/12/90 Petty Bowman, 908 S. 5th St., expressed disapproval over the plans to light the sign which could interfere with her enjoyment of her property. Bowman stated her family use of the outside area of her residence would be invaded with bright lighting. Following discussion, members agreed the sign on the roof should allow for a logo only and that the banners would be allowed if the size was two feet by three and one-half feet. Motion by Dori Valsvik to approve the sign on the roof, without wording, and the banners of no more than 21x3 1/2'. Seconded by Glenna Bealka. Unanimously approved. Case_No__V/90-7-A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING ORDINANCE FOR A MIXED RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL USE AT 904 SOUTH FOURTH STREET IN THE CA, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. A1' LAST DISTRIBUTING, INC., APPLICANT. Toby Brill presented the request to the variance to the parking, necessary for the reasonable use of the parking lot. The parking lot would be used for special events in the summer months. The applicant does riot intend to conflict with the other businesses in the area and not allow parking by other businesses. The conditions of approval were discussed and the second condition was removed. Conditions for approval remaining are as follows; 1. All customer, residential, and designated parking lot. 2. The trash enclosures shall be area and screened from public employee parking shall be in the located outside of the parking view. Motion by Judy Curtis to approve the request for a variance to the Parking Ordinance subject to conditions above. Seconded by Warren Pakulski. Unanimously approved. Case_No_-SUB/90- 8 -A MINOR SURDIVIISION OF A 60,000 SCE. FOOT LOT WITH A ONE STORY BUILDING (VALLEY DENTAL ARTS) INTO TWO LOTS OF 31,601 SO. FEET AND 38,399 SO. FEET AT 1745 NORTHWESTERN AVE. IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK -INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. CHARLES N. MARAGOS, APPLICANT. This request is consistent with the use and lot size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan but it does riot meet the lot depth requirements of the district on the west propertyl,'ieThe minirilum lot depth is 130 feet. Due to the corner of Curve Crest Blvd. and Northwestern and the existing structure location, this lot configuration is reasonable. Motion to approve by Dori Valsvik. Seconded by Judy Curtis. Unanimously approved. STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION 02/ 12/90 OTHER ITEMS 1. STUDY AREA OF LAND USE SURVEY OF THE RCM, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Assistant Planner, Ann Ping-Terwedo, is currently in the proces of mapping out land use changes and subsequent zoning changes to be recommended. The changes will be outlined and presented at the next meeting. 2. LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS. Chairman, Gerald Fontaine, discussed the workshops planned for next spring and recommended attendance by Commission members at the all -day seminars. Motion to adjourn at 9:00 pm by Gerald Fontaine, Chairman. Seconded by Dan Valsvik. Unanimously approved. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE N0. V/90-9 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 406 South Hemlock Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Residential Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Virgil Crowder Type of Application: Variance PROJECT LOCATION: A variance to the sideyard setback requirements for the conversion of an existing garage into personal living quarters. DISCUSSION: The request is to convert an existing one car garage into a family room. The sideyard setback requirements for a home (habitable living space) is ten feet, so a five foot variance is being sought. The neighbor to the South is approximately twelve feet from the property line resulting in a seventeen foot separation between structures. A new garage will be constructed in the rear yard with access off Oak Street. The new garage meets the setback requirements for accessory structures in this zoning district. The applicant indicates the conversion of the garage into personal living space is much more efficient than adding an addition to the house at another location. The placement of the new garage is easily accessible off Oak Street. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The existing driveway curb cut shall be replaced with a vertical curb and a new driveway curb cut and shall be constructed by the applicant according to the Public Works Director's requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The granting of this variance is necessary for reasonable use of the land and buildings. This is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose. ATTACHMENTS: -Site an. c E � I 0RK 1 �, N J PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. DPIV190-10 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 220 East Myrtle Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: Tom Schweitz Type of Application: Variance Project Description: A variance to the Sign Ordinance for placement of a forty five square foot banner sign. Discussion• The request is to place a three foot by fifteen foot blue and white banner sign on the East side of the Old Post Office Building. A variance is needed due to the number of signs. The sign will be located between the South window and the corner of the building on the East side as shown on the attached picture. The purpose of this banner sign is to allow the building to be identified from Main Street. The business owners feel that, when visitors come to Stillwater, they tend to shop on Main Street and do not venture West toward Second Street. The color of the banner will match the existing signs on Second Street and will not cover any architectural features of the building. However, the sign is quite large. The logo does not identify specific businesses but simply states that there are shops located in the building. The sign request requires a Design Permit. The Design Review Committee reviewed the request with the following comments. DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Approval. COMMENTS: The sign does not destroy or cover any important architectural features of this historic building. The sign is attractive and is in proportion with existing windows. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. No a itiona si-gnage is allowed. 2. The sandwich board previously placed on the sidewalk in front of the business is illegal and shall not be placed on site. 3. Violation of these conditions may result in revocation of this approval. CASE NO. DP/V/90-10 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The granting of this variance is necessary for reasonable use of the building and the variance requested is the minimum that will accomplish the purpose of the Sign Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: - Picture of building. - Drawing of sign. "Aid 0 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW CASE NO. SUP/90-12 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 1405 South Sixth Street Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential Zoning District: RB Applicant's Name: Jeffrey H. Skinner Type of Application: Special Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Special Use Per im t to conduct an over -the -phone service business in a residential district. DISCUSSION: The request is to conduct a small, over -the -phone service business out of a home. The applicant has stated that all business will be handled over -the -phone at the stated address. The owner will then make service calls to customers. There will only be one delivery per month to the home and no customers traffic or additional employees. (See attached letter.) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. No sign shall be allowed. 