HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-08 CPC Packeto.�
ater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
August 8, 1990
THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1990 AT
7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH POURTH STREET.
AGENDA
Approval of Minutes - July 9, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CASE NO. V/90-43 - Variance to the maximum lot coverage for all accessory
buildings on a lot (1,000 square feet required, 1,350 square feet
proposed) for the construction of a 960 square foot garage at 936 Fifth
Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Thomas Corman,
Applicant.
2. CASE NO. SUB/90-44 - Subdivision of two lots in order to add approximately
32 feet to the widt)i of one lot and decrease the width of the other lot by
32 feet. These lots are located on the Northwest corner of the Frontage
Road and Tuenge Drive in the IP-C, Industrial Park Commercial District.
Richard Brackey, Applicant.
3. CASE NO. DR/V/90-45 - Variance to the size requirements for the placement
of a projecting sign (six feet required, twelve feet proposed) on the
Southeast corner of the Grand Garage at 324 South Main Street in the CBD,
Central Business District. Bob Tanner, Esteban's, Applicant.
4. CASE NO. V/90-46 - Variance to the fence height requirements on a street
side outsi``ehe-buiIding line (42 inches required, six feet requested) for
the placement of a fence seventeen feet from William Street at 901 West
Pine Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Rahul and Diane
Mehra, Applicants.
5. CASE NO. SUB/90-47 - Minor subdivision of a 22,800 square foot lot with a
multi -family residence, five units, and residential Carriage House, into
two lots consisting of 7,600 square feet with a home and 15,200 square feet
with a residential Carriage House at 506 West Pine Street in the RB, Two
Family Residential District. Clark Nyberg, Applicant.
6. CASE NO. SUB/90-48 - Subdivision of an 8.7 acre lot into two lots of
approximately 2. and 6.2 acres at the Northwest corner of Washington
Avenue and Curve Crest Boulevard in the IP-I, Industrial Park Industrial
District, James E. Kellison, Curve Crest Properties, Applicant.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
7. CASE NO. V/90-49 - Variance to the sign location requirements (15 feet
required, one toot requested) for the placement of a four foot eight inch
monument sign at 1809 Northwestern Avenue in the IP-CI, Industrial Park
Commercial One District. James E. Kellison, Curve Crest Properties,
Applicant.
8. CASE NO. SUP/90-50 - Special Use Permit for wholesale auto parts
distr,ii�u ioii far use located on the northwest corner of Curve Crest
Boulevard and Washington Avenue in the Business Park Industrial District.
Curve Crest Properties, Applicant.
9. CASE N0. SUP/90-51 - Special Use Permit for retail sales of products
manu acturec- ❑n si te for use located on the northwest corner of Curve Crest
Boulevard and Washington Avenue in the Business Park Industrial District.
Curve Crest Properties, Applicant.
OTHER BUSINESS
- Presentation: Existing Conditions Report and Zoning Amendment
Recommendations for the RCM, Multiple Family Residential District.
STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: July 9, 1990
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman
Glenna Bealka, Warren Pakulski, Don Valsvik, Angela
Anderson, Judy Curtis, Ann Pung-Terwedo, Planner.
ABSENT: Rob Hamlin, Duane Elliott, Jay Kimble.
The meeting was called to order by Gerald Fontaine at 7:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Judy Curtis, to approve the minutes of June
12, 1990 with the following changes:
- Don Valsvik was absent.
- Duane Elliott abstained his vote on Case No. SUB/90-33. He was not
opposed.
(All in favor)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NO. V/90-38 - A Special Use Permit to conduct an over -the -phone sales and
service out of a home at 1114 South Sixth Street in the RB, Two Family
Residential District, Sherri LaCasse and Rohn L. Moretter, Applicants.
The applicants presented the Special Use Permit request. They stated they may,
in time, add a small storage shed which will meet all the setback requirements
for the district. This is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. They presently have
a rented storage space at another location.
Judy Curtis questioned their business truck parking location and inventory
storage. The applicants stated that their business truck, owned by Rohn
Moretter, will be parked on the site and there was plenty of room for Ms.
LaCasse's car and the part-time employee.
Gerald Fontaine questioned the applicants about permission from the owners of
the structure to conduct the business. He requested that this be added to the
"Conditions of Approval".
Discussion followed about a one year review.
Two additional conditions were added to the case.
7. A written approval to conduct the business shall be submitted to the
City by the owner of the home.
8. This case shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in one year
(July 1991).
1
No audience comments.
Motion to approve the Special Use Permit by Judy Curtis, with the eight
conditions. There was a second by Don Valsvik. Unanimously approved, 6-0.
CASE NO. V/90-40 - A Variance to the maximum lot coverage allowed for the
construction of a garage addition. (1,000 square feet allowed, 1,344 square
feet requested).
Dan Michaelis presented the proposal for the garage addition. He explained
that he needs more space to store his recreational vehicles. He stated that
this addition was the only solution due to the narrow lot frontage. He then
submitted a statement from his adjacent neighbor to the south of his property
who did not object to the proposal.
No audience comment. The conditions remained unchanged.
Motion to approve the variance by Don Valsvik, with the stated conditions,
seconded by Judy Curtis. -Unanimously approved, 6-0.
CASE NO. V/90-41 - Variance to the sideyard setback requirements (three feet
requested, five feet required) for the construction of a two car detached
garage at 519 West Pine Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District.
Mrs. Hagen presented the proposal.
The Commission questioned the location of the garage at the specific site.
Mrs. Hagen stated that they needed the garage at that location due to the
steps on the south side of the structure. This stairway is used by a tenant in
the duplex.
Mrs. Hagen explained that rain gutters would be installed so the drainage will
remain on site.
No audience comment. The conditions remained unchanged.
Motion to approve the variance by Don Valsvik, with the stated conditions.
Seconded by Warren Pakulski. Unanimously approved, 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Dennis McKean, representing the Board of Water Commissioners, presented an
idea for a new garage at the Water Department, 204 North Third Street. He
explained that in order to use the site in an efficient manner, a new garage
is needed to replace the existing garage located along the south property
line. This garage, built in 1936, is not large enough to accommodate the Water
Department vehicles and it is too expensive to alter the existing garage in
order to accommodate larger vehicles and provide enough space for storage and
a work area.
The new garage will provide five parking stalls and a work area. The twelve by
twelve pitch in the roof will match the other garage on the site. It will have
a brick veneer facade.
2
The Planning Commission questioned if the existing garage, constructed in
1936, had historic merit. The Heritage Preservation Commission will be
notified of the proposal.
The Planning Commission did not see a problem with the idea for a new garage.
The proposal will be submitted to the City when plans are drawn.
