Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-11 CPC Packet• THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, September 11, 2000, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of August 14, 2000 AGENDA 1 Case No SUB/00-61 A request to subdivide a 2 2 acre lot into two equal lots of 1 1 acres at 1167 Parkwood Lane in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District Gary A Ritzer, applicant 2 Case No V/00-62 A vanance to accessory buildings regulations for an additional garage and a vanance to the square footage (1,000 square feet maximum, 1,334 square feet requested) at 720 North Everett Street in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Jim and Julie Moy, applicants - , 3 Case No SUB/00-63 A request to resubdivide Lot 17, Blk 1, Oak Glen 12th Addition, Lot 18, Block 1, Oak k ,`, Glen 12th Addition and Lot 22, Block 1, Oak Glen 12th Addition to add 15 feet to Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, • Oak Glen 12th Addition Jim Jungmann, applicant • 4 Case No SUP/00-64 A special use permit for the construction of a dnve thru at 1820 Market Dnve in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial Distnct David Reimer, applicant 5 Case No V/00-65 A vanance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction to an attached garage at 1312 4th Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct William Rust, representing Alan and Sandra Roth 6 Case No V/00-66 A vanance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction of a four season porch at 406 South Hemlock Street in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Virgil and Janet Crowder, applicants Other items -Comprehensive Trail Plan -Consideration of proposed annexation CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800 City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Present Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Glenna Bealka, Russ Hultman, Karl Ranum, John Rheinberger, Darwin Wald, and Terry Zoller Others Steve Russell, Community Development Director Absent Robert Gag and Dave Middleton Mr Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Wald, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval of the minutes of July 10, 2000, motion passed unanimously Case No V/00-51 A vanance to modify a previously approved plan to convert a 3-season porch to a 4-season porch at 216 W Wilkins St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Marcia Kilbourne, applicant Ms Kilbourne was present She said she plans to convert the 3-season porch to a 4-season porch if is possible to extend heating to the addition She acknowledged neighbors' concerns about on - street parking, and said she plans to construct a garage with parking in the rear John Shimoto, 1015 N Fifth St , reiterated neighbors concerns about existing parking conditions, and stated he is against allowing additional living space due to the potential for more people and more cars He said the situation is a big concern with the neighborhood, and single-family property owners are concerned about property values Mr Fontaine noted that Ms Kilbourne was not requesting another living unit He asked Mr Russell about any city ordinance regarding the number of cars that can be parked on the street, Mr Russell responded that the only ordinance is the city's 24-hour parking ordinance Mr Zoller asked why a vanance is required, Mr Russell explained that the request represents an expansion of a non -conforming use — the duplex is located on a non -conforming lot Mr Russell noted that providing a garage is not a requirement and not part of this application The addition does meet setback requirements Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval of the requested vanance Motion passed 5-2, with Mr Zoller and Mr Ranum voting no Case No ZAM/00-1 A Zoning Map Amendment rezoning about 12 acres bounded by Melville Court and 72nd Street North to Lakeshore Residential (LR) from Agricultural Preserve (AP) Rick and Karen Reidt/City of Stillwater, applicants • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Case No SUB/00-52 A subdivision of one 2 5 acre lot into two lots of about 9 and 1 6 acres at 7155 Melville Court in the LR, Lakeshore Residential District Rick and Karen Reidt, applicants Mr Reidt was present He explained that he wanted to rezone his lot in order to subdivide, and it is Mr Russell's position that the whole area should be rezoned Mr Russell explained that the city's Comprehensive Plan does designate that area as large lot, single-family Rather that rezone piecemeal, Mr Russell said, the city generally looks at a whole area Regarding some property owners' concern about a possible impact on taxes, Mr Russell said he checked with the County Assessor's office and was told that rezoning will not increase taxes — taxes are not affected until a property is developed/subdivided Mr Ranum asked where covenants for the area in question come into play Mr Russell said the covenants have no beanng on the rezoning Don McKenzie, 12620 72nd St N , stated his property borders one of the properties in question, and he was not notified of this meeting He stated he wished his property to remain AP and asked if his property would be affected by the rezoning Mr Russell said the McKenzie property would not be affected Mr Fontaine referred to a letter in the packet from George and Nancy Hof, property owners in the area who are opposed to the rezoning Mr Fontaine asked if Commission members were comfortable rezoning the entire area, including those owners who do not want their property to be rezoned It was noted the rezoning will be heard by the City Council and the Joint City Town Board, so there will be plenty of time for comment Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mr Zoller, moved approval of the rezoning, motion passed unanimously Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Zoller, moved approval of the subdivision request as conditioned, motion passed unanimously Case No V/00-54 A vanance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 2 inches proposed) for construction of window wells at 838 W Willard St in the RB, Duplex Residential Distnct Duane Arndt, applicant Mr Arndt was present He explained the building was a duplex until March of this year when he began renovation of the structure He said he was advised by the building inspector that if the window wells were not over the property line, there would be no problem He noted he had raised the building and the openings for the window wells are already in place He provided photographs of a string attached to markers indicating the property line He stated that he has a survey of the property he was provided when he purchased the property and stated he did not think the condition for a new survey would provide any additional information • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Speaking in opposition were Rita Graybill, 801 W Pine St , Mike Robinson, 801 W Pine St , and Richard and Jane LaRonge, 846 W Willard St Mrs LaRonge said when Mr Arndt put up the stnng to indicate the property line, the first time the stnng indicated the window wells were over the property line, the second time, the window wells were inside the hne Several members expressed a concern about safety and emergency access should the neighbonng property owner install a fence on the property hne Mr Ranum asked what would prevent Mr Arndt from putting the window wells on the other side of the building, Mr Arndt responded that is not practical due to grading, but agreed it would be possible to do so Mr Zoller noted that the big window wells are only needed if the basement is used for living space Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to deny the vanance, motion to deny passed unanimously Case No SUBN/00-55 A resubdivision to increase lot size from 5,500 square feet to 9,250 square feet and variance to the lot size requirements (10,000 square feet required, 9,250 square feet requested) for constriction of a duplex at 213 W Cherry St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Jean M Hamm, applicant Mr Hamm was present She said she would like to enlarge her existing one -level house and have the addition wired and plumbed for possible use as a duplex She said she has a purchase agreement with the neighboring property owner at 414 N Fourth St to purchase the additional property She provided a petition signed by neighbors in favor of her request, and she noted her request conforms to the neighborhood as there are a number of multi -family dwellings on her block Mr Fontaine suggested that Ms Hamm try to purchase the additional property to make the lot a conforming size for a duplex Mr Zoller noted under a stnct interpretation of the ordinance, the applicant must prove a hardship in order for a vanance to be granted, and finance is not a hardship Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Wald, moved to approve the resubdivision, motion passed unanimously In the discussion regarding the vanance for the lot size, Mr Wald suggested delaying a decision until the applicant talks with the neighbor about purchasing the additional property Mr Fontaine noted Ms Hamm would still need a vanance as the lot is too narrow Mr Russell pointed out that vanances involving density are major issues 3 • City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to approve the requested variance Mr Zoller noted that vanances are often given for lot setbacks in the old part of town where lot lines are not known, however, granting a vanance for density is setting a bad precedent, he said Motion to approve failed 3-4, with Mr Rheinberger, Mrs Bealka and Mr Wald voting in favor, and Mr Zoller, Mr Ranum, Mr Fontaine and Mr Hultman voting against Case No SUB/00-56 A subdivision of a building into two condominium units at 150 S Third St in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Dianne Hark and Michael