2. No employees of the business shall come to the residence for assigned work. 3. Deliveries are limited to two per week. 4. Any work related vehicles shall be parked on the residence site. 5. The permit shall be reviewed on a complaint basis. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of this Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Mr. Skinner - Site plan. PAC ln0 Case Numbersdp/ 0=Z 06/ Fee Paid __�_________ Date Filed'��U_____ PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property: _ ' Legal Dascripti0n of Property: ��+ ►_'2.'r� +1 L��i L� 1� 1 'K z , �ku: ��1��,I y �C,srd Act Sk�llic i Owner: Name _� �P1� _11:_ _✓�-_______ _v____-_-___ Address ---------- Phone: _y _: 3�C� _ Applicant (if other than owner): Name_-_-___�._-_____-._________________ Address ------------------------------- Phone: -----_--__-_ Type of Request.- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat Variance % ___ Other Desc: iption of Request: --------------s .fit------------- - --------- ---- Signature of Applicant: _ _�_ Date of Public Hearing - ______-____________ ----------------- NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn )n back of this -1 — tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot.h\\r�,�' 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. q *��;•� ti 4 Dimensions of proposed structure.a�ti,' 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. z'' 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ----------- (da,- subject to the following conditions:___-_-_-____-__--__-_-___-_------__------------------------------------------------------------------ - Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject, to the following conditions:-W_____________-ww__-_-___-__-__-_______-_______ Comments: (Use other side) i� LL - P. 5 , -b :z-Pd PAC��t - -C C,4 r �ZPp tv I to I NO ►-f-I I ,qZl I PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/90-13 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 322 West Hickory Street Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Zoning District: RB Applicant's Name: Gregory Holmquist Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A variance to theront and rearyard setback requirements for the construction of a home. DISCUSSION: The request is to construct a new house on a 50 ft. x 150 ft. lot. The lot size of 7,500 square feet is the minimum requirement in the RB, Two Family Residential District. A home was previously located on this site. A fire occurred and caused extensive damage so the house was torn down. The proposal is to site the house on the lot using North Martha Street as the front. A thirty foot front setback is required, seventeen is proposed. A twenty five foot rearyard setback is required, seVE!n is proposed. The side setbacks are adequate forty six feet, thirty required, and thirty eight feet, ten required. If the house was oriented to Hickory Street, a three foot sideyard setback would be required. The house located east of the site (to the rear) is approximately fifteen feet from the property line. The -rear setback of the proposed house is seven feet, leaving twenty two feet between the structures. (The proposal does not appear to impact adjacent structure. However, it would be possible to meet the setbacks with a house design planned for the site.) The property slopes downward at the north. A grading plan should be submitted to determine how run-off from the site will be handled to minimize erosion and to contain run off on the development site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A grading plan shall be submitted before building permits are issued. 2. The driveway apron and curbing shall be constructed before occupancy, according to the Public Works Director's requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. ATTACHMENTS: - Site Plan - Building Plan - Application Form. 1'Al. lilU ' .:.. _ .. Case Number qdl-/ Fee Paid __- ----------- Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property:--" � _�-�� I.L ` /��-;c -v ------------------ Legal Dascription of Property: Is 'LblecL LaLa24k7si,,aI on/ Owner: Name �- ----- -___---------•--------_- Address `I�^. r.�,rr Phone:Applicant (if other than owner): Name ________-____ Address ----------------- Phone: -------__ Type of Request.- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat- -- Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat �i_ Variance ___ Other ___________________ Description of Request: ------------------------------- Signature of Applicant:��2J`_.{ Date of Public Hearing: NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back o- this iorm or tacred, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. -' t-- 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. {' �,,., ''� . 4. Dimensions of proposed st-ucture• �r •,._.. ,. 5. Street nar:.es. 3 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings_ ';'"�� w •�' 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ........... (date) subiect to the following conditions: Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------------------- • . �•• = � , -'_ _Comments: (Use other side),-------------------------------- Comments: r it PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/90-14 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 201 North Second Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: George Spevaak, Opus Corporation Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to the Parking Ordinance for a 6,482 square foot office building at 201 North Second Street. DISCUSSION: The request is to use the Old Conn -Co shoe store for a 6,482 square foot office building. According to City parking regulations, the parking demand for this use is thirty two spaces. The site plan shows a parking lot that can accommodate twelve cars which leaves the need for twenty additional spaces. The parking lot across the street has approximately thirty five public spaces. Other uses in the area do not provide adequate on -site parking and use the adjacent streets or public parking lots. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All employees shall park on site, North of Mulberry on Second Street or in other designated employee parking areas. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The granting of this variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the building and that this is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose. ATTACHMENTS: - Building Plan. - Site Plan. VAU 100 Case Number Fee Paid Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property: Legal Doscription of Property: ___5 G e __.._`��1� _________ ____ Owner: Nam -`-� ---------------- Address _ -- e - --S - ZaL12rL _ Phone: =� Applicant (ii other than owner): Name �'S + - b 1 S '1. i vl �v�1YlGW�( I� V Address ------------------------------ Phone: Type of Request.- ___ Rezoning -__ Approval of Preliminary Plat ___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final. Plat --- Variance Other Description of Request: ---------------------------------------------- t Signature of Applicant: _ -- e___; _ Date of Public Hearin /�1qf �-E__12— _ NOTE. Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn )n 'back of this forn or at- tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other inzormation as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ----------- (data) subject to the following conditions: _ --_______________________-____-__-- Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject, to the following conditions: _______________________________________----__ -- Comments: (Use other side) • i NORTH eECONO 1TROT .n —,y wl. y 7� rb .I raar 111�TIM0 �IILOM WEST PUBLISHING 201 N zne..anuWATM OPUS CORPORATION yiT6 /LAN �'� OE9GIE16 • 1UaDE16 OF1R1O615 rt o I M M a. tom. w wr r.� �►.�.