Judy Curtis made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Angela Anderson. (All in
favor)
The meeting adjourned at 7:40.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Pung-Terwedo
Acting Secretary
3
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/90-43
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: 936 Fifth Avenue South
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: R-B
Applicant's Name: Thomas Corman
Type of Application: Variance
Project Description:
TA variance to the square footage allowed for accessory structures on a lot.
1,000 square feet maximum required, 1,350 square feet requested for the
construction of a 96U square foot garage and existing caboose.
Discussion:
the request is to construct a 960 square foot four car garage on a 14,500
square foot residential lot. This large site presently has a home and a 390
square foot caboose as shown on the site plan. A small garage was torn down
and the foundation poured for the proposed garage before subject of a variance
was determined.
The adjacent home to the west of the property will not be directly affected by
the garage. The lilac bushes screen the garage from the neighbor's property.
The proposed garage meets the setback requirements for the R-B, Two Family
Residential District.
RECOMMENDATION: Determination of request.
FINDINGS:
The proposed garage exceeds the accessory structure regulations for this
Zoning District.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Application Form
- Site Plans
- - — - -- . .[ ii' Nam• . e•y+�y.}t, .
Case Number
00
Fee Paid ______._
lDate.Filed
-PLANNING -,�DJMINIS i RAi IVE FORM,
Street Location or" Property: _.[_�__ST`i _ lq"v� ________w___-�__
Legal Doscriotion of Property: _-____- __-_-______-_..___-_______________
i, , I - - - j - k-. - t
Address one: ___�_s`_`_��_-_____ Ph-__Z_
_ 31- ---
Applicant (if other than owne.-): yc,,,e-------------------------
Address Phone -
Type of Request:' ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Nat
_-- Special Use Permit -- A r Approval o= , rind. Plat
X_ Variance ___ Other ____;______ _
Description
--_ _zt-C� --------------------------------------------
Signature or Applicant: -r-X------------------
Date o; Public Hearing: ________________---__-___---___-___-__---____
NOTE. Snetch of proposed property and structure to be drawl )n ,t7acti of -ais fa= ar
Zt-
t ed, showing the iodoraing:
1. Norm direction_
2. Location of proposed structure on lot
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs- uL Jg90
4. Din, ensions of proposed structure.
5. Street narnes. Co �gAWA w
6. Location of adjacent eti st;ng buildings. coW11A7 L G
7. Other inior.-nation as -nay be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ___________ (date)
subject to fhe following conditions: ---_________--_
Approval ___ Denied ___ by the Council on subject to the
following condit;ons: ----------------------------------
Corr,ments: (Use other side)
Idr{�
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/90-44
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: Highway 36 and Tuenge Drive
Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park Industrial
Zoning District: IP-C
Applicant's Name: Richard Brackey
Type of Application: Subdivision
Project Description:
A subdivision of two lots by adding 32 feet to an existing 128 foot lot and
subtracting 32 feet to a 427 square foot lot.
Discussion:
The request is to resubdivide two lots consisting of 84,407 square feet and
52,810 square feet into two lots of approximately 63,300 square feet and
73,916 square feet This subdivision meets the lot size, lot width and lot
depth regulations of the IP-C Zoning District. All utilities and roads planned
for this area do not change.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. An in lieu park dedication fee shall be paid to the City according to
the Park Dedication Policy ($1,320.00).
2. The City Engineer shall review the proposal.
3. A six foot drainage easement shall be shown on the Northwest and East
sides of the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
FINDINGS:
The proposed subdivision meets the purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance No.
31.06.
ATTACHMENTS:
-Proposed subdivision plan.
- Application Form.
;P-;c Iu0
Casa Number[�1_�.
Fee Paid
Data Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
S'raet Lcc;.tion o; Property: _HL�i7wr�y 36 & T -------___60th_-t______ • •
„
Legr:l Doscrip.icn o; Property: __------- --------------------------
___Robert Brack.....................................
12078 Parade Ave. N'.
Ad::rass __Stillwater, MN. 55082 -------- Phone: _ 439_7129 or 489-1315
Ap'piiccnt (if other than owner): Name ---------------------------------
A d e s s ------------------------------ Phone: ---------------
Q + - ___ Rezoning _X_ Approval of Preliminary Plat
Type oT , eaves,: .
Spacial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plc;
Variance :__ Other -
• To Tea e a ' 160' to b '
Dasc: iption or Request.
- existing 128' -14----------- -------------------------------
----------
-
SicGnature of Applicant:
,
Date o; PUuIic Hearing: ---------------.________________,.____--._____
NOT': Sketch of proposed proper:q and structure to be drawn.on bac=— . , `, or at-
tac::ec, snowing the foilowing: :4 _ "�-
1. North direction.
2 Location of rapased structure an Iot. c . " ' UG 1990
p
3. Dimensions of font and side set -backs. ,, PAID
4. Dimensions of proposed st:,icture.
P CFTC' �F
5. Street naine-- j
STH-S-�'ATc; ;� I
6. Location of adjaceent existing buildings. `'ems M1pvN.
7. Other iniorznatioa as may be reguestzd. X '
y.
Approvcd ___ Dcnied ___ by tha Vanning Commission on (data)
suolect to the following conditions:__—_____—__________________�____
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on
fallowing
------------------------
Comments; (Use other side), - , . � �'.'� ;• ','
C
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. DR/V/90-45
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: 324 South Main Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District
Zoning District: CBD
Applicant's Name: Bob Tanner
Type of Application: Variance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A variance to the Sign Ordinance for the placement of a twelve square foot
projecting sign (six feet required).
DISCUSSION:
The request is to place a twelve square foot sign at the Southeast corner of
the Grand Garage (Port of Stillwater) for the Esteban's Restaurant located at
the rear of the Grand Garage. The owners feel that Main Street visibility has
been a problem and the present flagpole sign does not identify the business
properly. The new owner of the Grand Garage plans to replace all the signage
next year.
The total Main Street business signage is approximately 80 square feet which
includes the Port of Stillwater sign, the flagpole sign, and the Mickey's Cafe
sign. There are presently two signs which identify the Grand Garage. These
include a ten square foot projecting sign and a small wall sign above the main
entrance. There is also window signage on the Main Street facade.
Of the total 80 square feet of business Main Street signage, Esteban's has
approximately one third of the flagpole sign or 27 square feet. This
additional twelve square foot sign would bring Esteban's signage to 39 square
feet. However, if the lineal frontage of the Main Street frontage facade for
the whole structure is taken into consideration, one hundred square feet is
allowed. The total signage with this proposal is 92 square feet. The street
frontage for the depth of the Grand Garage on Nelson Alley and Nelson Street
is 190 feet. The Sign Ordinance allows for signage on all street frontages.