Rice, applicants Ms Hark and Mr Rice were present Ms Hark noted the request is for one condominium unit, which the applicants will occupy She said she and Mr Rice have purchased the building She questioned condition of approval No 4 regarding providing a solid masonry trash enclosure The requirement for a dumpster, she said, is due to the presence of Del's business in the building, and that business will be moving within six months The other trash receptacles can easily be accommodated on the side of the building, out of public view Mr Zoller said he would be concerned about removing that condition until it is known what the ultimate use of the building space will be Mr Ranum suggested modifying the condition to require that all trash receptacles be screened from view from the street, with the screening to be of materials/color compatible with the project Mr Ranum moved approval as conditioned with that language change to condition No 4 Mr Zoller seconded the motion Ms Hark asked that condition No 6 regarding removal of the existing portable/plastic sign be changed to indicated that all existing portable/plastic signs must be removed Motion passed unanimously Case No V/DR/00-57 A vanance to the sign ordinance for an additional sign (two allowable) at 217 N Main St in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Jocelyn Tilson, Valley Bookseller, applicant Ms Tilson, her husband/co-owner, and architect were present Ms Tilson stated she is requesting an additional sign for the south elevation which faces the city parking lot and is most visible to traffic approaching from the south She stated she also is requesting a variance to place a logo on the Main Street elevation She cited the building setback and heights as justifications for the vanance for the logo Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval of the signage for the south building elevation, motion passed unanimously Regarding the vanance for placement of the logo on the Main Street elevation, Mr Fontaine noted that the Hentage Preservation Commission had denied that request, unless the logo is placed on the same plane as the pnmary signage on that elevation Mr Fontaine noted that the Hentage Preservation Commission doesn't grant variances, and the Planning Commission doesn't make design decisions 4 • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Mr Ranum said he felt comfortable with the request and moved approval of the requested vanance for the Main Street elevation, Mr Rheinberger seconded the motion Motion failed 3-4, with Mr Ranum, Mr Rheinberger and Mrs Bealka voting in favor and Mr Fontaine, Mr Zoller, Mr Hultman and Mr Wald voting no Mr Fontaine noted the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council Case No V/00-58 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25' 6" requested) for construction of an addition to a garage at 718 W Churchill St in the RB, Duplex Residential Distnct Russell Hultman, applicant Mr Hultman explained that there is no storm drain on Churchill, and he had a problem with water runoff into the street He said he had created a large retaining wall and berm to bring the drainage to the storm drain on Martha Street He said the new garage would be in the same footprint as the existing structure and be no closer than the existing front or side yard setbacks The property owner at 709 W Abbott St stated dirt from Mr Hultman's berm washed through her property and burned out her pool pump She stated a city sewer line goes through parts of Mr Hultman's property and asked if he was building his garage on top of the sewer line Mr Fontaine noted there is a condition that all drainage remain on site Mr Ranum suggested adding a condition that all excavating matenal remain on site Mr Hultman stated he won't be doing any excavating for the garage Mr Ranum moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that all excavation and all other constriction matenal remain on site Mr Wald seconded the motion, motion passed 6-0, with Mr Hultman not voting Case No ZAT/00-05 A zoning text amendment allowing two-family residences in the Cottage Residential District, CA Contractors Property Development Co , Homer Tompkins, applicant Marc Putnam and Shelly Tompkins were present representing the applicant Mr Putnam noted that the two-family residences would be constructed on corner lots only Those lots were oversized ,to accommodate two-family residences, and it was simply an oversight on the developer's part that the zoning wasn't included in the onginal zoning The garages will be hidden/tucked back Mr Ranum questioned allowing two-family residences on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet as is required in other parts of the city Mr Russell noted this is zoning unique to the Liberty on the Lake and Legends of Stillwater developments Mr Russell noted this is a zoning change not a vanance request and the density is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan City of Stillwater Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Mr Zoller, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval subject to Council/Joint Board approval Motion passed unanimously Case No SUPN/DR/00-53 A special use permit, design review and vanance for a 170 room hotel, restaurant and conference center at 606 N Main St in the CBD, Central Business District, Temtonal Prison Coalition Inc , applicant Mr Hultman abstained from the discussion Michael Borum was present representing Temtonal Pnson Coalition He stated the developers are making progress and should be getting financial numbers from Kraus Anderson by the 20th of August The developers hope to close in October The request is for a 170-room hotel, up from 129 as previously proposed A three-story building is being constructed in the back to achieve the additional hotel rooms Mr Borum noted the front of the buildings may have to be reconfigured to accommodate National Park Service requirements Mr Ranum asked about landscape plans It was noted that will be part of the final Hentage Preservation Commission review Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned Vote was 6-0, with Mr Hultman abstaining Other items Mr Russell reminded members of the Planning Commission/Park Board informational meeting on the Boutwell site and city-wide trail system scheduled for Aug 21 Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to adjourn at 9 25 p m , all in favor Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary • 6 • MEMO • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Request to Subdivide 2 2 acre Parcel into Two Lots of 1 1 acres each located at 1167 Parkwood Lane North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation Distnct Case No SUB/00-61 Date September 7, 2000 The request is to subdivide a 2 2 acre lot into two Lots of 1 1 acres each The site was annexed to the City in 1996 and is zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation The AP zoning district requires 10 acre lots and is a holding zone distnct for future rezoning based on a plan for the area Without a plan for the vacant land between Parkwood Lane and CR 5, it is difficult to rezone the area (see attached map) The Comprehensive Plan designates the area Townhouse Residential Recommendation Denial Findings The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the existing AP zoning Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Fees _Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 _Variance $70/200 esubdivision $100 �/ Subdivision* $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Design Review $300 $500 $70 $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineenng fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project / )(co t 1.2k (1-)cQc1 NI Assessor's Parcel No 3) -v-O0 (GEO Code) Zoning District A P Description of Project Slid t V id e_ , a Ac Yes 01 ha. If "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submiffed herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner G Clu j. Ai R i f ze v Mailing Address I b7 l QY k 6Cer4 LCL (� City - State - Zip St- (Q QL0(L1 C✓ MK] 5 OR Telephone 5 I C/ �� Signature ` . , ir4 SI Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory H \MCNAMARA\SHEILA\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces CsArRy Ri-r2sEk— rileiA)606 LA) N — JeiJ/4 — 673 50 — 1 — 260 59 a / � n / r OUTLOT A / co• / h r Q o / 0 1 0 Location Map �98 2 • 3 � It • • 258 43 4.44 skv `110.4/ • 780 52 CO • 07 Q / ?4257 /4503 6o 1 . R21w Rtav R19w 732N �� TRH r Ir 22*; ISL 729N AI Trn my ., i31N 72HN 922W R21W R20V 12BN Via nty Map 0 100 Scale In Feet Mods., re d anaLaaan oon:aroma i.an�m as ray% c Cry cat m °n ac na rms. or 'Menatm n n "g.o, a v.y. Pate dal m.1 my..0 rim wan Wawa ntr POI MO Mao oet.a Ma, 47m 1 a, r • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/00-62 Planning Comnussion Date September 11, 2000 Project Location 720 Everett Street North Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Jim and Julie Moy Type of Application Variance Project Description A Variance to accessory building regulations for an additional garage and a Variance to the square footage (1,000 square feet maximum, 1,334 square feet requested) Discussion The applicant is requesting two Vanances to construct a second garage The first Variance request is for an additional garage, there is an existing two -car garage in the backyard A second request is for additional square footage over the maximum permitted by the zoning ordinance The existing garage is 576 square feet and the proposed garage is 758 square feet, totaling 1,334 square feet There are some considerations the applicants' sight for constructing a new garage One, it would allow them to have more yard for their day care busmess by shortening the driveway The present drive is 150 feet long and the proposed driveway would be 45 feet Also, they do not pernut the children to play on or across the pavement for