�. fogs PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/90-15 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 826 South Fourth St. Comprehensive Plan District: General Commercial Zoning District: CA Applicant's Name: Donald and Lorry Istel Type of Application: Variance (Parking Ordinance) Project Description: Variance to the Parking Ordinance for a takeout/eat in restaurant business at 826 South Fourth Street (Old Culligan Office Building). DISCUSSION: The request is to expand the use of a take out restaurant to a take out/sit down restaurant with seating for 20-24 customers. The parking demand for this use is seven spaces. This is two spaces more than the previous office use demand. The existing site cannot accommodate this parking demand. According to the applicant, most cooks and managers park in the lot behind the building (next to Classic Care). Delivery cars park in front of the business at the ten minute loading zone. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All restaurant employees shall park in the lot located behind the building. RECOMMENDATION: FINDINGS: Due to the existing conditions, the parking demand for the use cannot be met. Therefore, granting this variance to the Parking Ordinance is necessary for the reasonable use of the building. ATTACHMENTS: Site plan. ylj.,[" r C 3 q� ��r ansra� Cu�ornE� �Q ti �y PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/90-16 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: Off of Third Street, South of Hazel (South of City park) Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Zoning District: RA Applicant's Names: Don Baker, Joe Gould & Steve Erban Type of Application: Variance (Street access) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is a variance to the City requirements that developable lots have access to an improved public street. DISCUSSION: The proposal is to use an unimproved gravel and dirt road over road right of way and City park property for access to a single family lot. The access road begins at the intersection of Hazel and Third Street, then proceeds to the south outside of the right of way connecting to Second Street north of vacated Willow Street (see location map). Besides Lot 5, there are two other vacant lots in the area that may be interested in gaining access off of the unimproved road. The road is located at the base of a hill that slopes up to the southwest. The applicant has submitted a site plan that shows the location of the structure consistent with City setback requirements. No city services, water or sewer are available to the site. The site, all of Lot 5 and 1/2 of Lot 2, contains 20,025 square feet. A 2,700 square foot sewage drainfield is located in front of the structure. Access to the residence is provided over a long 300+ foot driveway. A portion of the driveway is over Third Street right of way and park property to connect to the access road. The City currently does not regularly maintain or plow the road. This decision can set a pattern for other similar situations in the City. The unimproved road will become a City maintenance responsibility once residences are constructed using it for an access. Because of that, it is recommended that the road be brought up to a minimal City standard before use of the road is granted. The lot is not serviced by City water or sewer service so documentation that the lot can accommodate the on -site systems is required before building permits can be issued. A drainage plan for the driveway should be provided to make sure the site runoff can be accommodated with the existing facilities. The project impacts the park so the proposal has been referred to the Park Commission for review and comment. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The unimproved access road shall be paved to City standards for such low use roads including any needed drainage improvement and paid for by the applicant (Development Agreement). 2. Documentation by a qualified professional that the site is suitable for an on -site sewer system and on -site water system shall be provided before building permits are issued. 3. The applicant shall obtain requested well drilling permit. 4. The applicant shall receive a revocable permit to use City park property for access from the driveway to the access road. 5. The City shall maintain the access road only and the driveway over public property shall be the responsibility of the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: - Letter of Application, March 2, 1990 - Site Plan - Certificate of Survey. •_ter ........... 6 6 cn E56 000 4 T- 3 1—. ) Ado HAZE! D C.Rt_i_ C L '1 B S T. q ST 4p La ER. " 6 s 5� r 54 f to 52 T 9-6--L, —CA. 48 mi MST .i 43 -� ] S T. 6 y 9 z c 34 p 4 ] 30 6 I � 25 CAMe i R 22 ] 6 6 6 i r AVE. H - all Z — ---1 — 6 42 z� 5/ e Case Number Fee Paid _-_---- Date Filed -3 VY6 PLANNING ADMINIS i RAi IVL FORM Tird Street Stillwater, Minne�sora Street Location or Pr cper ,y: __h__ Leecl Description of S-1/2 Property: Lot-2 & Lot-5, Block-46,-Carli Schulenberg Addition i Don Gw;per: t\cme ----------- Baker, Steve Erban, 1------------------------------------------ Joe Gould P.-O.- box 219 -- Lake -Elmo, -MN _T_ Phone: 439-8886 _ Ap'�Iiccnt (if other than cv.,jner): dame ---Same ame--------------------------- Addre55 -_ Same --____- ____---__-_- Py10Tne: Same ___-- Type o; Recuest:, ___ Rezoning ___ Approvai o' Prelimincry Pict Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat X_ Variance ___ Other______-�____..______ Description o, Request: _ t To- _ - - use unimproved Third Street which is an unimproved road to _-__--___�_----------------------------- gain access to the building -site (see -attached letter). Signature of Applica _ _ _______________ Don e j Date o� Public Flearinc: ------------------------ ,NCi=: Sketch of proposed property a d structure to be C:a IY baCti OI -orzn o: a,- t.ached, showing the :oilowing: 1. North direction. 11 \ 2. Location. o: proposed structure'kI on lot, oa ' 3. Di:nens_or.s of front and side set-bac'.-:s. n 4. Dir..e .sics of proposed structure. 5. Street names.CO. � 6. Locaticn 0- adjacent elistiag buildings. �. ter+ 7. Ot her :tior...,ation as rna'y' be requested. w � Aocrcved ___ Denied ___ by tho'Plcnning Commission on _._------ __ (ackE) su'riect to the following conailicns:_________________-_____--___________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved __- Denied __- by tie Council on '� ,. ________________ sup ec; �o ,,,e ;ollov�ing conditions: _______________________________ (Use other siCe) March 2, 1990 Don Baker P. O. Box 219 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 City Council City of Stillwater Stillwater City Hall Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Council Members: We are requesting a variance from the city requirement that access to the property be over an improved public road for the following piece of property. South Half of Lot 2, and Lot 5, Block 46, of the Carli Schulenbugs Addition to Stillwater, Minnesota. We propose to gain access to the building site over "unimproved" Third Street, off of Hazel Street, and over the South 1/2 of Lot 2 which does not contain enough area to be considered as a buildable lot, and because the building site on Lot 5 is not accessible off of Fourth Street from the West due to severe elevation changes. We propose that the access would be used as an unimproved road, and would be maintained by the persons building on the property. Lot 2 is to be used for a driveway to gain access to the building site on Lot 5. The unimproved road and driveway would be surfaced with lime rock, and drainage would remain overland. The Public Works Department has indicated that there are no plans to improve Third Street, and that they did not see drainage as being a problem. At this time Third Street is an unimproved lime rock road, which loops around the West and South sides of the park, and ties Hazel Street into Second Street. It seems impractical to improve Third Street, because it would encourage additional traffic through the park. We have a buyer for this property, but the sale is contingent upon gaining this variance. If there are any questions, please contact me at 439-8886. Yours truly, Don Bau, v IF M1 O m M M 60.00 C E R T I F I C A T E OF SURVEY THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF LOT TWO (2), AND ALL OF LOTS FOUR (4), FIVE (5), AND SIX (6), BLOCK FORTY-SIX (46), CARLI AND SCHULENBURGS ADDITION TO STILLWATER, MINNESOTA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD'IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SURVEY FOR DON BAKER AND JOE GOULD HAZZEL ST AZ 89° 49" 0 Ln 149.