This twelve square foot projecting sign has been located at this location for
other restaurants located at this site. The sign is black wrought iron. The
face will consist of the Esteban's logo with a graphic as shown on the
drawing.
DESIGN REVIEW
The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal for the sign at
their meeting on August 6, 1990. The following comments were made.
1. The Committee felt that because Esteban's Restaurant is located to the
rear of the Grand Garage, they do not have the visibility to Main
Street. However, the Committee has a concern about the lack of
coordinated signage on the building and the amount of total signage on
the Main Street facade.
2. The Committee did not have concerns over the design or location of this
sign. It is in keeping with the intent of the design guidelines. The
major concern was over the size of the sign.
Bob Kimbrel made a motion to approve the sign as proposed, with stated
conditions. Ray Zaworski seconded the motion. All in favor.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A new sign program for the whole building shall be submitted within one
year.
2. This sign is allowed on a temporary basis to be removed August 1, 1991.
3. All new signage (sign plan) on the building shall comply with the Sign
Ordinance regulations.
ATTACHMENTS: Sign Drawing.
13
��1
t,4,
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/90-46
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: 901 West Pine Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: Rahul and Diane Mehra
Type of Application: Variance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A variance to the fence height requirements for the placement of a six foot
fence (42 inches required) seventeen feet from South Williams Street.
DT' fMNCTnN
The request is to place a six foot fence in the sideyard of property on the
street side. The Fence Ordinance No. 31.02 states that fences on a corner lot
side must not exceed 42 inches in height. This is reason for the fence
variance.
The site plan shows the location of the proposed fence in the sideyard. This
placement, seventeen feet from the street and generally in the rear of the
lot, does not in any way cause visibility problems for motorists on the corner
of Williams and Pine Streets.
The fence design is sensitive to the area and is compatible with the home.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The seventeen foot area between the fence and the street shall be
maintained.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
FINDINGS:
The granting of this variance will be in general harmony with the general
purpose of the Fence Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to public welfare.
ATTACHMENTS:
^� -- Letter
- Site Plan
- Fence Design.
August 2, 1990
The Planning Commission/City Council
City Hall, Stillwater, Minnesota
Dear Members,
Our family has lived at 901 Pine Street West, which is at the southwest corner of
Pine and William Street, for the last six and a half years. We have enjoyed our home
during this time. However, inspite of a large backyard, we have not been able to
enjoy its use due to a lack of privacy. This problem has been exaggerated over the
last few years, because of the unbearable automobile and ambulatory traffic on
William Street. Our backyard is adjacent to William Street, which has no sidewalk
or any barriers. Because of these reasons, we have been forced to
significantly restrict the use of our backyard (what a way to live!).
In order to solve this problem, we would like to build an attractive 6 foot privacy
fence, which will be 17 feet in from William Street and parallel to it. It's exact
location is shown in Figure 1. This is the only reasonable place we can locate a
fence and enjoy privacy, since the front of the home faces Pine Street. It has come
to our attention that we would need a variance for this fence, because it is outside
the 'building line'. We request that a variance for a 6 foot privacy fence be
granted for the following reasons:
(i) The high pedestrian traffic and noise from automobile traffic deprives us of
our privacy in our backyard and severely restricts the use of that space. We
have also recently invested in a brick patio, but we can't use it much for the
same reasons. A six foot fence will give us the privacy and act as a noise
barrier.
(ii) Our child and his friends like to play ball in our backyard. Since the
backyard slopes down slightly to William Street and there is no flat sidewalk,
the ball frequently ends up on William Street. Due to the automobile traffic
on William Street, this can be very dangerous for young children and has
therefore restricted their playing in the backyard. A 6 foot privacy fence
will help solve this problem.
(iii) Our neighbor's house across William Street on the northeast corner is elevated
from the street level. Their 'eat -in' screened porch faces our porch and
backyard. Since they end up spending a large amount of time in the Spring and
Summer months on their porch, our privacy is restricted. A 6 foot fence is
essential to obtain the privacy from our neighbors.
(iv) Our 6 foot privacy fence will be very attractive with custom cedar pickets and
finials. It will be compatible with the architecture of our house (which we
have restored over the last few years) and other homes in the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission
August 2, 1990
Page 2
It will be painted to match the trim of our house. A diagram of the fence is
shown in Figure 2.
We hope that our request will be granted, so that we can have the peace and privacy
we need to enjoy living in Stillwater.
Thanking you in advance -
Sincerely,
R. Mehra, Ph.D./Diane Mehra
901 Pine St. West
Stillwater, Minnesota
Attachments
RM/dlf
0
is
y
z
r
�i � h• I
o I
< I
' T S
� l3
N 1
r �
1
l
i
E
I
i
z
LT)
r
rn
CQ
r;
Tl
m
z
r
in
WHY
he idea of building a
fence joins you to a
long history, a tradi-
tion that extends from the
depths of the wilderness to
the breadth of the plains,
and from the farm's back
forty to the half -acre sub-
urban homesite or to the
tiniest garden on a city lot. -
And every fence that was ever
built, no matter what its style, had a
purpose --a job to do ... perhaps
several jobs at the same time. The
circumstances which prompted fence
building in other times and other
places may have differed from those
we specifically face today, but at the
heart of all these circumstances, some
basic human needs continue to moti-
vate us to build fences.
In order to build the right fence —
one that serves your purpose —it's
important to clarify what your needs
are. For the moment, put the issue. of
style aside. The first questions to ask
yourself are functional ones: What is
the purpose of the fence? What prob-
lems do you want it to solve? What
are the needs of your household?
How can the new fence improve the
site? In short, what are your practical
goals? Do you want it to:
• Create a feeling of privacy? Or
highlight a nice view or screen an
unattractive one?
• Define a special area?
• Provide security and protection
for people, pets, and property?
• Buffer the effects of climate or
noise?
• Enhance the appearance of your
property?
These questions characterize the
basic reasons why people build
fences. Which are the ones that moti-
vate you most strongly? Rank them in
order of their importance to you, in
order of their ability to improve your
situation. You'll find that some of them
have top priority, others are less es-
sential, and some have no impor-
tance to you whatsoever.
The photographs -on these and the
next two pages show examples of
fences in action. They illustrate the
principles of function at work. You'll
see that, depending on its design, a
fence can serve several purposes at
the same time. As you look at the
photographs, list your own priorities
and keep them in mind as you decide
the location and style of your fence.
Marking a boundary.
Fences can serve the simple
purpose of marking a
boundary —the entire
perimeter of your property,
for example, or just one
special area within it.
Whether or not this is its
main purpose, every fence
marks a boundary, both
visually and physically. It
divides and separates,
punctuating the difference
between "this" and "that,"
separating public property
from your private world, for
instance, or a vegetable
garden from a short -cropped
lawn. A boundary fence
organizes the landscape by
giving it visual definition.