safety issues This limits the play area to a small fenced in area north of the dnveway The existing garage acts as a retaming wall holding back 6 feet of earth to the west and north of their property For this reason they do not want to demohsh it Their intended use for the existing structure would be storage for the home day care play equipment Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the project, staff suggests the followmg conditions of approval 1 All drainage remam on site 2 The garage shall be similar in style, colors and materials as the main structure 3 The City Engmeer and the Building Official shall approve all plans Recommendation Demal of both Variance requests for lack of a hardship '4 • • • Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardslups justifymg a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties m the same district and m the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizmg of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the pubhc interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter/Site Plan/Elevation Drawings 4 Pt/loo-(oal. Case No Date Filed a5� Ai Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Fees Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 _ Variance $70/200 Resubdivision $100 _Subdivision* $1 00+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 _Certificate of Compliance $70 _Design Review $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and eng►neenng fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any appl►cat►on All supporting material 0 e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 7Z0 EVF. E.r-r 5i N sr iuwwwAssessor's Parcel No �ga3DV0o2%Oki° R (GEO Code) Zoning District f 1J Description of Project �.oarnori To Houses "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submiffed herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " f' X17 Property Owner J It-1 4 Jul.! E tloY Representative Mailing Address 7Zc, EvEriET,- Si N Mailing Address City - State - Zip STIL.L.v.,k-re.R frAN 55ot3Z City - State - Zip Telephone No CG5I) 439 - 389 c, Telephone No Signature i $0- . Signature 1, U7..3 - 5Li' 1 SITE AND 5157 Lot Size (dimensions) loo x 15c) Land Area 15,0o6 sq Pr - .31 ACRES Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal 2 33' Accessory i ,._ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area Existing `PA Proposed I, 02 Paved Impervious Area No of off-street parking 2,59� square feet square feet square feet BAG square feet spaces Z H \MCNAMARA\SHEILA\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 vr Jim & Juhe Moy 720 Everett St N Stillwater MN 55082 (651) 439-3890 Dear Building Commission We are requesting you review and act on two items concerning our property k 1,,•2 The first item is a resubdivision of our property We are requesting this so we can consider the two lots we own as one for buildmg reasons The second item is a vanance to construct a second garage on our property towards the front of the lot beside our house The following are reasons for this • We would mcrease the usable area of our yard for home day care use The kids presently use a small fenced m area to the north of the dnveway We do not let them play on or across the driveway for safety reasons • We would reduce the amount of pavement to the garage The present drive is 150 feet long and the new one would be 45 feet long This would increase the green area of our lot We would also like to leave the existing garage at the back of the lot for the following reasons • Acts as a retaining wall holdmg back 6' of earth to the west and north of our property • Used as storage for the home day care play equipment New garage 758 sq ft Exist garage 576 sq ft Total 1,334 sq ft Thank you for your consideration on the above items Sincerely, Jim Moy • N O 0) 522- 512 502 w 4 816 08. 02 WEST ELM STREE 1814 • 815 • LO N 10 C>J 10 504 T /89 422 z Cc 40 WEST HICKOR 716 . 604 0 z l7-23 715 724 N G LO CN 423 72 7.19 72 715 7. Cho -Tr qr co CD C • I L J • 604 . 522 . �506 47� . 0 '1. 0 41 c\I N 6 0 WEST LAUREL STREET Cn Location Map 519 515 0 R22W R21W R20W Vanity Map 0 136 Scale in Feet Ma .. NAP el m.pmt •�sp1.n�op OtlNlm dlroad, a =Ira .; E.i ad kr b pupas arty Wel,. Canty b nwpeitb ba, Yicondel. Baa Wd ia,My 9My1 Cam Pfl data bend mAs,m..mnstim e.u(/. Ls R KW Apr pYYt Algal 21 mW DEMO SITE PLAN 1 10 2 r I 1 a It Cr L NEw CAcs, GARAGE NEW SITE FLAN 1 10 -- 1 Project No Drawn By JLM Dote 8 II-00 Pevisions A A t� MOY RESIDENCE 720 EVERETT ST N STILLWATER MN SITE PLAN -' ti Pi. V ...., *Vac . r. v ova.* r 0.10100q uvrr ry ay.c aaap. bat ay. Yla Asa Oa Psaaarama MTE5C.TA ...r .. IN ARGxTECG AL SHINGLES PRE PRUNED BAKES FRE PRUNED CEDAR SONG CEDAR SOT ANDER6GN DCUBLE HMG WNOCOe IIII11fl,lu J 1 r J II II II II II II II II II II II II IL_11__IL_.ij I J a L CASING Mb X 9 VJ BACK BAIm6 1146 X I Vle C.ANN * Mb X 9 VI BAOC BANDS ON X I VIb WWOQU 6TOOL I X 9 VJ C-46745 11/16 X 9 VJ 5r X 5 V4 VEMELRED BABE a4ARTER RCiee7 AT HARD FLOORS EAST ELEVATION - FRONT V8 1 0 2 WEST ELEVATION - BACK 3 va 1-0 4.1 j • • r • EXIST A NEW FLOOR ELEV • • EXIST FLOOR ELEV 66, NEW moon ELEy /— 3 16' I V4' EXIST FLOOR ELEv Si Yr doh NEW FLOOR ELEV er21a PRE-EPRITI ERED ENERGY TRWl8E6 24 C. Dee SCN-SLIP 6FEATI4N SI BWIThTh LICE A WATER GUARD 2 Ar ABOVE 25 TR ARCHITECTURAL 6HNr4LE6 WM, PRAMS OCRTERS IN5ULATTON STOP NVILATTON 14144 MOLT vAPOR BARRIER GTI BO CfADER BCJFFR • FACIA CONTIM:WS Au:start VENT 1/J 6 rF BD VAPOR BA INES HREERGLAS6 rbei.LATICIN WM MN 2X6 STUDS N Or. VJ oee EHEATHeb TT•VEC AIR SFLTRATION BARRIER PRE Mal= C EACER eIDNG 4 VJ EX'OSER RABITED FLOOR FINISH 9/4 TAG MLTLIOOO DE005 , FLOOR TRUOSEe 5/M BIT. BD FLOOR MEN 3/4 TAG P1.T 1 O PECKING FLOOR 17SI88Ee B COUReE6 CP 0 ELK 2 RECAP N61A.ATICN 3 VI CCNC SLAB W/ FIBER GLASS REINFORCING DRAW TLE COMM FOOTING NORTH ELEVATION - RIGHT VS I 0 111 • IinI In1111 tr----iP n II II II TRIM DETAIL 1R I 0 Project No Rev sions rra n By 8 Date JLM 17 99 A. MOY RESIDENCE 720 EVERETT ST N STILLWATER, MINNESOTA ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 4 EXISTING HOUSE V4 I 0 5 NEW ADDITION SOUTH ELEVATION - LEFT 1/4 1 0 V8 1 0 I • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUB/00-63 Planning Commission Date September 11, 2000 Project Location 1025 Eagle Ridge Court, 1027 Eagle Ridge Court, 1028 Eagle Ridge Circle Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Residential Zoning District RA Applicants Name Jim Jungmann Type of Application Resubdivision Project Description A request to resubdivide Lot 17, Block 1, Oak Glen 12 Addition, Lot 18, Block 1, Oak Glenn 12th Addition and Lot 22, Block 1, Oak Glen 12th Addition to add 15 feet to Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Oak Glen 12`h Addition Discussion The request for the resubdivision is to allow the apphcant and his neighbors Carl and Tracy Bagho the ability to maintain a hill that is on the back portion of Dave and Patti Percival property The zoning district for the above addresses is RA, Single Family Residential The minimum lot size for that district is 10,000 square feet The Percival's property is 37,266 square feet Conditions of Approval 1 Approval of City Engmeer 2 Legal survey to be recorded 3 A utility/drainage easement shall be provided as required by the City Engineer Recommendation Approval as conditioned Fmdmgs The resubdivision meets the development regulations of the zoning and subdivision ordinances Attachments Application Form/Letter from Applicant/Maps I „se No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 kcJ-e:tr'D *L�(3O sc.i3loo-(03 ACTION REQUESTED Fees Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 _Variance $70/200 ✓T7tesubdivision $100 _Subdivision* $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* $300 Planning Unit Development * $500 _Certificate of Compliance $70 _Design Review $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and eng►neer:ng fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of al! forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (0 e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications o eS t r k e p 1 clat Az? ue s i /4 fi ra el, d PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION )oaf 4 IL-d) G-A>1e gicPJr Gi-- Address of Project /uJ 5 is A51c Q(d), c,rG Ce Assessor's Parcel No (GEO Code) Zoning District Description of Project Pe S , b (I, %, i s, AJ e,C L L T S 17i 1 t, ) x f /oat 1 i (211' AdcP i n0,,.) oh-k- 6--Ce#41 "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property OwnerJ l m `1 LkA 5 ,n ck. h eN Mailing Address t o of S eCA 5 Lia et a'j-e G T City - State - Zip Sr) // w a *c r i Mat' sSo 8 3 Telephone No 1-130— /d ) C Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces H \MCNAMARA\SHEILA\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 ir • • 4/25/00 REQUEST FOR RESUBDIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION Jim & Andrea Jungmann (1025 Eagle Ridge CT ) along with Carl & Tracy Baglio (1027 Eagle Ridge CT ) have agreed with Dave & Patti Percival (1028 Eagle Ridge Circle) to resubdivide the above properties with the approval from the Planning Commission The parties above would like to move the adjoining property marker approximately 15 feet into the Percival property (Diagram attached) The movement of this property marker would allow the Jungmann s and the Baglio s to maintain a hill that is on the back portion of the Percival s property The legal descriptions of these lots are as follows Jim & Andrea Jungmann 1025 Eagle Ridge CT Lot 17 Block 1 12th Addition Carl & Tracy Baglio 1027 Eagle Ridge CT Lot 18 Block 1 126 Addition Dave & Patti Percival 1028 Eagle Ridge Circle Lot 22 Block 1 12th Addition Please call Jim Jungmann at 651-770-2042 or 651-430-1276 if there are any questions Sincerely 9in7t- 9€44.7,---- Jim Jungmann I Y /1 f PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUP/00-64 Planning Commission Date September 11, 2000 