$0 149.80 7 6 0 1 BLO N v N N 0 4 3 149.79 149.79 o 0 0 AZ 269° 21' 12'1 VAC 0 6 0 149.79 4)M WILLOW ST AZ 269 21 12' I CTR SEC 21 -30-20 ' STONE El STONE � r 1 1 1 rn O N - N \u7 co \ W mi Ln M O N - -- - LD cVo Q O H F- 0 DENOTES IRON PIPE RLS 13774 FOUND • DENOTES 1/2' IRON PIPE SET SCALE 1' — 50' 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or relu,rt .vas prepaied by me 01' und�� r,,y supcivisian and Mai 1 am a d:iy °urveyor ur;dcr the !:iivs of if:a ";ijw ut Ivlwsnosk)7 � /O/ &S o. Ll fi2 Uaic Z._2.__ 'ihc� .• N R°eg f 7)ei i-Y LP 3" .Z/8�9e 7).?. N lGE '- %z L..G i z 1 I1 I I I I I I I I 4 )40 tZ T H jJj T / L/ J'a PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. PUD/88-68 & 71 (MODIFICATION) Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: 14900 North 61st Street Comprehensive Plan District: Washington County Office Building Zoning District: RA/PUD Applicant's Name: Washington County Type of Application: Final PUD BACKGROUND: On December 6, 1988 the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development request for a three story addition to the south wing of the County Government Center and adjacent parking lot on the east side of Panama (Staff reports and PUD permits attached). At that time County representatives indicated that the parking lot was a temporary solution to the need for parking and that they may return with a new parking arrangement as master planning for the Government Center develops. The request before the City is a modification of the previously approved PUD approval for the surface parking, lot replacing it with a three level parking structure located southeast of the 62 St. North/Panama Avenue intersection. The plans show a 74 stall first level, a 272 stall second level and a 195 stall third level for a total of 541 stalls. Some of the stalls would be used by law enforcement personnel for vehicle storage. As shown on the plans, the parking structure is located across Panama (east) from the existing County Government Center. Three houses located along,62nd Street North would be removed. The top deck level of the proposed structure would be at an elevation of 886. The elevation of the intersection is 890, so the structure from that vantage point will appear as a surface deck. The parking deck is setback 60 ft. from 62nd Street North and Panama and over 100 ft. from the backs of property along Paris Avenue North. A residence not within the Government Center boundaries located along 62nd Street North is 20 ft. from the proposed structure. At that point, the structure is setback less than ten feet from the property line. Special screening and buffering should be provided to minimize the impact on the residence. Besides the perimeter landscaping, the plan shows landscaping on the top level of the parking structure. Access to the parking ramp is provided off of Panama. This could be accommodated from existing Panama Avenue North. However, vacation of Panama should be considered with review of the master plan for the site. No lighting or signage plan for the parking area has been provided. Also, a parking management plan showing who will use what parking and how visitors or employees will get from their parked vehicles to the department or desired county service. This may require the construction of some sidewalks or pedestrian ways. The proposed parking ramp will not cover as much land as the original surface parking plan. This will reduce the amount of runoff from the previous plan. A detailed grading/drainage plan with erosion control measures should be provided before construction begins. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of modification with conditions. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The following detailed plans shall be provided for City review and approval before building permits for the ramp are issued. A. A detailed screening/buffer plan minimizing the impact of the parking ramp on the single family residence located on 62nd Street North, B. A detailed grading /drainage plan including erosion control measures and reestablishment of disturbed areas, C. A parking and pedestrian lighting plan, D. And a parking management and signage plan. 2. Perimeter ramp landscaping to the north, east and west shall be planted with completion and use of the ramp. w - Case Number -- Fee Paid _.(2- Date Filed�7 PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM tp� ZP >� Street Location of Property: __ 14900 61st-St North ------------ Legal Description of Property: _See attached ---------------------------- Owner: Name -Wash i ngton-County Address 14900 61st St North 779-5194 ------------------------------ Phone: ------------------ Applicant (if other than owner): Name _________________ ------------- Address ------------------------------ Phone: --------------- Type of Request.- ___ Rezoning Approval ;of Preliminary Plat ___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance _ X Other _Amend current PUD'___ Description of Request: _ The_parking-comnonent of -the PUD-for°the Current--- Government Center expansion has been modified 'to reflect the'schematic design - - for the.'proposed-Law Enforcement Center and futureCourts exnansion as well as - a master site planning initiative to- - - develop long- g solutions to sitneeds. Signature of Applicant: _� Date of Public Hearing: -_________---___-_______________ ------- NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn. on back out :is. i# q at- tached, showing the following: 114 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. ` 49 o 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. -` ►:` 43f- �µ'' 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. . 4r AaL r{a y ' �`. 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.G 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ----------- (date) subject to the following conditions: _________:__________________________ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions: -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Comments: (Use other side), - I NO. SUP/88-68 U CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING =USE PERMIT Certificate of Compliance n Rezoning XI Special Use Permit j j Variance Permit Fee $50.00 Date Fee Paid n Planned Unit Development I-1 Grading I-1 Applicant: Washington County Government Center Address: 14900 North 61st Street City/State/Zip Code: Stillwater, MN 55082 Sign Conditional Use Amended Property Description: Block 1 and 4; Lots 1-10; Block 5; North 20' Lots 21-30 Block 5; McMillan and Cooley's Addition to Stillwater. Zone District: RA Permitted Uses: 308 car parking lot. Subject to the following special conditions 1. The parking lot landscape plan shall be revised to include the following elements as approved by the Community Development Director: - Provide in lot landscaping similar to the west parking lot. - Contain car headlights on site through berming, lot excavation, low fencing (three foot maximum) or landscaping. - The parking lot shall be setback twenty feet from the Panama front property line. - Additonal landscape screening shall be provided along the south and north boundaries of the lot. (If the residence to the north is removed and existing trees remain, no additional landscaping is necessary except for headlight screening. 