Fences that mark boundaries
also establish perceptual
guidelines and patterns of use
by clearly defining limits. If,
for example, shortcutters
have fashioned an
unintended path across your
lawn, a boundary fence can
change that pattern In the
photo at right, a sidewalk
boundary of pickets guides
the way to the entry path.
Spired post caps reinforce the
picket tops, creating a
pleasing rhythmic pattern
along the border of this
property.
FENCE.
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/90-47
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: 506 West Pine Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Multi -Family Residential
Zoning District: R-B
Applicant's Name: Clark and Vicky Nyberg
Type of Application: Minor subdivision
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Subdivide a 22,800 square foot lot with a single family residence and fiveplex
located oil it, into two lots of 7,600 square feet and 15,200 square feet with
one structure on each.
DISCUSSION
The request is to subdivide a 22,800 square foot lot into two lots of
approximately 7,600 and 15,200 square feet. Tree proposed meets minimal lot
size requirements for the district but because of the existing development
pattern, variance situations will be created. The new lot line will run
through a portion of the existing fiveplex. No parking for, or access to, Lot
1 will be provided. Utilities may have to be relocated or easements
established to service the two lots.
With approval of the subdivision, each lot could be owned by a separate owner
which would create an awkward development pattern.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
FINDING: The request is inconsistent with zoning requirements.
ATTACHMENT: Application and map.
PAC 100
Case Numbers 90_`_I2
Fee Paid ___-- G �� ____
Data Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORIM
Street Location of Property: _________--`_1_____ `___--____� ________________
Legal Description of Property:
Owner: Dame .. � _-_-_].t._� ___ L� -- ------ -7
Address _��_� �C.. ___- Phone:
Applicant (if other than owner): Name ---------------------------------
Address ------------------------------ Phone: ---------------
Type! of Request:' ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
_-- Special Use Permit --- Approval of Final plc+
--- Variance _X. Other__ --
Description of Request: _ --C?_-----` - -- --
------------------------------------------- � -------------------
_. ll `-
S►gnature of Appiicanl. ---
L]
Date of Public Hearing: _------_--..__________________________________
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back of this form 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 information as may be requested. '
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- (date)
subject to the following conditions: --------- __________________________
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ sublet. to the
following conditions: __._ ---------------------------_-----------------
____-___w_______________------ ------------------
- --------------
Comments: (Use other side),
fig
fi
1Sz,S/
v
- a
LUfr
Lu
- n _
rN
O
Q
c _>.7
�z -
Qr
'z
'I
LU
LL
L0
r
7
N
O
�t
L�
+
41
[TO
UaN
{
y
r
lL
I�
j
C
0
i1J
J O
� „ N
0
N OTC
rl di
N o
SO'7-s/
E.e•z�/ E
�7
gar s'ar r
-J8c Zc/
'T N C
rl, {
fi
114 5 �
_
l'1
CD
'7'hI -
--�•
L'l
rz
m 9
L I
Q �e�
i
1 i
ICD
Y
s
ag
s�
�f1Ut4IT1J(J.AI iL�f-��
1 •�'d —r ,
I
1 �
I
I
J
J
o
2 411
C
in
--4
�z
:J>
,,
�
v
L
l
V O
C
F Z
�S
j
W
r� rn
Z —
y
G
w
'NW
rJX
rrV
r
x`
n_N
U`t
0
U
Z Ir)
~ N
Z X
d tAJ
C
v
C
OJ
w
Z3
O
O�
E
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/90-48
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: Northwest corner of Curve Crest Boulevard and Washington
Avenue.
Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park
Zoning District: BP -I
Applicant's Name: Curve Crest Properties
Type of Application: Minor Subdivision
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Minor suo ivision to divide existing 8.7 acre lot into two lots of 2.5 acres
and 6.7 acres.
DISCUSSION:
The application is to subdivide an existing 8.7 acre lot bounded by future
Curve Crest Boulevard, Washington Avenue and Orleans Street into two lots of
2.5 and 6.2 acres.
The lot is flat with minimum grading necessary for development. Curve Crest
Boulevard West of Washington Avenue will be constructed in the future with
street and utility improvements. As a standard condition of subdivisions, a
six foot drainage easement shall be shown on the north, west and south
boundaries of the site.
The proposed lots meet the lot size requirements.
A park dedication fee of .10¢ per square foot of lot area is required
according to the Park Dedication Policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Park dedication fee shall be paid before final plat approval.
2. Final plat shall be filed within six months of Council action.
3. Six foot drainage easements shall be shown on the north, west and
south boundaries of the 2.5 acre lot.
ATTACHMENT:
Preliminary parcel map.
6. INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
Subdividers and -developers of commercial/industrial land, including
commercial/industrial portions of Planned Developments, shall be required
at the time the site plan is approved and building permits are issued to
dedicate to the City for park, playground and public open space purposes,
an amount of land up to 7.5 percent of the net land area within the
development as determined by the City according to the guidelines set forth
in Section 3 of this policy.
CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICATION, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
In those cases where the City does not require park or open space within
a development, the City shall require payment of fees in lieu of such land
dedication in an amount equal to $.10 per square foot of net land area,
or such amount as determined by the City Council based on the value of the
payments. Cash shall be contributed at the time of approval of each final
plat or at the time, of site plan or building permit -approval as determined
by the City.
A credit of up to 25 percent of the required dedication may be allowed by
the City Council for on -site stormsewer, water, ponding and settling basins
provided that such improvements benefit identifiable park and recreation
water resources.
The City Council, upon review and recommendation of the Parks and
Recreation Commission, may annually review and determine by resolution an
adjustment to the industrial/commercial fee based upon the City's estimate
of the average value of undeveloped commercial/industrial land in the City.
8. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
Developers shall be responsible for making certain improvements to their
developments for park, playground and public open space purposes as
follows:
A. Provide finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground,
trail and public open spaces within their development as part of
their development contract or site plan approval responsibilities.
Landscape screening, shall be in accordance with City policy.
B. Establish park boundary corners for the purpose of erecting park
limit signs. The developer shall contact the appropriate Parks and
Recreation Department personnel for the purpose of identifying park
property corners.
C. Provide sufficient public road access of no less than 300 feet for
neighborhood parks and additional frontage for community parks.
4
V- T_
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING
JP -I INDUSTRIAL PARK INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT
1. Chapter 31.01, Subdivision 22 entitled IP-I Industrial Park Industrial
District is rescinded and is hereafter enacted to read as Tol lows:
Subdivision 22 entitled Business Park Industrial District.
(1) PURPOSE: To provide a district for light industrial and office uses.