Project Location 1820 Market Dnve Comprehensive Plan District Business Park Commercial Zoning District BP-C Applicants Name David Reimer, Urban Associates representing Dairy Queen Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A Special Use Permit for the construction of a dnve thru facility for Dairy Queen Discussion The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for a drive thru facility that would be on the southwest side of the building The drive thru window would have a 10 car stacking lane, a drive lane and six parallel parkmg spaces The zoning ordinance (CD31 63 subd 25 (3) states that with a drive through facility must have ten stacking spaces for drive-in window, with a minimum of five spaces designated for the ordering station Conditions of Approval 1 Approval of Fire Chief Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings 1 The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the mtent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations, 2 Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed, and 3 The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community Attachments Application Form/Letter/Site Plan HPC Action 9/6/00 Design approval +5-0 • 08/24/2000 08 05 4308810 CITY OF STILLWATEP PAGE 02 Mailing Address City - State - Zip Minneapolis, MN 55435 City - State - Zip Minneapolis, MN 55435 Telephone No (952) 921-5822 Telephone No (952) -5822 Signature Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Fi es $5U200 $7u200 $1i 0 $100+o011ot Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $5 0 Zoning Amendment* $3)0 Planning Unit Development * $530 Certificate of Compliance $7 _,Design Review $25 *An escrow fee Is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant Is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and suppor4ng material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , phott s, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required w,th applications x Special/Condit►onal Use Permit Variance Resubdivis►on �Subdivision* PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 1820 Market Drive Assessors Parcel No 32-030-20-33-000E 32-030-20-33-001E BP — C (GE0 Code) Zoning DistnctBus Pk Com Description of Project Special Use Permit for a drive up window to an 11,000 SF retail/restaurant building "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submiffe l herewith In all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify 1 will comply w,th file permit if 1t is granted and used Urban Associates/Stillwater Property Owner Marketplace III, LLC 3601 Minnesota Drive, #880 Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area 93,262 SF Mailing Address Representative David Reimer 3601 Minnesota Drive., #880 Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION xirregular __ Height of Buildings Stories Principal 1 - Accessory Feet Total Building floor area 11,136 squan feet Existing 11,136 square feet Proposed o square feet Paved impervious Area 138 square feet No of off-street parking spaces H WI(YJAMaRMAI•Mii MDI nueoo eel. FILE COPY • • • STILLWATER MARKET PLACE RETAIL CENTER PHASE III 9/5/2000 TENANT BUILDING AREA 11 015 SQ FT MECHANICAL ARFA 121 SQ FT PARKING STALL DATA TOTAL 138 parking stalls standard parlung stall 9 -0 e 18 -0 standard HC stall 96 a 18 0 with 60 space on side 8/9/2000 cADD A DRIVE UP WINDOW TO ).' .\_____/ 2400 SP TENANT SPACE r-.J 0 20 60 120 ` 200 GRAPHIC 2/7/2000 OWNER - DEVELOPER URBAN ASSOCIATES Contact Person. David Raimsr (612)-921-5822 SCALE STILLWATER MARIKT PLACE PHASE III 13= Smith west intemetion of IMieikis Dine & One Get BIKL &Nia Minn= r Urban Associates, Inc. • August 25, 2000 Sue Fitzgerald City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re Special Use Permit Stillwater Marketplace III Stillwater, MN Dear Sue 3601 Minnesota Dnve Suite 880 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Telephone (612) 921-5822 Fax (612) 921-5801 Enclosed please find twelve copies of the Site Plan and Planning Administration Form m request that we be given a Special Use Permit for a dnve up wmdow at Stillwater Marketplace III Due to internal considerations, Leeann Chin has decided not to open a restaurant within Stillwater Marketplace III As a result, they are trymg to sublet their space to another restaurant use They have reached a sublease agreement with the local Dairy Queen operator subject to Dairy Queen gettmg a drive up window as shown on the enclosed Site Plan Dairy Queen will be movmg from their current location in the St Croix Mall in Oak Park Heights The dnve up window will be on the back at the southwest end of the building The location on the rear of the buildmg is ideal because it will allow ample room for stacking along the back side of the buildmg Thank you for your considerations on our behalf Please call if you have any questions Smcerely yours, ka, David L Reimer President Enclosures • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/00-65 Planning Commission Date September 11, 2000 Project Location 1312 4th Avenue South Comprehensive Plan Distnct Two Family Residential Zoning Distnct RB Applicants Name William Rust, representing Alan and Sandra Roth Type of Application Vanance Project Descnption A Vanance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction of an attached garage Discussion The applicant is requesting a Vanance to the rear yard setback to construct an attached garage The garage will replace an existing detached two -car garage that is on the south side of the lot Recommendation Denial of Vanance request, due to lack of hardship Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the project, staff suggests the following conditions of approval 1 Drainage from the roof shall remain on site 2 The garage shall be similar in style, colors and matenals as the main structure 3 All plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighbonng violations are not hardships justifying a vanance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special pnvilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the vanance will not be of substantial detnment to adjacent property and not matenally impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Site Plan • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED 1/4 0 —405. Q rx,, Fees _Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 Variance $70/200 Resubdivision $100 Subdivision* $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Design Review $300 $500 $70 $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications ' t PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 1 Address of Project 131 2 i1' GWe r)L (J .Sowth Assessor's Parcel No (GEO Code) Zoning District ' Ya Description of Project 0vrL ban a0€. FraoM\ S w Ctru,)�n.. Ore- 5 (Tr T, 0 us) (r.rta0.-rL + 1'1( 7tM CATI.OH.) T. [Ar,ir.- r / ADO tnv -iuR%-e7t_ "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submiffed herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner .A iSa-ociret. R o---h Mailing Address /3)2 firh GZvf 5-. City - State - Zip S-A Jf M N SS o'2 Telephone No (n SJ- .3 5'1- J ZO y Telephone No Signature Signature Representative ?us-t- PI') rzwi br,hJ , W&u.dtiri.)i Mailing Address 2..V7 'MI ST poi,coiabc-PS City - State - Zi ViIWt, t')t4‘..l.aw.., F'lhwk, :SITU A` , _;,' 1 k.! R-w. r. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions)1e)x 130 Land Area 14) ,'"' c)o � -± Height of Buildings Stories Principal -2- Accessory 1 Feet Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces !.' -f- H \MCNAMARA\SHFILA\Pl ANAPP FRM June 22 2000 09/07/00 THU 14 28 FAX Zooi to 7671 g To From CcJDept Co 42 Phone # __ " ''y� �`I �yL4tr P110114 #4420l' 1,13 fax 9 0 Fax a LS Ort u®sY • IL I t6r VI 11 i " r. \kLiwir: 1 T_ 1 1 SIT t a. _ — "v 1..41.44440.41 ta k h el Maws &MP S �,[Ts n YJCT� i i E1in a 7i I°q i) o in) • )0 V/00 -6 f 1036 ST r 1 Old c 506 J BURLI NGTCIN 5-503 O JJ z 1209 1213 1 1204 1212 1220 12.15 "1277 516 0 CD .. EAST ST LOU I S 1209 STREET 603 / 1205 / 1204 1215 . f)224 1214 '-' 0- f /12 STREET 1303 . 1315 1302 /131 /1316 1331 . 1332 1347 1348 1305/ 1312 • 0 132� 615 130w- 8 f 143-- 13 w • 1 AH . 65TH STREE STREET Location Map z AST ORLEAI NORTH R2IW R2OW RI9W R22W R21k R2OW Vanity Map 0 163 Scale in Feet 1113 aaYa b To Woad .n{iYa fl npWrA, on. wads �p>bv.t.wedn ta. Coat/ alfos• me draw/nip VW bud b. Werra. Maas at.%W Carty rY Rv.1fB JCS ab 9urp! Cam Pool dote Mal ts� WNW 'RSA Arm 2CCO PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/00-66 Planning Commission Date September 11, 2000 Project Location 406 South Hemlock Street Comprehensive Plan Distnct Single Family Residential Zoning Distnct RA Applicants Name Virgil and Janet Crowder Type of Application Vanance Project Descnption A Vanance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction of a four season porch Discussion The applicant is requesting a Vanance to the side yard setback to construct a four season porch The porch would follow the line of the existing house The applicants have studied vanous locations in which to build a porch Concluding that the middle of the back of the house is where all of their furnace vents and air conditioner are located The northwest corner of the house has some large bushes and a large pine tree that would have to be removed They have also stated that constructing a porch on the northwest side of the building is to close to the street Recommendation Approval as conditioned Conditions of Approval 1 The addition shall be similar in style, colors and matenals as the existing house 2 Construction drawings shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official 3 Drainage shall remain on site Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighbonng violations are not hardships justifying a vanance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties in the same distnct and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special pnvilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors • 3 That the authonzing of the variance will not be of substantial detrunent to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter/Site Plan/Floor Plan/Photos • • • • • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No V oo 7(9 OO PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED Fees COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 _Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 X Variance $70/200 Resubdivision $100 _Subdivision* $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 _Certificate of Compliance $70 _Design Review $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications PROPERTY/IDENTIFICATION Address of Project L/v 6 S //C /✓I `ci c JC S rAssessor's Parcel No /an o 1-6 ' ,EQ Code) Zoning District Description of Project e d s "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with file permit if it is granted a d used " C%c 7o n grip b C,C-ow E)- `, j}�� ) �} ° ;bee, G �oi _Y / Property Owner \`r� x � � ,� i‘�- Representative 2g� � t MailinAddress L4 O L S r't 2 w \o c, K - Mailing Address ,?5 7� C 7 "TH / lc 9 City - State - Zip k-S1- � \ ` �� e-" Vs-k City - State - Zip Al 3 / 'Pep i' % ll�/I Telephone No S 1 - LA Q - %i'%`t J �� Telephone No 7 7 a — 0 �.1 Signature vt,vri-7- Signature �6-tf-7 7p_�Q � ;ND o.