2. A sidewalk shall be constructed along Panama Avenue in front of the parking lot. 3. The parking lot light standards shall be reduced to twenty f fneEhl.y E �. 4. Parking lot construction shall meet City standards for surf a 3 g a curbing. 5. Parking lot construction and landscaping shall be completed oreJ A N 3 1039 lJ administrative building occupancy. 6. The recommendations from the City Engineer dated November 1, AJBBA�-:-r� regarding drainage shall be incorporated in the final drainage iplr� i'i ,LUL ER We accept the conions of this permit. We understand that any changes from t/lans mkt resubmitted foval. Owner or Representative Date C munity DENelopment Date Director I PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE N0. SUP/88-68 Planning Commission Meeting: November 14, 1988 Project Location: East of County Government Center between Panama and Paris Avenues. Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Washington County Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: Special Use Permit for a 308 car parking lot in Single Family Residential District. Discussion: ne application is for a 308 car parking lot on a 2.5'acre site. The lot would be serviced by two driveways off of Panama Avenue. Besides the lot, two sidewalk areas are shown connecting the parking lot to the Government Center entrance. The lot is lit by nine 30 ft. light standards. Landscaping is shown on the Panama Avenue and southern boundary of the site. Analysis The parking lot is a very efficient design maximizing the number of spaces on the 2.5 acre site. Although this lot is most likely employee parking, additional landscaping similar to the landscaping in the lot west of the Government Center should be provided. This is particularly important for the south side -of the lot, next to the residential area. The parking lot should be set back twenty feet from the front property line to provide for ingress and egress from Panama. It is understood that the residence to the north of the proposed lot is owned by the County and will be demolished during further stages of Government Center expansion. If the residence is not removed and it remains in residential use, a six foot fence should be constructed separating the parking lot from the residence. Berming and excavation of the lot or shrubs should be used to contain the car lights in the lot area. The height of the parking lot lights should be reduced from the proposed thirty feet to twenty feet to minimize the impact on surrounding residential areas. To assist parkers in getting to work, it is suggested a sidewalk be provided on the east side of Panama in front of the parking lot and that parking be prohibited on both sides of the street crossing. Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ( Conditions of Approval: - 1. The parking lot landscape plan shall be revised to include the following elements as approved by the Community Development Director. - Provide in lot landscaping similar to the west parking lot. - Contain car headlights on site through berming, lot excavation, low fencing (three foot maximum) or landscaping. - The parking lot shall be setback twenty feet from the Panama front property line. - Additional landscape screening shall be provided along the south and north boundaries of the lot. (If the residence to the north is removed and existing trees remain, no additional landscaping is necessary except for headlight screening. 2. A sidewalk shall be constructed along Panama Avenue in front of the parking lot. 3. The parking lot light standards shall be reduced to twenty feet in height. 4. Parking lot construction shall meet City standards for surfacing and curbing. 5. Parking lot construction and landscaping shall be completed before administrative building occupancy. 6. The recommendations from the City Engineer dated November 1, 1988 regarding drainage shall be incorporated in the final drainage plans. Findings: The project, as conditioned, is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Project Plans. Letter from City Engineer/drainage. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING USE PERMIT 1 Certificate of Compliance I 1 Rezoning 4 Special Use Permit I-1 Variance Planned Unit Development 1 q Grading Applicant: Washington County Government Center i Address: 14900 North 61st Street City/State/Zip Code: Stillwater, MN 55082 NO. PUD/88-71 Permit Fee $250.00 Date Fee Paid 10/26/88 Sign 1_I Conditional Use _ Amended 11 Property Description: Block 1 and 4; Lots 1-10, Block 5; North 20' Lots 21-30; Block 5 McMillan and Cooley's Addition. Zone District: RA/PUD Permitted Uses: Three story additon to South wing of Government Center. Subject to the following special conditions 1. Parking shall be prohibited from the east side of Panama Avenue. 2. This approval is valid only if Case No. SUP/88-68 is approved or required parking is provided on site before building occupancy. we/accept the conditions of this permit. We unders and that any changes from t e plans most e resubmitted for pproval. wner or representative Date Cc munity Development Date Director C. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. PUD/88-71 Planning Commission Meeting: November 14, 1988 Project Location: 14900 North 61st Street Comprehensive Plan District: Washington County Office Building Zoning District: RA/PUD Applicant's Name: Washington County Type of Application: Final PUD Project Description: Addition of three stories to existing south wing of County Government Center. Discussion: The application is for final PUD approval for a three story addition containing 61,187 square feet of administrative office space to the existing southern wing of the Washington County Government Center. This application should be considered with application Case No. SUP/88-68 for a 308 car parking lot. Area Description: Tile area around the project site contains a mix of institutional, educational, multi -family and single family uses. To the west and north along Oxboro and 62nd Street North are multi -family residential and a church, to the east and south are single family residences and vacant lands. Four streets border the Government Center site. Oxboro, a forty-five foot wide street, 62nd Street North, forty-five feet and Panama Avenue North, forty-five feet and Upper Street twenty-four feet to the south. Access to the site is provided mainly from Fourth Street to 62nd Street. The topography of the area slopes generally to the east and south. Concept PUD Approval In 1985, the City gave concept approval to a County request to construct the south wing of the Government Center. At that time, specific plans were not submitted but a request was made to allow a three story addition, six stories total, at sometime in the future. (PUD permit attached) The County has submitted plans for Final PUD Approval of the three story addition. Project Description The proposal is Tor a 61,187 square foot three story addition to the new southern portion of the Government Center. (See site plan and building elevations.) The height of the structure as measured from the parking lot along Oxboro, west elevation is six levels and eighty feet, including the mechanical area. The addition would be of the same materials as the existing building and be an extension of the existing design. No other building changes are proposed on the building site. The existing service areas will be used for the addition - water and sewer service are currently provided to the site by Oak Park Heights. Parking for the building addition is proposed across Panama Avenue. The parking site has been recently annexed to the City. Because the site was not in the original PUD application, a separate Special Use Permit is necessary for the parking (see Case No. SUP/88-68). Project Analysis The project will provide 61,187 square feet of office space. The addition will increase the activity at the Government Center by adding employees and visitors or customers. According to figures provided by the County, the addition will accommodate an addition of 856 to 1,113 employees. 