(2) PERMITTED USES:
The o1low�ng are permitted uses:
ge
(a) Limited manufactuhtnlnaterialslincludinngng aeelectronic acomponents aand
or
manufacturing fig
accessories.
(b) Automotive painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair
when conducted completely in an enclosed building.
(c) Research laboratories. `.
(d) Business, professional and medical office services.
(e) Finance, insurance and real estate office services.
(3) SPECIAL PERMITTED USES:
Tne following uses are permitted by Special Use Permit:
(a) Radio and Publishing andvision alliedindustries.
(b) Printing, Publishing
(c) General warehousing and outside storage.
(d) outside storage (must be screened).
(e) Mini -storage.
(f) Wholesale trade.
(g) Commercial nurseries. so
(h) Retail sales of products mafloor tarea ured �s for retailnpurpasesre than
twenty percent of mentaibuilding
(i) Cultural or governmental facilities (movie theati-es, libraries, fire
stations).
(4) USE DETERMINATION: any
A pec}al Use Permiby thet may be uPlannired �ngnCvmmiosshon toeberthersame
establishment determined
general character as the ofraing uses
and
cmaylbe permitted, the
present or potential use adjacent properties
,)(5) GENERAL REGULATIONS:
(a) Height of buildings: 40 feet
- Maximum 1 acre
(b) Minimum lot area
(c) Setbacks: 40 fee-
- Front 30 feet
- Rear 20 feet
- Side
- Abutting Residential District 65feet
0%
(d) - Lot coverage 20% of lot area-
- Landscaped Area
- Front and sideyard setbacks small be landscaped.
Adopted by Council this __
day of , 1990.
MP,YOR
ATTEST: CITY CLERK
publish:
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/90-49
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: 1809 Northwestern Avenue
Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park
Zoning District: BP -I
Applicant's Name: Curve Crest Properties
Type of Application: Variance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Variance t❑ the Sign Ordinance for construction of a monument type 7'4" x 2'8"
approximately 21 square foot sign located one foot from front property'line
(15 feet required).
DISCUSSION:
ne request is for a sign similar in design to other signs located along
Northwestern Avenue. Because of the size of the sign and existing development
of the lot, the one foot setback would not overwhelm the site and would be
similar to other office industrial signs in the area. The sign materials
complement the building materials.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
ATTACHMENT: Project plans.
AC 1,00
Case ?lumber KftG=
00
Fee Paid
Date. Filed __ J/3�L�Q
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
of Property-. 1809 Northwestern Avenue
Street Location
Legal Description of Property:
Curve Crest Properties
(Owner. Ncme------------------------------------------------------
Address 1809-Northwestern Ave_, Stillwater Phone_ 430_1500 T
Appliccnt (if other thcn owjier): Name
James E. Kellison
Address Phone: ---------------
Type of
Request:-___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
_X_ Variance --- Other --------------------
Sign location variance from -15'-back of property
Description of Recsues; _
line to l' back of property line
__
Signature of Applicant: ------ -____
Date of Public Nearing: ---------------- __________-____________�____
NO=: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be draw -a m back of k`vs ior"A a
tacned, snowing the following: Z?�
1. North direction. U
2. Location of proposed structure on lot
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. ''```ll��`�F•� �'_
4. Dimensions of proposed structure. F sit- JE�,
5. Street names. ' G�.�:
6. Location of adjacent e�isting buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved -__ Denied ___ by the•Planning Commission an _____---___ {da;
sublet. to the following conditions: _________________________-________-_
------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved -__ Denied ___ by the Council on ----------------- subject to t4he
following conditions: -----------------------------------------------
Cam„ments. (Use other side)
I
rs L) ------
- A
P-A),Af' FO P--
........ ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�j`�I j
�_
viA
)Q ST
-SHARED I�r21�lE1NA`(
NEw SIGN La T7 oe
SITE PLAN
In
4
pA►,,r � ► s ON PLIWD,
- F=NANT NAMV-s ON Rl�Mo\/Ae�-F-
PANELS, 3" H. x 3'�" L . APPFE--oX. \
:5pNtF_ e-AF
(A[-Y gi o aF_1e�
��.IGK.� RUNNING
714n
CPAI NT)
1809-NORTHWESTERN AVENUE
R_IVER RIDGE
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
�t��,v��c ca���ar��r� r�ssu�rIr r�A.� D
TENANT NAME B TENANT NAME E
TENANT NAME C TENANT NAME F
SIGN ELEVATION •- TYPICAL .GF TWO SIDES
a
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/90-50
Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 1990
Project Location: Northwest corner of Curve Crest Blvd. and Washington
Avenue.
Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park
Zoning District: BP -I
Applicant's Name: Curve Crest Properties
Type of Application: Special Use Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Special Use Permit for a wholesale auto parts sales in the Business Park
Industrial District.
DISCUSSION
The request is for an auto parts business in the Industrial Park. The
applicant indicates that 80& of their business is wholesale sales to other
businesses. A determination will have to be made that the use is wholesale and
not retail because retail uses are not allowed in the BP -I District.
The business occupies 6,000 square feet in the proposed building on the
development site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Determination of retail or wholesale use based on information provided.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site plan and building design shall meet all city development
requirements and be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director.
TAC 1GG
Case Number"LA D "
Fee Paid
Date.Filed
PLANNING ADMINIS 1 RAT IVC FOR i
Northwest corner of Washington Ave. & Curve Crest Blvd.
S;rzet Location or Property: _____ ___--_--__--_ __..____--_____ -----------
Stillwater Cescription cf Property: Stillwater Industrial Park Cutlot A
Curve Crest Properties
Owner:
1809 Northwestern Ave., Stillwater-r
AGur es5 ________________________ Phone; _--- ---- _-�-
James Kellison
policc:.a (it other II-,cn owner): �tc,:,e __� _______________
Ada. ess ------------------------------ Phane: _________------
Type of Request:. ___ Rezonina ___ Approval of Preliminary Plc;
Special Use Permit -
__ Approval of Finci. Nat
_-- Vcrience --- Other ____________..-----
Desc. iplion of Recuest: _ Use of approximately 1,800 square feet of a total
of 6,000 square feet for retail sales purposes by NAPA Auto Parts,
balance of space is wholesale.
----------cic-cure o-"�- oaIice j T� ---- - - --- - -n A, , ni./J _ _ _r___-----_- l
Data of Public Y.ecring: ---------------
----------- -
?`iOTE. SketC 1n. of proposed property one st_ lctu�-,e to be ail back o-A. IQ= Or
tac ed, showing the fodowin6:
U
1. Norm direction_
2. Location of proposed str -cture on lot. A-) r:0
Dimensions of front and side set -back AUC,19:.