-�9 ou!�-o-�/@ O0 S E PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 7S x / Sd Total Building floor area square feet Land Area Existing square feet Height of Buildings Stories / Feet Proposed square feet Principal Paved Impervious Area square feet Accessory No of off-street parking spaces • ;4. ;••• T lw 7.4." , A • 2:444-44 4 k•T'f!..4 fier7.3.3 300 15 STREET 4 McK1NSTR`' 9 1 P51 50 8 m 00 DS0 9995 8 00 50 2 H 0cn A PINE 9995 2 P ml 6 00 12 4 P. 01 So 999. Pml k 90 50 5 P ) 50 30 30 WEST 0 m 5029 v CI 1'3 16 SoP®a a 1 x 5), WEST 1 8, 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 RAMSEY 50 50 n 50 00 50 P55.5 50 0 P�1 50 90 55 5 AND I„9p 25 9 0, 0 10 M 11 50 50 EOm 12 13 0 OAK a 3 a 0 -so /US' 2 0 50 50 1 999 2 a 999 3 DP 0 9. „a1 .992 10 9 • )0092 10 11 50 S0 50 STREET CONVETEDBV 3 AREA'472 Ooo,Ba� 1 2 1 3 of 0 0 0 2 W 2 oi 50 DP 0 3 PO 2 39 2 PO 91 22500 255 Location Map 8 0 $fw 8 4 P0B ry 50 2 11 SO 55 5 P0e1 50 8 R WILLARD 5023 1 Pa 50.23 8 3. So Pm9 50 8 1- 0 B0 50 90 z Imm1 CSAH 5o Pep 03 P = 5 5 SEELEY' 50 I 50 $ b AC.A ED WEST Oa(ST9ER 0 11 50 13. 2 10 R 8 e0 1- 0 0) 440 50 BOOK Soros AGE 33 12 11 8 �1 8 51 AREA MOT OEOCC0E0 5 7 1 50 1 b 5 cP® 50 1- W W d' co 0 ce 0 50 4 to- STREET L CO 250 LAKESHORE PER 99 AERIAL PHOTO R2IW R2OW R19W R2W R2IW R2OW Vasty Map 11 0 174 Scale in Feet 1119 0sr5y the maid mr59mm awlr4onmm dbdma. 92 19y 590.9 "0.9 Wdiam,My calm lls ewe. deb E. umf b lasso Wome 99y yrmera+�fLAb rd rep9)9Eeb ny=com4 9s.omWAiytn Car..y 9n9pr C15s Rise I60 109®5 Peal dam 5.910 AS1009amr900, eR9u 59040 J.9 a ID00 MAP 9eb_ kPs1$ moB • ..a a ,� 1 � cekAu.0 Vic) . --- �.-Lr � �A ►-� . �1� C..Q & -) c, jr( .W ( Vi_,v" , V tit u�-0 iC —�, -Sri ,,sum c —Q,.,e oLa/k) ,\;_rt_Vat • C;ISk4ll ,V w Coca PiNt (as l - 3 `t - S-6 1 o Lo .I.4ti 1 Lexk Sa J -'I U-tiA1 -, ICI ►I Q 15-n IZ°'I // i Go 411. PF�t'l o F KlYftuc, 133 o oL.Q (►g �xlt�f } Ivusc. emivtffFv SPt,ct 15 v • West Side Perspective No Scale South Side Perspective No Scale Crowder Residence 1 406 Hemlock St So Stillwater, MN I* F-- 2 CO Drawn By Don H 0 0 0 N N 7 a)0 co CI Rossbach Construction 2578 7th Ave E No St Paul, MN 0 in > a) ft 1 9 0 N Marvin ICA2959 2 Casements `4_ Marvin ICA2959-2 Casements i I II � I I, at 1 12'-0' Proposed Porch Relocate Exist Patio Door I 1 Family Room j 101-0" Relocated Patio Door 2 Concrete Patio 0 00 Floor Plan 1 /4"=1'-0" • MEMO • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Comprehensive Trail Plan Date September 7, 2000 Enclosed for your review is the draft Comprehensive City Trail Plan Direction for preparation of the plan is contained in the Comprehensive Plan The plan considers all types of nonmotonzed trails, sidewalks, multipurpose separated trails, on street bike trail and nature trails The purpose of the plan is to provide overall policy direction for trail improvements through City capital improvements and development trail requirements Commissioner's should read the report and check out proposed trails in your neighborhood The plan is being presented to the Commission for your information and comments Over the next month, a joint public heanng will be set with the Parks Board to receive public comment on the draft plan After the public heanng, the Parks Board and Planning Commission can make any changes and recommend it for adoption to the City Council Attachment Draft Comprehensive City Trail Plan • e Comprehensive Trail Plan for City of Stillwater Community Development Department Fall 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN 1 INTRODUCTION - OVERVIEW AND PLANNING PROCESS 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 UNDERSTANDING THE USER BICYCLISTS UNDERSTANDING THE STREETS 5 5 7 TRAIL DESIGN BIKEWAY TYPES AND DESIGN ELEMENTS 8 TYPES OF FACILITIES 8 SIDEWALKS AND BICYCLISTS 13 INTERSECTION DESIGN 13 TRAIL SURFACES 14 Disadvantages 14 Advantages 14 Disadvantages 15 Advantages 15 Disadvantages 16 GOALS AND STANDARDS 16 OVERALL TRAIL SYSTEM GOALS 16 TRAIL DESIGN GOALS 16 SPECIFIC LOCATION GOALS 17 THE COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN 17 MAINTENANCE 18 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 20 The following are a set of funding and implementation guidelines 20 MAINTENANCE 20 BASIC REFERENCES 21 APPENDIX A AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT GUIDELINES FOR TRAILS 22 GENERAL GUIDE 22 SPECIFIC GUIDE 22 APPENDIX B MINNESOTA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 26 • • • • Executive Summary Key Elements of the Plan The goal of the Stillwater Comprehensive Trail Plan is to increase pedestrian and bicycle transportation and safety Walking and bicycling should play a greater part in the Stillwater transportation system Bicycles are an efficient and inexpensive form of transportation which, with increased use, could improve livability of the community, improve Stillwater's air quality, and reduce roadway congestion The history of bicycle and pedestrian planning in Stillwater proves that without a plan, development can move into the area with little consideration for a holistic approach to pathway design Major barriers and problems exist which deter the great maJority of people, including active recreational cyclists, from using the bicycle as a regular means of transportation Many of these barriers and problems have been identified • Gaps in the system How to complete the bicycle/pedestrian system and connect destinations • Institutionalization How to include "bicycle thinking" in all City transportation and Public Works projects and coordinate efforts among City departments such as Parks Board, Planning and Development, Public Works and Transportation • Parking How to get parking facilities that allow bicyclists to lock their bikes securely • Attitude How to promote the concept of "share the road" (and hike and multi -use trails) to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestnans The Plan concludes with a proposed network of trails, a maintenance scheme, and an implementation strategy 1 • • • INTRODUCTION - Overview and Planning Process The Pedestnan/Bicycle Trail Plan of the City of Stillwater sets forth a Comprehensive Citywide Trail Plan and long-term program to guide future planning, design and implementation of a trail system for residents for recreational and non -automotive travel Central to the plan is linking and interconnecting neighborhoods within the city and further developing and emphasizing the downtown and natural areas as a focal point of community activity Additionally, the Plan proposes linking the community -oriented trail system with the existing and proposed Washington County and State trail systems For clanty purposes, in this Plan the term trail is used to reflect numerous possible configurations of routes designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and other non - motorized users Throughout this plan, the term `pedestnan' can refer to walkers and wheelchairs Likewise, the term `bicycle' can refer to all modes of people -powered transportation requinng a hard, usually paved, surface This group can include, but is not limited to, bicyclists, rollerbladers, rollerskiers and skateboarders, etc A trail may be an independent right-of-way or easement with a surface width of 8 to 12 feet Other times a trail may be an existing or proposed sidewalk designated by signage as a component of a bicycle or pedestrian route The Comprehensive Trail Plan has been developed to be consistent with existing and future residential developments included in the city's 1995 Comprehensive Plan Through a process of surveying existing roadways and trails, identifying destinations, adopting planning guidelines, and proposing new trails, we hope to achieve the Parks, Riverfront and Trails goals as outlined in Comprehensive Plan These include • "Designate an extensive network of trails and pathway corridors " • "Preserve and provide visual access to quality landscapes through trail location " • "Provide alternative means to reach city parks, county parks, regional parks, state parks and other community destinations " • "Preserve and enhance public owned ravines " • "Maximize the city's recreation opportunities " Further, regional plans such as the Washington County Trail Program, the Brown's Creek Wetland Distnct, the City of Oak Park Heights and state -funded trails have been considered and anticipated in this Plan The Trail Plan stems from the community's increasing desire to enjoy enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities and coincides with societal needs of reducing dependence upon the automobile for inter -city mobility Walking, hiking, and bicycling are recreational activities that can be enjoyed by persons of all ages, in either groups or as individuals Based on a resident opinion survey there is significant community interest in improving the walkway/pathway system in and around Stillwater Pathways add to the "quality of life" and "sense of community" of an area and to the relationship of one neighborhood to another Stillwater residents are not alone in having a desire for more walking and bicycling opportunities Across the nation more cities, town and villages are adopting trail plans and implementing those plans The development of the Trail Plan is an outgrowth of the work of the Planning Commission, Parks Board and an intern under the direction of the Community Development Director, which has established the overall Plan layout The committees are composed of elected 2 • and appointed city officials Input has also come from numerous civic organizations and pnvate citizens representing both the interests of their neighborhoods and the overall city Late June 2000 marked the beginning of a senes of meetings between the Planning Committee and the Parks Board including interested residential input concerning pedestrian/bicycle trail activities During these meetings a variety of issues were discussed relating to the scope of the overall plan Topics including trail relationships to existing natural open spaces such as wetlands and floodplains, man-made open spaces such as parks and re/detention areas, and safety considerations including the concerns of handicap accessibility were discussed Pnonty routes or linkages through the city, the nature of the trail system and trail safety, and future plan funding mechanisms and land acquisition have also been deliberated throughout the process Following review of the proposed Comprehensive Trail Plan by the Planning Commission, the Parks Board and the public, the City Council will consider and adopt the Plans The Plan will then be the official policy for providing future trail improvements Existing Conditions The planning process began with a survey of the existing trailway network This process involved data collection from multiple resources including field surveys, aenal photography survey, as well as data retrieval from recent sidewalk improvement programs The data compilation resulted in the following map of existing trails (figure 1) Pedestrians and bicyclists already use all existing roadways and trails, but consideration for pedestnan and bicycle mobility is inadequate in most instances because facilities to encourage safe use of bicycles are not routinely designed into new or renovated roadways Study of the existing trails map began our analytical process We noticed fragmentation throughout the network Although the existing city (old Stillwater) holds the largest amount of sidewalks, certain areas can benefit with the addition of new sidewalks The north hill (-5 5 miles existing, —6 0 miles without), in particular, could benefit in the same manner the south hill (-6 5 miles, 3 0 miles without) did dunng their latest sidewalk improvement Another concern within the city is the degree to which our existing sidewalks comply to the design standards of the Americans' with Disabilities Act (ADA) Design standards such as slope, cross -slope and curb ramp accessibility are a few to be assessed for future improvement and compliance with ADA regulations Many of the existing sidewalks do not meet these standards Importantly, our next examination was sidewalk and trail way networks to -and -from community schools within the school district required walking areas Notice the walker area as the thin black circular line surrounding the schools (figure 1) Students required to walk live within one mile of secondary educational facilities and three-quarters of a mile from elementary educational facilities When overlaying the required walking area over the city existing trails map, it is startling to realize how much of our city falls within this polygon Providing safe and comfortable walking routes to -and -from schools for every community should be at the forefront of future development and improvement plans Beyond the 'old Stillwater' trail network lies vanous city and county trails that provide the foundation for improvements These existing trails serve as a corner stone or framework, creating necessary linkages between the downtown and the expansion area So dear to the hearts 3 • rigure 1 Existing City Trails • • of many Minnesotian's are our many lakes Stillwater is no less fortunate in our abundance of lakes Therefore, we should look to increase our educational and recreational opportunities along our many lakes Circumnavitable trails around city lakes can serve as passive recreation as well as provide an interpretive educational expenence The heavily used trail along Lake McKusick provides a focus of activity for the immediate Oak Glen community We look to expand this trail into a network for safe, continuous pedestrian navigation through all of Stillwater's communities We found no designated on -road city operated (there are county facilities) bicycle routes within the city Where there are no designated facilities, no bicycle signage exists Stillwater also contains large tracks of right-of-way and easement greenway corridors with no real public access All communities could enjoy an enhanced natural experience with designated access and trail ways through our greenway comdors The Legends and Liberty developments are the first in a multi -phase annexation and development within the city expansion area As development occurs dunng Stillwater's many phases of annexation, developers are required to meet our standards for trail design It is essential that we create a comprehensive plan including non -confrontational passage between developing neighborhoods As development occurs and Stillwater remains a focus for Metropolitan activity, the safety of our roads for pedestnans and bicyclists is a growing concern Aside from harassment from motonsts, general traffic volumes have increased to a breaking point The days of going for a leisurely county walk or rollerblade along pastoral Boutwell road are dwindling with ever increasing traffic Lack of space is threatening safe recreation along Stillwater's roadways promoting an unhealthy community Meeting pedestnans' and bicyclists' needs should be a city-wide objective within transportation related departments This policy is a major part of increasing the acceptance of bicycling as a legitimate transportation mode Design standards which safely accommodate bicycles should be applied to all new street and roadway projects A cost effective way to increase ridership levels is to make on -street bicycling conditions better for commuters Providing adequate street width to accommodate both bicycles and automobiles safely can encourage more commuting and utilitanan bicycle taps Facility improvements such as intersection modification, connections between routes, signal actuators, and comprehensive signing improvements can make bicycling more inviting Streets designated as bicycle routes at one time can be restnped or otherwise modified with wide curb lanes and a minimum number of stop signs These routes should also meet both neighborhood and cyclists' needs through the incorporation of traffic management schemes that reduce traffic speeds, cut -through traffic, and the differential in speeds between motonzed and non-motonzed modes These traffic management schemes can offset undesirable increases in speed from wider lane widths in some cases Management strategies will be discussed throughout the following sections Understanding the User Bicyclists Bicyclists have a wide range of abilities Some are advanced these cyclists bicycle frequently, are in relatively good physical condition and may have special training Other • 5 cyclists may not get out on their bicycle often enough to really feel comfortable in traffic, or perhaps do not have strong physical capabilities Child cyclists are an especially vulnerable group They often do not understand traffic rules, are unable to gauge the speed of approaching vehicles, and are not as physically coordinated as adults are In an effort to better understand bicycle users groups and their specific needs for bicycle facilities, a system of classifying cyclists by their age and ability has been developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Group A — Advanced Bicyclists Expenenced nders who can operate under most traffic conditions, they compnse the majonty of the current users of collector and arterial streets and are best served by the following • Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street and highway system • The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with minimum delays • Sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder to reduce the need for either the bicyclist or the motor vehicle operator to change position when passing Group B — Basic Bicyclists These are casual or new adult and most teenage nders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles Some will develop greater skills and progress to the advanced level, but there will always be many millions of basic bicyclists They prefer • Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct route, either low -speed, low traffic -volume streets or designated bicycle facilities • Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on artenal and collector streets (bike lanes or shoulders), or on separate bike paths Group C - Children Cyclists Pre -teen nders whose roadway use is initially monitored by parents, eventually they are accorded independent access to the system They and their parents prefer the following • Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas, including schools, recreation facilities, shopping, or other residential areas • Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and volumes • Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on artenal and collector streets, or on separate bike paths Bicycling takes much more coordination and physical skill than does dnving an automobile Cyclists vary widely in age and ability The Bicycle Federation of Amenca estimates that only five percent of cyclists are advanced, and that ninety-five percent of all cyclists fall under the basic and child cyclist categones By understanding the needs of these cyclists, engineers are better able to choose an appropnate facility type and design, while also considenng current roadway conditions and limitations • 6 • • Understanding the Streets Planning and designing for bicyclists involves different approaches for different situations and purposes For instance, an arterial street requires a different approach than a residential street Similarly, the approach taken will vary with intention Here are some commonly found situations and the approaches most often used 1 Arterial streets are among the busiest streets in any community Expenenced bicyclists often prefer arterials for their traffic controls and directness Other nders tend to avoid them, if possible, because of the traffic The benefits for bicyclists include the aforementioned traffic controls and directness Arterials, for instance, may be the only streets that break certain barriers like railroad yards, freeways, and nvers But artenals increasingly provide other benefits to cyclists as well Many popular destination —schools, worksites, shops —can only be found along artenals For destination-onented bicyclists, therefore, using artenals may be the only alternative Basic options for improving artenal streets include • Wide curb lanes • Bike lanes 2 Collector streets are generally less busy and have fewer lanes than arterial streets Often, the lighter traffic makes for a less stressful nde for many bicyclists and the less "hardcore" nders tend to gravitate towards such streets While collector streets typically have less traffic than arterials, they still — by definition — go somewhere Unlike many residential streets, they can reach destinations that are important to bicyclists In some cases, improving a collector that parallels a major artenal can provide a viable alternative route for many bicyclists Basic improvements for collector streets include the same measures as for arterial streets but they may be easier to implement • Wide curb lanes • Bike lanes • Bike routes 3 Residential streets typically don't warrant special provisions like bike lanes or wide curb lanes However, given that they harbor young bicyclists and casual family riders, there are some important issues to consider For example, several key types of residential street bike/car crashes involve bicyclists and motorists being unable to see each other in time to avoid a collision In some intersections, for example, their views are blocked by vegetation and fences In addition, residential streets that serve as commuter routes can often benefit from traffic calming approaches The purpose of traffic calming is to slow and discourage throught traffic in neighborhoods Therefore, residential streets may benefit from basic sight distance improvements and, where warranted, traffic calming measures • Sight distance • Traffic calming • • 4 Rural roads and highways are roads that travel through an area with rural land uses Typically, it has no curbs, gutters, or adjacent sidewalks, it may have drainage ditches or swales, however Some rural highways are trunk lures through highly -traveled corridors and, as a result, carry very high volumes of traffic Others serve a few farms or serve as "back ways" between two destinations otherwise served by major highways Virtually all rural roads carry high speed traffic and this has senous implications for safe bicycling Being hit by a high speed motor vehicle bnngs with it a high risk of death Fortunately, such incidents are relatively rare —probably at least in part because rural bicycle traffic is low and the nders tend to be skilled —but they are a serious concern when planning for bicycling in either rural or newly developing areas On very low volume rural roads, little improvement is generally needed for bicyclists If such roads are popular bicycling routes, eliminating basic roadway hazards and, perhaps, installing route signs may be all that is needed On higher volume rural roads — particularly those with significant percentages of truck traffic — providing adequate smoothly -paved shoulders is one of the most helpful improvements possible Here are some of the most useful measures • Paved shoulders • Interstate highway policies • Rural route mapping Trail Design Bikeway Types and Design Elements There are many books and papers dedicated to trail/bikeway design and engineering A federally supported guide published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provides nation-wide standards and guidelines, as do most states' Department of Transportation In 1996, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) published a comprehensive engineenng and planning guide called, Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines We have adopted this guide as a standard for engineenng for trails the city designs in the future (Appendix A) We will also require developers to design to our standard, and hence, the standards set forth by MnDOT Lobbyists for the Amencans with Disabilities Act have also published a set of design standards for compliance with ADA regulations (Appendix B) We will design to achieve these standards in effort to supply the public with the most universal of all recreation The following section provides general recommendations for selecting roadway design treatments to accommodate bicyclists Specific dimensions are suggested for the width of the recommended facility type These recommendations reflect the current state of practice in the design of bicycle fnendly roadways Types of Facilities According to MnDOT there are six types of on -road facilities to accommodate bicycle traffic 1 Bicycle Lanes, 2 Combination Bus/Bicycle Lanes, 3 Shared Lanes, 4 Wide Curb or Wide Ooutside Lanes, 5 Shoulders, 6 Traffic Calmed -Roadways The manual also descnbes 8 path planning and engineering in great detail Refer to Chapters four and five of the MnDOT Bikeways Manual (Appendix A) for guidelines on these types of facilities 1 Bicycle Lanes Bike lanes should always be one-way facilities carrying traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic, and should not be placed between parking spaces and the curb They encourage cycling by providing a visible reminder that provisions have been made to a particular roadway to accommodate cyclists Bicycle Ianes offer the cyclist more space than other on -road bikeways, thereby addressing the need for increased maneuverability for basic and child cyclists The MnDOT guide finds that field studies confirm bike lanes have a strong channelizing effect on motor vehicles and bicycles Bike lane stnpes are intended to promote the orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles Bike lane signs and pavement markings support this effect Bike lane stnpes can increase bicyclists' confidence that motonsts will not stray into their path of travel if they remain in the bike lane Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motonsts are less apt to swerve towards opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists The impact of marked bike lanes is particularly important for nders with less confidence of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles These lanes offer a designated and visible space for bicyclists and can be a significant factor in route choice Motonsts also benefit from the channehzing effect of bike lanes, because bike lanes increase the total capacities of highways carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic The installation of bicycle lanes between residential areas and shopping / office areas is one important factor in encouraging local citizens to bicycle commute livilitu hIIIIIIItlAtIIBI �'B ' Aro Vbtke lane -2'ii 4min! unitflfll?tuutP aiei tol Illl�l�tlNIIIIlI1�d�lill�TiiTp�f�Il�flllTill�lg�,l[glll�®8laili�IT�IiI��l1�6(tllT�lrLitllI a IWke lane!ll 14mn -2. lane Math and number of lance Yafl@e Figure 2 Standard Cross Section Bicycle Lanes (PACTS 1995) • 9 • • • Bicycle lanes are always one-way facilities and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic On two-way streets, bicycle lanes should always be located on both sides of the road Bicycle lanes should be installed on the nght-hand side of one-way streets, unless installing the lane on the left-hand side can reduce conflicts The standard width of bicycle lanes in Stillwater should be five feet wide, with four feet being the minimum width allowable (exclusive of the gutter pan) Bike lane pavement and sub -base should always have the same depth and quality as the adjacent roadway Bike lanes are not required to have curb and gutter 2 Paved Shoulders Paved shoulders for bicycles serve the needs of all types of cyclists in rural areas In urban areas, paved shoulders may be preferable for group A (advanced) cyclists on arterial roadways with high speeds (over 50 mph) When designed to National and/or MnDOT standards for bicycle facilities, paved shoulders can be signed as bicycle routes Shoulders should be a minimum of four feet to six feet wide to accommodate cyclists The ideal width should be dependent upon traffic volumes and speed limit As with bicycle lanes, paved shoulders should have the same pavement thickness and sub -base as the adjacent roadway, should have the same cross slope as the adjacent roadway, and should be regularly swept and kept free of potholes tsits! - u J iitAkew db optional moulimmininm ingliuinminii 1111111111¶fIlMI11111iUM1n1n1Ff1111111111IDi 1M111l[d1111[(R1111111MI nimmaunm uuimul min nimmini 4 min. Jana width and number of lanes rarie, 4 man Figure 3 Standard Cross Section Paved Shoulders (PACTS 1995) The Stillwater City limits and annexation area is fortunate to already have many roadways with wide paved shoulders If the road is desired for bicycle travel, the existing 10 • paved shoulders should either be stnped as bicycle lanes or signed as bicycle routes, given that their current condition is adequate and that regular maintenance needs are met 3 Wide Outside Lanes Outside lanes that are wider than a standard twelve feet travel lane can provide more space for cyclists and easier passing for motonsts Wide outside lanes best accommodate group A (advanced) cyclists, as these nders are more comfortable operating directly in traffic 1111111111111I111111111111111111d1!