576 are currently employed at the Center. Existing and proposed employment and visitor figures were used to estimate the traffic impact on surrounding streets. (See attached traffic study.) The figures indicate that the number of trips, generated by the Government Center as a result of the addition will increase from 3,000 to 4,350 average annual daily trips, AADT. The distribution of the trips on the local road system is shown on the traffic flow map. The figures provided by the County were reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. The figures appear accurate and can be accommodated on the existing road system (see attached letter from Short, Elliott and Hendrickson). Even though parking spaces are vacant and available in the south parking lot, employees are currently parking along Panama. This situation will increase as a result of this project. It is suggested that parking be prohibited on the east side of Panama Avenue as a condition of project approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. Parking shall be prohibited from the east side of Panama Avenue. 2. This approval is valid only if Case No. SUP/88-68 is approved G-2 V`�"` Recommendation: Approval as conditioned. Findings: 1. The final plans are consistent with th 2. The proposed use will not be injurious detrimental to the public welfare and general purpose of this ordinance. Attachments: Project Plan PUD Concept Approval Letter from Traffic Engineer Traffic Report PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Recommended approval with conditions. ! e preliminary PUD approval.�"'�`� to the neighborhood or otherwise Gicw will be in harmony with the f ONE YEAR REVIEW CASE NO. SUP/89-31 Planning Commission Meeting: March 12, 1990 Project Location: Hool ey' s Parking Lot Comprenensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Flood Plain: Yes Bluffland/Snoreland: Yes Applicant's Name: Aaron Issacs, Minnesota Transportation Museum PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An anivaT-review of a Special Use Permit for the placement of a temporary ticket trailer for Minnesota Transportation Museum Train rides from Hooley's (Cub Foods) Parking Lot. DISCUSSION: Tie request is to place a temporary trailer ticket window along with several portable toilets on the east side of Hooley's (Cub parking 1^+) for the 1990 season of the MTM train. Tne booth location as shown on the site plan is twenty feet east of where the booth was located last year. As explained in the attached letter, this location was chosen for safety reasons. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1.— No off -site s gnage shall be allowed without permits. Signage of the ticket office is limited to four square feet. 2. The MTM shall clean up brush and railroad ties along railroad line to Highway 95 before June 1, 1990. 3. The ticket booth shall be removed by November 1, 1990. 4. Tviis permit shall be reviewed by March 1991 for the 1991 season. RECOMMENDATION: Approval for 1990 season. ATTACHMENTS: - SIte Plan. - Letter from Minnesota Transporation Museum, Inc. - Letter from Cub Foods. Minnesota Transportation Museum Inc. 1 I► P.O. Box 1796, Pioneer Station, Sr. Paul, MN 55101-0796 �. #* Accredited by the Minnesota Historical Society Mr. Steve Russell City Hall 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Russell: I am writing to request an extension of the special use permit for the museum's railroad ticket trailer in down- town Stillwater. For the past three years we have used homemade plywood booth mounted on a trailer frame. This year we will switch to a small camper trailer modified with ticket windows. It is slightly larger than the old trailer. The location will continue to be on property leased by Cub Foods northeast of Hooley's market. The exact location will shift about twenty feet to the east, across the parking lot driveway from the tracks. This will move our customers away from the tracks. We will once again have several portable toilets. They will also be located east of the tracks. Both moves will improve safety be reducing pedestrian activity near the tracks. Our trains will run from May 26 to Oct. 21. Departures will be 10:15 on Sat. and Noon, 2:00 and 4:00 on Sat. and Sun. The railroad operation has continued to grow and mature. Ridership was 5000 in 1987, 10,000 in 1988 and 20,000 in 1989. We have added railroad cars and locomotives and invested heavily in our track. Our volunteer crews become larger and more pro- fessional each year. Despite the increased ridership, we feel that parking in the area is quite adequate. No one has complained to us about being unable to park. We believe the railroad is a significant addition to the historic appeal of Stillwater. Thank you for your consideration of our permit request. Respectfully, Aaron Isaacs, President February 27, 1990 Mr. Aaron Isaacs, President Minnesota Transportabon Museum, Inc. 3816 Vincent Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 Dear Mr. Isaacs: This letter is to confirm our conversation regarding your museum transportation trailer. We agreed that you could place your trailer on the northeast end of the Cub Foods parking lot. This would be east of the present railroad tracks. My understanding is that you would place this trailer at this location for the summer months only. Please contact your insurance carrier and issue us a certificate of insurance. You also agreed to provide portable toilets for your riders' use. You indicated that you were going to be presenting this to the city of Stillwater for approval. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Si cprely, Roger Ruetten, Manager of Expense Controi & Admin. RR/cke cc. Rick Krueger Tom Tbueson 1237RR 127 Water Street • P.O. Box 9 o Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0009 - (612)-439-7200 ` 1 1 WATER �LLI C in day unconscionable to think this and age that any incon-,e- A Guide to Action producing asset, whether it's a building or a golf course a a Scenic America's findings do not end with the case studies sign or anything else, can be worth half of what it cost to build listed here. Virginia Beach, Virginia, Houston, San it." Francisco, and Reno are also cited as places that have The newspaper also found that billboard companies were discovered great discrepancies between billboard company grossly underpaying taxes on billboards in the counties. In claims of value for determining adequate compensation to estimating replacement value to determine compensation costs to the local government, for instance, Naegele Outdoor prevent takings and their claims of value for tax purposes. And, in each of these places, the taxes paid by the billboard Advertising said that a billboard's value should be equal to all companies have been minimal in comparison to the estimates the money the bilIboard could earn over a 10-year period plus of billboard worth. the replacement cost. But for tax purposes, none of Naegele's If your community wants to try to recoup lost tax revenues billboards in Durham County were valued at more than $15,000, and most were valued at less than S1,000. An from billboards, Scenic America suggests the following. attorney for Durham County noted that, "It's just amazing how 1. Determine if all local bilIboards are listed on property the value of the signs change from tax purposes to taking tax roils. If a list of billboards in your city is not purposes. You're talking about over a quarter of a million available, start at the state Department of Transportation dollars For a billboard that only has value because it fronts on a where licenses are issued for billboards on federal aid public -built and maintained thoroughfare." highways under the Highway Beautifscation Act. As a result of the investigative series, North Carolina has Although this will be only