4. Dimensions of proposed structure. - PAID
`4' [7F�TxLWATF�
5 Street names. � CI ��F��{���
6. Location of adjacent elistiag builaings.
7. Other infor:nation as ,..ay be rea_ues:ea. �
Approved ___ Dcnied ___ by the'Plannina Commission an ___________ (ddt2}
_ _subject to the following conditions: ________-
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on
following conditions:
._------ subiec: to the
-------------------------------
Cor;.r.,ents: (Use other side)
August 9, 1990
Planning Commission
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
RE: Stillwater II Office/Warehouse
NAPA Distribution Center
Dear Commissioners:
I lap — S40
CON/SPEC
CORPORATION
1809 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE
STILLWATER, MN 55082
(612)430-1500
FAX (612) 430-1505
Curve Crest Properties, Inc. is negotiating' with NAPA Distribution Centers
Company for a lease of approximately 6,000 square feet in the above
referenced project. The project is to be located in the Stillwater Industrial
Park on a portion of Outlot A which is currently zoned Industrial Park
Industrial District (IP-1). Wholesale business is a permitted use in this district
and NAPA Distribution Centers qualifies as a wholesale business to be within
this project according to information given to me by NAPA. Mr. Dick Beyer,
manager of New Market Development for NAPA has told me that at least 75%-
80% of all of their business is wholesale to auto repair and body shop users and
the predominance of that business is delivered to the end users.
Due to the short time frame which Con/Spec Corporation has had to. work with
NAPA, we are not at this time able to get confirming information and data from
NAPA. However, prior to final approval by the City Council, we will provide
substantiating information as requested and required by both yourselves and
the City Council to confirm NAPA's business is wholesale in nature.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
CON C CORPORATION
James E. Kellison
Vice President
JEK/lp
Water
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 9. 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MEAT
PROCESSING RETAIL SALES USE. (CASE NO.
SUP/90-51)
No hearing is'required for this request because a previous
Special Use Permit, (SUP/89-78), was issued for the use on
January 2, 1990 and the permit is still good.
RECOMMENDATION:
No action required.
ATTACHMENT: Case No. SUP/89-78.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
3'AC 100 t �J (
Ccse
Fee Paid------
Date.Filed
PLANNING ANAINISiRATiVE FORM,
Street Location of Property: Northwest_ corner of Washington_Av_e. & Curve -Crest Blvd.
Leccl Description o; Property: Stillwater Industrial Park_Outl.ot AGwrier: - -�_--
,_ Curve Crest Properties
Address 1809 Northwestern Ave _Stillwater Phone: 430-1500
James Kellison
Acolicc:r (ir otl;er tE-,cn owner): �lc,�,e ___________
Address------------------------------ Phone:
Type of Request ___ Rezonina ___ Approval o; PreIiminary P(ct
Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Finci. Plct
-__ Varicnce _-- Other -----------------
Desc. iption o f Recivest: _- Use of-2,000 square feet of -a 6,220 square foot
occupancy for retail purposes for.Brine's Meat Market.
'icncture o-" Applicant: _ _
Dcta c," Public Hearing: ________
NOTE: Sketc of proposed properly and st. ccture to be dzzw-- �n back of the, -Lor-- a- at-
tzcled, showing the following:
1. Nort direction. f
�r
2 Location of proposed stnicture on lot.
3. Dimensions of front a..d side sz:-bacla.
d. Dimensions of proaosea st.ucture. Oj
5. Street names.
6. Location of adjacant ezzsting buildings. r' ��r,�� €; ti3•
7. Other infor..zation as ,.yap be reauestzd_
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the -Planning Commission on ___________ (da:er��
subject to the followina con itians: __----------------------------
-------------------
Approved ___ Denied
,ollowina conditions:
by the Council on
suoje . ;o :,,e
Corr=-ents: (Use other side)
627366
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF STILLWATER
In the matter of the Planning Case
No. SUP/89-78
Request By:
Curve Crest Properties
0,aner
CITY COUNCIL
Special Use Permit
ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City Council on the
2nd day of January , 19 90, on a request for a
Special Use Permit pursuant to the City Cade for the following described
property:
IIIS`t "' Parcel 2 of Outlot A, Stillwater Industrial Park
Purpose:
Special Use Permit and use determination for office/war`ehouse building with
1,850 square feet of retail space in the IP-I District.
Upon motion made and duly approved by the requisite majority of the City
Council, it is ordered that a Special Use Permit be granted upon the following
conditions: (If no conditions, state "None".)
SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
Dated this `% ' day of �„,1 19 �0
,f� 9
Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF STILLWATER
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk, for the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, do
hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order Granting
Special Use Permit with the original record thereof preserved in my office,
and have found the same to be correct and true transcript of the whole
thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and the seal of the
City of Stillwater, Minnesota, in the County of Washington on the .=.�j,�� day
of N 'v�lL-Z-! lam% 19
DRAFTED BY:
David T. Magnuson
City Attorney
Suite 203, The Grand Garage
324 South Main Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
CASE NO. SUP/89-78
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A coordinated sign program for the building shall be submitted and approved
before any sign permits are issued.
2. The trash enclosure shall be constructed of a sturdy masonary material
similar to the materials and colors of the building.
3. The driveway access off of Curve Crest Blvd. shall be closed and moved
to the West as shown on the plan when Curve Crest is improved.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be located to the rear or located on the
roof of the structure and screened.
5. Landscaping improvements shall be in or security provided before
building occupancy.
6. A maximum of 2,000 square feet of building may be used for retail sales
incidental to products manufactured on sites.
7. Comments from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into final
construction plans.
8. Drainage and access easements shall be provided between the two most
Southerly lots.
RCM, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT '
LAND USE SURVEY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background:
The Stillwater Downtown Plan (an amendment to the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan)
identifies land use changes to residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown
Stillwater. These recommendations were based on a reconnaissance survey and
analysis conducted during the summer of 1989; they will be discussed later in
this report. In June 1989, residents of the Chestnut Street Hill submitted a
petition to change the zoning from the existing RCM, Multiple Family Residential
District, fifteen units per acre to RB, Duplex, eight units per acre in that
specific neighborhood. This request for a zoning change was due to a perceived
increase in commercial activity in the area, parking problems created by
inadequate on -site parking for multi -unit residential structures and the concern
about the renovation of the large historic homes into multiple family dwellings.
In order to adequately identify existing land use in the residential
neighborhoods surrounding downtown and the Chestnut Street area, a detailed land
use survey was necessary. These areas include the whole RCM, Multiple Family
Residential Districts as shown on Map 1.
1
tl I 9_ 3 3 2• R�Sr
1
4
/o
r .fit 1 �� �I 1, `,,r •}�
B T 13 r .IF • {al I� � I
20 I i fj
sa +►
it
S_T.� z: _ `-�;�• •� :• •f, �•'� • t is I� ,'. •; '
B i f' I ' f
� rlSr , } I , 1•f
Ln
' s 31 i!