a partial list of billboards in adopted a new tax valuation guide that taxes billboards like your city, it should give you the names of the main other personal property. billboard companies in town. Gainesville/Alachua County, Florida. In July, the Lakeland Sun reported that the Alachua County appraiser had instructed his staff to reappraise every billboard in the county, The reappraisal is in response to charges by County Commissioner Penny Wheat and the Sun that the biggest billboard company in the county, Peterson Outdoor, paid only $1,400 in property taxes last year for 120 billboards. Last spring, billboard companies had claimed that the signs were worth between $40.000 and $60,000 each when legislation was under consideration that would have required taxpayer -funded payment for billboard removal or alterations. In Alachua County, about $25 in taxes are paid for every $1.000 in valuation. Doing some arithmetic, Wheat figured out that Peterson Outdoor was paying about S 10 in taxes per sign, meaning that they were valued at about.S400. which is only one percent of the lower end of the industry's estimate of their worth. The Alachua County appraiser does not expect a windfall to the county from the reappraisal, but it is clear that same changes need to be made to secure a more accurate valuation and to make sure that the billboard companies are paying their fair share of taxes. The county expects to increase its revenues from anywhere between $20,000 and $40,000, instead of the $1,400 it now collects. Jefferson County, Missouri. A July issue of the Jefferxon County Journal announced that billboards and other signs ---a source of tax revenue never before tapped in Jefferson County —would add nearly $3 million to the county's valuation. Along with a general reassessment of property values, the county assessor believes that county taxpayers may actually have lower tax bills in the coming year. County Assessor Ran Dougherty told the Journal that he was "shocked" to find out that the signs had never been taxed before. "Taxing signs isn't something new; it's done in other counties and should have been done here all along. The companies are making a lot of money off those signs, and they should be paying taxes on them." A search by his office staff found 429 signs on 362 parcels that will now be taxed at the commercial rate of 32 percent. The tax revenues generated by a billboard valued at $20,000 will be equivalent to the revenues generated by a house valued at $34,000 (the residential tax rate is 19 percent). 2. Go to the county or city tax assessor's office to check to see if those billboard companies are listed. If they will let you see a complete list of billboards, you're in business. IF not, you may receive total valuations on all billboards. You should still be able to determine which companies are not listed at all or are shirking paying on many of their billboards. 3. Find out how much money your city generates in taxes from each billboard each year. 4. Determine if billboards that are listed on the tax rolls are assessed at full market value, original cost, replacement cost, or other. If your county is not helpful, bear in mind that they may be following a state department of revenue advisory. 5. Find out how other personal property is taxed. If billboards are taxed at a lesser rate, why? Do any Iocal businesses pay gross receipt taxes? Do billboards pay gross receipts taxes? Does your city or state impose any road user taxes, toll fees, or other fees? Do billboards pay any of these? 6. Ascertain how the value billboard companies claim for compensation purposes compares to the value they claim for taxation purposes. 7. The state department of revenue and the state department of transportation both must determine "fair market value." Find out if they differ. Usually, county assessors follow department of revenue guidelines. 8. Get photos of any billboards not listed. Contact your local press and Scenic Amcrica to start a publicity campaign. You can write to Scenic America at 216 Seventh St., S.E., Washington, DC 20003, or phone them at 202-546-1100. Making a Big Project Work in a Small City Community leaders in many small and midsize cities cannot help but be envious of the new hotels, convention centers, festival marketplaces, and performing arts centers that are popping up in the downtowns of large cities. These projects seem like the perfect way to reverse a local economic downturn because they bolster the local tax base, encourage reinvestment in properties near the new development, and combat the drawing power of suburban developments. Large developments are also attractive for poliftcal reasons. Other than just one-upmanship of neighboring communities, local leaders may have hidden agendas that can be satisfied by doing something dramatic and visible like reeling in a major downtown development. But the financial and political risks involved in putting together a big project in a small city are also very high. An article by Donald E. Hunter in Commentary magazine (spring 1989) provides a good risk vs. rewards analysis for small -city officials interested in landing that big project. A Recipe for Success Regardless of the reasons, many communities' comprehensive plans and economic development strategies state a need or desire to attract major developments downtown. But local developers in small and medium -size towns usually prefer to stick to the suburban developments that made them successful, rather than undertaking a high -risk, downtown project in which they have no expertise. Furthermore, large developers from outside the area are turned off by the relatively small market size and a perceived risk of doing these projects in untested places. Hunter notes, however, that there are several different tested procedures for packaging and developing large-scale downtown development projects. They are based on building community support from the begirming and being realistic about what the project can do for the downtown and the entire community. The most successful of these processes follows this sequence of events: Sponsorship. A downtown development organization, city government, or a private developer puts forth the idea to develop a certain parcel in the downtown. A sponsor motivated more by community benefits (expanding the tax base, retaining existing businesses, generating employment, etc.) than by profit, will most often be more successful in drumming up community support in the early stages. Feasibility studies. Independent consultants are hired or city planning staff conduct market studies, prepare concept plans, and do preliminary financial analyses, all of which detail the elements of the project and outline the process for completing it. Assembling the development team. For several reasons, most downtown projects usually become public/private partnerships. These reasons include the cost of land, difficulty in assembling sites, the use of tax increment financing, and public demand for amenities that the project developers would not include on their own. Development teams most often include landowners, developers and their financial partners, prospective tenants, local governments, and quasi -public development organizations. Detailed preliminary planning. The predevelopment planning period includes preparation of detailed market studies for the first development phase, preliminary drawings, and complex financing plans. This stage also includes the preparation of detailed management and marketing strategies, and' agreement on construction procedures. Approval by the planning commission and zoning boards is also secured at this stage. Land assembly. If the key players on the development team do not already own the land, the site must then be assembled. if word gets out about the project, the team will Iikely have to pay inflated prices for the land. Land cost may have to be written down by local government, or the parcel may only be available through a complex leasing arrangement. Project financing. EIaborate public/private financing mechanisms are common for major downtown developments. The package that is put together for the first phase of the development can make or break the entire project. The public component usually includes federal grants, tax increment financing, or general obligation bonds. The private components for these projects are increasingly taking the form of cash equity from wealthy individuals, corporations, and institutions rather than from other debt -heavy devisees commonly used in the past. Getting•Off the Ground There are at least three prerequisites for getting a large downtown development off the ground. First, there must be proper sponsorship at the outset. To ensure community support, a quasi -public development organization that is civically motivated and involves community leadership is, in most communities, a more appropriate sponsor than city government. Second, a step-by-step procedure, or plan of action, to guide the predevelopment activities should be agreed upon by all involved parties. This should outline what inforrnadon is needed from the feasibility studies, who should be on the development team, and what is needed from the preliminary design and financing plans. This preliminary plan of action will minimize conflicts, head off unforeseen roadblocks, and ensure the broadest amount of community support, A third prerequisite for success is to obtain the best professional, technical, and political advice possible. Most small cities will have to go outside the community for professional services from parties who are experienced in large downtown projects. Advice should besought from people who have constructed and operated projects of the type envisioned, not just professional consultants who have never had to follow their own advice. The Pitfalls Hunter provides several reasons why many large downtown projects never get built or are financial failures after completion. One of the most common is overhype. Promises are made and expectations are created in the community that cannot be fulfilled. A common mistake when seeking support for projects is to go public too early. Another common cause of project failure is professional error. Many projects fail because their sponsors got bad advice early in the predevelopment process. Careful screening of consultants —extensive checking of references, site visits to other projects the consultants worked on, and securing a commitment by the team leader to the project rather than to subcontractors —can help to ensure valuable professional guidance. Also, parties doing the feasibility studies should not be penalized for professional honesty if they predict that the project will not fly. Many project strategies involve a "primary plan" for the 'optimum project, plus a "fallback plan" to keep a lesser project alive if the optimum one is found to be infeasible. If modifications cannot be made to achieve feasibility and accomplish the sponsor's objectives, the: project should be abandoned before substantial investment is made. Major downtown developments are not out of the question for smalI and midsize communities. The key to is to be realistic about what type of project will work best given community circumstances and to get the best professional help possible to guide the predeve I opme n t process. Michigan Cities Face Big Sewer Bills The October 19 issue of Engineering News -Record (EVR) reports that Michigan cities are being faced with huge bills to fix sewer systems that allow sewage to overflow into lakes and rivers. The overflow usually occurs when stormwater or melted snow overburden the system. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has already threatened to ban any new construction permits for Detroit by not allowing any sanitary sewer hookups to the ciry's system. The state mandate is being carried out to bring local water treatment in line with state and federal standards. Steven Holmi, a DNR environmental engineer, told EVR, "We're refocusing the communities' attention on discharge of raw sewage. It's going to be a very expensive and protracted process." DNR will send permit requirements to 50 to 60 cities over the next six months. Communities are facing the Possibility of having to build multimillion -dollar retention basins. Less costly solutions might be possible. however, including separation of sanitary and storm sewersand treatment at wastewater plants. The response from the cities so far teas been a cry of "foul." DNR admits that it has tolerated such overflow for years but insists that it has been warning communities during that time that the tolerance period would come to an end. The director Of Detroit's Water and Sewerage Department argued that the city's wastewater treatment plant meets ail operating permit requirements. Detroit is in the process of constructing a new Pumping station to reduce overflows into the: Rouge river. City officials also point out that much of the overflow can be attributed to suburban communities that send their stormwater through the city system and that it is unfair for the city to pay for problems caused by those communities. Officials from Lansing and Saginaw also promise to fight any efforts to force them to build retention basins. The PAS Mrmn is a monthly publication for sobscribers to the Planning Advisory service. a subscription research service of the American planning AxsocwIkm luael Ststllman. Executive Director: Funk S. So. Depury Executive 04wor. The PAS Memo is produced at APA: James Hecimovich and Marya Morris. Editors: Adele Rothblatt. Assistant Editor... . .. Copyrighr 1999 by American Planning Association. 1313 E. 6(kh St.. Chicago. IL 64637. The American Planning Association has headquarters ofrx= at 1776 M"sachusetts Ave.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20036. All rights reserved. No pan of this Publi=ion may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic ar mechanini, including phororopying. rmxding. or by any inrormation storage and rctricval system, without Permission in writing fn;m the American Planning Association. PAS Memo Index for 1989 The following index lists the stories published in the PAS Memo and Public fnvesrmertr News in 1989. Annual indexes for the Memo have appeared in the December issue since 1982. A subject index for the PAS Memo for 1971 through December 1985 was published as the April 1986 Memo. Copies of these indexes are available to PAS subscribers on request. January: Image Processing in Planning and Design February: Why Should We Revise the Zoning Ordinance? March (PIN). 5urvev Finds Cities "Very Satisfied' with Privatization; Want a Hot Tax Tip? How About Low -Income Housing?; Supreme Court Ruling Jeopardizes Set -Aside Programs April: Effective Job Descriptions: Part 1. Jobs for Planners in a Medium -Size City May: Effective Job Descriptions: Part 2. Jobs in Small Agencies and Specialized Planning Positions June (PIN): Are User Fees Becoming Abusive?; Twin Cities Say -No More Plastics"; Want UMTA Money? Ante Up; Florida's Growth Management Plan Hits Infrastructure Snag; HUD Announces Grant Priorities July: Parking Standards —Problems, Solutions, Exampies August: Manufactured Housing Developments for Older Adults September (PIN): TIF—Your Money's Worth and a Whole Lot Less?; Minibonds Reap Maxi Benefits; New Wave Fiscal Planning in McKinney, Texas; Impact Fee Usage an the Rise; Illinois Tightens Restrictions on Impact Fee Use. Report on the Costs of Flooding October: Site Planning for Housing for Older People November: States Mandate Local Planning for Growth; A New Lease on Life for Upper - Level Floors; Design Competition Hopes to Cure Bridge Woes December (PIN): A Taxing Proposition for Billboards: Making a Big Project Work in a Small City; Michigan Cities Face Big Sewer Bills