,3?
/ = 1 J 4, I �
ST a1
TT-177
r t 3 ! -k 36 �z 5CK
L
j \
I s x � I ■ ss 1 li . s= , A ;a —L
y I \ \
S7 °
IA
4 N yr I V! wl••,'
LU
SON'S
'■ � .c a f
18
9' /O l/ 12 /3 14-
.TT I I } I t I = _ DU6Uoui: ST.
1 1 l ! H 6
Lo
to
LAND USE
Survey Design:
Land Use Survey Methodology. A land use survey was conducted of the South Hill
RCM Residential District and the north RCM Residential District. The land use
survey was conducted by physically walking the area, reviewing water bill
addresses, reviewing the Stillwater City Directory along with information
provided by the Washington County Assessors Office. This gave an accurate
account of housing units in these areas, construction dates of the structures
and physical condition. From this survey, maps were drafted depicting the
information gathered. Also, specific information was obtained from Washington
County which gives the existing conditions of the housing stock in Stillwater.
Condition of Structure Methodo
A field survey was undertaken in June 1990 to evaluate the physical condition
of each structure in the RCM, Multiple Family Residential Districts surrounding
Downtown Stillwater. Structures were evaluated as to the structural condition
then were rated as good, normal, fair, poor according to the following criteria:
Good Condition:
- No defects.
- No major repairs.
Normal Condition
No defects or only slight defects which normally are corrected during the course
of regular maintenance.
- Lack of paint.
- Slight damage to porch or steps.
- Slight wearing away of mortar between bricks or masonry.
- Small cracks in walls, plaster or chimney.
- Cracked windows.
- Slight wear on floors, doorsills, door frames, window sills or window
frames.
- Broken gutters or downspouts.
Fair Conditions
- Holes, open cracks, rotted, loose or missing materials over a small area
of the foundation, walls, roof.
- Shaky or unsafe porch, steps or railings.
- Some rotted or loose window frames or sashes that are no longer rainproof
or windproof.
- Broken or loose stair treads or broken loose or missing risers, balusters
or railings of outside stairs.
- Deep wear on doorsills, doorframes, outside steps or floors.
- Missing bricks or cracks in the chimney which are not serious enough to
0
be a fire hazard.
- Makeshift chimney such as a stovepipe or other uninsulated pipe leading
directly from the stove to the outside through a hole in the roof, wall
or window.
Poor Conditions
Endangers the health, safety and well being of occupants. One or more critical
defects or combination of intermediate defects in sufficient number or extent
to require considerable repair or rebuilding; or is of inadequate original
construction. Critical defects result from continued neglect or lack of repair
or indicate serious damage to the structure. Examples of critical defects are:
- Holes, open cracks or rotted, loose or missing material clapboard siding,
shingles, bricks, concrete, tile, plaster or floorboards) over a large area
of the foundation, outside walls, roof or chimney.
- Substantial sagging of floors, walls or roof.
- Extensive damage by storm, fire or flood.
3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Description of Area: The RCM, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential
District is broken into two areas as outlined on Map 1. The RCM Districts are
shown in two separate areas due to the extended influence of CBD, Central
Business and the geography of the area. The bluffs and ravines provide a natural
boundary district along Myrtle Street. Each area is bounded by the North, South
or West Hill surrounding Downtown Stillwater. These areas have the oldest
housing units in the City as well as historic public buildings. In fact, the
approximate boundaries of the RCM Districts are the Original Town of Stillwater
platted in 1843. The setting of the bluffs of the St. Croix River and
Architectural integrity of the homes makes this a unique setting.
Streets: The street system in these areas consist of local and collector
streets. Myrtle Street, Fourth Street on the North Hill and Third Street and
Pine on the South Hill are considered collector streets which take traffic
throughout Stillwater and provide access to State Highway 5, 36 and County Road
12. The local streets in these areas are used by residents of the community.
It was observed during the survey that Linden Street, Second Street and Broadway
have higher traffic volumes than other local streets in the area. Many of these
local streets on the North and South Hills are much narrower than the sixty foot
roadway standard. This is due to the age of the area.
South RCM District
Land Use: Refer to Map 2.
Housing: The South RCM, Multiple Family Residential District has 145 housing
structures and 264 housing units. Approximately 66% of the total housing
structures are Single Family Residential. Twenty of the total structures are
duplexes and the remaining 19% or 28 structures are at a higher density. Third
Street has the highest density housing. The remaining units are scattered
throughout the area.
HOUSING UNITS
NO. OF HOUSING STRUCTURES
Single Family
97
Duplex
20
Three Units
12
Four Units
8
Five Units
2
Six Units
2
Eight+ Units
4
Total 145
There was a trend in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to convert these large homes into
multiple family dwellings. In the past ten years, this trend has reversed
itself. Restoration of these homes into Single Family or Duplex Residential uses
has been a continuing effort.
4
MAP 2
�a5
rn
o
N o CDcn
rr . a � A
C-f-
rSDrp `� n
C: ' �7 X of 3
c-h —'
LL O T c F
LL �u =3 G
0) N
�. 7 fD
77
I<
cp
Parks: There are no dedicated city parks in this area.
Commercial Uses and Public Administration:
The district has three churches, two schools, two Bed and Breakfasts and six
offices. The majority of these office uses are located along Third and Myrtle
Streets. There are no general retail uses in the area.
Age of Structure:
The average age of the structures in the South RCM, Multiple Family Residential
District is 112 years. Approximately 36 percent or 43 of the total structures
which the age of the was identified were built between 1870 and 1879. Seventy-
two structures or 63 percent of the structures were built before 1900. Nineteen
structures were constructed after the turn -of -the -century and only eight
structures were constructed after World War II.
No. of Structures
Percent of
Year
Identified
Total
1850 - 1859
2
1%
1860 - 1869
12
10%
1870 - 1879
43
36%
1880 - 1889
32
27%
1890 - 1899
9
7%
1900 - 1919
9
7%
1920 - 1939
2
1%
1940 - 1959
5
4%
1960 - 1979
3
2%
1980 - Present
0
117
North RCM District:
Land Use: Refer to Map 3.
Housing: The North RCM, Multiple Family Residential District has 72 housing
structures and 122 dwelling units. Approximately 75 percent of the total housing
structures are Single Family Residential. Twelve percent of the total are duplex
and the remaining 13 percent of the structures are a higher density. Linden
Nursing Home has 75 residents. This was not included in this housing survey.
As stated in the South RCM District section, there has been a trend in recent
years to convert multiple family homes into single family homes.
HOUSING UNITS
HOUSING DESIGNATION NO. OF HOUSING STRUCTURES
Single Family 54
Duplex 9
5
MAP 3
iMulberry
North RCM
Existing land use
Single Family
Duplex
Multiple Family
Institutional
L___1 vacant/parking
Cherry
Str eet
z
0
c+
s
Linden Street
„
�,
Street
Three Units 3
Four Units 3
Five Units 1
Six Units 1
Eight+ Units 1
Total 72
Commercial Uses and Public Administration: The district has two churches, a
Public Library, City Hall, a Nursing Home and the City Water Department. There
are no general retail or offices in this area.
Parks: There are no dedicated parks in this area.
Ages of Structures: The average age of the structures in the North RCM, Multiple
Family Residential District is 103 years old.
Approximately 24 percent or 11 homes of the total structures identified were
built between 1870 - 1879. Twenty-nine structures or 64 percent were built
before 1900. Sixteen structures were built before the turn -of -the -century. Five
were built in the past 30 years.
No. of Structures
Percent of
Year
Identified
Total
1850 1859
2
4%
1860 - 1869
5
11%
1870 - 1879
11
24%
1880 - 1889
9
20%
1890 - 1899
2
4%
1900 - 1919
6
13 %
1920 - 1939
3
6%
1940 1959
2
4%
1960 - 1979
4
8%
1980 - Present
1
2%
45
LI
CONDITION OF HOUSING STRUCTURES
The 145 housing structures in the South RCM, Medium Density Multiple Family
Residential District. Seventy-eight percent of these structures are in good or
normal condition. NIneteen percent or 31 units are in fair to poor condition.
The standards set for this determination is reviewed in the condition of
structure methodology on Page 2.
SOUTH RCM DISTRICT
Condition Good Normal Fair Poor
No. of Structures 64 50 27 4
Percent of Total 44% 34% 18% 2%
Total Units: 145
Refer to Map 4.
Considering the average age of construction of these housing units in this
district at 1878, the majority of homes are in good condition. The restoration
and rehabilitation trend is continuing in Stillwater. Due to the unique
character and age of the area, property owners have taken pride in restoring
their homes.
There are 72 housing structures in the North RCM, Multiple Family Residential
District. A surprising amount of housing structures are in fair to poor
condition - approximately 32 structures or 44 percent of the buildings. However,
56 percent of the structures are in normal condition to good condition.
NORTH RCM DISTRICT
Condition
Good
Normal
Fair
Poor
No. of Structures
26
15
28
5
Percent of Total
36%
20%
38%
6%
Refer to Map 5.
There is no general area or specific neighborhood where the condition of these
structures are in fair to poor condition. It may be that these homes are
occupied by elderly people who cannot afford to repair their homes or these
homes are rental properties. Further study should be conducted in order to
determine if there is a need for financial assistance to rehabilitate homes in
poor condition.
7
MAP 4
rinS
z
0
z
r+
Mulberry
_inden Street
� N
CI+ r+
(D
� C-+
North RCM
Condition of Structure
Good
® Normal
Fair
Poor
Street
LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
ZONING REGULATIONS - RCM - MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
1. Uses permitted by Special Use Permit:
a. Multiple dwellings and condominiums containing three or more dwelling
units.
b. Customary home occupations.
C. Bed and Breakfast establishments.
2. Accessory Uses.
a. Off street parking and loading facilities
b. Private recreation facilities.
3. Conditional Uses.
a. One and two family dwellings
b. Public, educational, religious and institutional buildings.
C. Rooming houses.
d. Other commercial uses found to be objectionable to the neighborhood
in which they are proposed to be located.
e. Retail business of a "corner store" nature.
4. Area Requirements.
a. Minimum lot area shall be 12,000 square feet.
b. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 2,800 square feet.
C. Maximum lot coverage shall be 30 percent.
d. Maximum Floor Area Ration (FAR) shall be .75.
e. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories.
5. Yard and Setback Requirements:
a. Front Yard
b. Side Yard
C. Rear Yard
35 feet
20 feet
45 feet
d. Accessory Buildings shall be required to maintain a front yard at
R-1
least 45 feet and side and rear setback of at least 10 feet.
e. In cases where more than one principal building is located on the
same site no building may be constructed within 35 feet of another.
f. One and Two Family dwellings may be allowed to conform to the (RB)
District Yard requirements.
g. When the adjacent building or buildings are located with a setback
less than is required above, a multiple dwelling may be permitted
to be located up to the point of the lesser setback requirement.
9
STILLWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN ISSUES
CONCERNING THE RCM, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
The Stillwater Downtown Plan identifies land use changes to the residential
neighborhoods surrounding Downtown Stillwater which include sections of both
the north and south RCM, Multiple Family Residential District as shown on Map
6. The purpose of these land uses changes were to retain the character of the
existing older neighborhoods thorough density and design controls.
Three land use recommendations were stated which include:
- Two public administrative/office district situated west of Third Street
and north of Myrtle Street including City Hall, library, water department,
post office and churches. The second area runs along Pine Street between
Second Street and Fourth Street including the Junior High School and the
Historic Courthouse. Both districts provide a buffer and transition
district between the commercial core area and the lower intensity
residential areas.
- Apartment density residential development, 15 units per acre, along Myrtle
Street between Third Street and Fifth Street between Myrtle Street and Oak
Street. These areas present opportunities for high density multifamily
development.
-- Low density multiple family allows the retention of the existing character
of the remianing RCM, Multiple Family Residential District.
10
U
�
V
C
N
C
Q7
J
.76
m
m [_
¢ .�Qp
�C
rT�,
4 2
d
H
a
¢
V
¢
i
MAP 6
I
� k
m m a
I
I I
1S 3Nd I
I `
" I
I
• 1S't�4S13N::
�.; ¢ - ¢
Is arm
C -¢
is AW1S3O -----
'5 3lLVAJ'l .
niz
L5 77Oti3ra+b7 ....::�: ------
is ig8nvi
an
m
¢ EE
z
Q
a
z
0
z
0
A
MAJOR COMMENTS
The land use survey of the RCM, Multiple Family Residential Districts identified
the following issues:
- A majority of the housing structures are single family.
A majority of the structures were built before 1900. An
historic/architectural survey may indicate that areas could be eligible
for local or national register districts designation.
- While there were no general area or specific neighborhoods where the
condition of the structure were in fair to poor condition, there were
numerous structures which need major rehabilitation.
- Institutional, public, administrative uses and commercial uses exist in
the area, however,.there is not a trend to expand these uses.
There were no general parking problems in these areas.
There is a trend to convert and restore existing multiple family homes into
duplex or single family use.
There was no relationship between housing density and condition of
structure.
11