((Ti LJ1111111010 l llflIIIIIIIII'(I111[I(lillill 1 i Z *he sd uss lane 14 I eha ed uee 1a a u Figure 4 Standard Cross Section Wide Outside Lanes (PACTS 1995) Wide outside lanes can serve as an interim bicycle facility on roadways where the adequate width for a bicycle lane is not yet achievable (every effort should be made to develop standard bicycle lanes where possible) The wide outside lane is always the furthest nght-hand lane, and should optimally be fourteen feet wide Wide outside lanes should never be more than fifteen feet wide, as additional width may allow motonsts to pass each other on the right The engineer should also consider that the wider lane will encourage faster motor vehicle speeds Wide outside lanes are not required to have curb and gutter 4 Multi -Use Trails Multi -use trails are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and built either within an independent nght-of-way (such as a utility or railroad nght-of-way), or along specially acquired easements across pnvate lands Such trails cater to a variety of users, including cyclists, pedestrians, Joggers, rollerbladers, rollersluers and wheelchairs Possible conflicts 11 • between these user groups must be considered during the design phase, as cyclists often travel at a faster speed than other users optional canter tins strips I ies: i., 11111M11111IIIIulintinn� hisinil�n�f MIIIIIIIliuI1M11m1111ffi mmum illimmwtlgmill 1ti111UIC1inoiliatitl I111p1m 1 1 I l 1111111 1I 10* .ada in n. 1714 aid. optima( Figure 5 Standard Cross Section Multi -Use Trail (PACTS 1995) The AASHTO Guide and MnDOT define a bicycle path as A pathway physically separated from motonzed vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway nght-of-way or within an independent nght-of-way Two-way multi -use paths should be at least 10 ft wide Where possible, especially if bicycle or pedestrian traffic is expected to be high, paths should be 12 ft wide Given the vanety of users of most bicycle paths, 8-ft widths will generally not be adequate heavily used trails Heavy use is defined by AASHTO as 25 cyclists and 25 pedestrians per hour, above these volumes paths should be 12-13 ft wide Movement along existing pathways does not approach heavy classification, though it may in the future at particular times of day One- way bicycle paths have limited application, as without stnct enforcement they will be used as two-way facilities If they are provided, however, they should be at least 5 ft wide Child and beginning cyclists prefer separate bicycle paths for recreational purposes These facilities can be aesthetically pleasing and direct Multi -use paths can help cyclists and pedestrians avoid harassment and motonst threat in urban areas, although they sometimes do not allow access to important destinations in congested areas Off -road trails offer a convenient and pleasant alternative, as well as an opportunity for a novice cyclist to get some nding expenence in a less threatemng environment Separate paths must be constructed with adequate width and markings, according to MnDOT standards, in those locations where they are perhaps the choice available to provide bicycle transportation and recreation corridors 12 • • One of the greatest advantages the Parks Board and the community receive from multi- use trails is a truly universal recreation Multi -use trails include benefits for all ages and multi user groups Proper multi -use trail design can promote compatibility between the different user groups they attract An important aspect of which we should not loose sight is that these trails exist for the fun of the community As long as users remember that everyone is there for the same objective, guard should be relaxed and conflict between user groups can be remedied as quickly as possible Proper signage including trail etiquette and guidelines can be implemented Anyone complaining about the safety of a trail associated with user group interest should be reminded these facilities are built to accommodate all types of recreation that would normally be a part of our roadway network Be reminded of the many conflicts pedestrians and bicyclists encounter when travelling next to automobiles 5 Bicycle Routes A bicycle route is a "suggested way" for a cyclist to get from a point of origin to a destination Such a route may be preferable for bicycling for a number of reasons including directness, scenery, less congestion and lower vehicle speed limits Bicycle routes may be used by all type of cyclists A street does not necessanly have to be widened in order to be designated as a bicycle route A road with standard twelve -foot wide lanes (or less) can be designated as a bike route with the appropriate signage 6 Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking, including provisions for bike racks, should be provided at grocery stores, park and recreation facilities, natural areas, office and employment centers, shopping malls, schools, the library, and civic buildings Sidewalks and Bicyclists Early bicycle path efforts were aimed at multiple use of sidewalks as bicycle paths While in some instances this type of path may be necessary, in most cases it should be avoided Sidewalks are generally unsafe because they put the cyclist in conflict with pedestrians, utility posts, signposts, and motonsts using driveways A cyclist on a sidewalk is generally not visible or noticed by a motorist, so that when the cyclists suddenly emerges at intersections or dnveways, the driver could be caught off guard Cyclists are safer when they are allowed to function as roadway vehicle operators, rather than as pedestrians Intersection Design Additional measures at trail/roadway intersections can provide for more predictable movements of trail users There are usually two main considerations at trail/roadway intersections 1) keeping out unauthonzed motor vehicle uses, and 2) physical design of the trail crossing to reduce conflicts with motor vehicle traffic 13 • • • The following basic elements can be used to achieve safer junctions segregated trail user lanes, stop signs and stop bars, entrance bollards, pedestrian crosswalk stnping, and wanung signage for motonsts This design reduces conflict by encouraging the trail user to use caution when crossing the roadway, encouraging the motonst to be prepared for the crossing, generally reducing the confusion that is often a problem at intersections through a logical structure for trail users Trail Surfaces Typical pavement design for off -road multi -use trails should be based upon the specific loading and soil conditions for each project Trails designed to serve bicycle transportation purposes should be composed of a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete One important concern for asphalt multi -use trails is the deterioration of trail edges Installation of a geotextile fabnc beneath a layer of aggregate base can help maintain the edge of a trail Some of the common trail surfaces listing their advantages and disadvantages are listed below 1 Mowed Grass Advantages • Natural Material • Low Maintenance • Can be altered for further improvements • Easiest for volunteers to build and maintain • Retains snow cover on ski trails • Cost mow monthly minimum Disadvantages • If vegetative cover is lost, may rut/erode when wet • Not an `all-weather' surface • Can be uneven and bumpy • Not ADA accessible 2 Wood Chip Advantages • A soft, spongy surface • Good for walking and jogging • Reduces soil compaction • Natural Material • Inexpensive ($5 per 1x8') Disadvantages • Decomposes under heat/moisture • Erodes heavily on slopes greater than 10% • Requires yearly replenishment • Not typically accessible 3 Gravel Aggregate Advantages • Soft but firm surface • Natural matenal 14 • • • Accommodates multiple -use • Moderate cost ($8 per 1x8') Disadvantages • Surface can rut/erode with heavy ram on slopes • Regular maintenance required to keep consistent surface • Replenishing stones may be a long-term expense 4 Soil Cement Advantages • Looks natural • More durable than native soil • Smoother surface • Can be ADA accessible • Inexpensive ($5 per 1x8') Disadvantages • Surface may wear unevenly • Freeze/thaw may have effects • May erode if not installed properly • Can be difficult to achieve correct mix 5 Asphalt Advantages • Hard surface supports all types of use • No trail erosion • Low maintenance • ADA accessible Disadvantages • High installation cost ($15 per lx8') • Costly to repair • Not natural surface • Freeze/thaw can crack surface • Heavy construction vehicles need access 6 Concrete Advantages • Hardest surface • Supports multiple use • Lowest maintenance • Resists freeze/thaw • No trail erosion • ADA accessible 15 • i Disadvantages • High installation cost ($40 per lx8') • Costly to repair • Not natural looking surface • Heavy construction vehicles need access Goals and Standards Overall Trail System Goals After examination of the previously discussed factors, we have set up a set of goals central to the Comprehensive Trail Plan They are as follows • Develop a continuous comprehensive "walkable community" system, including both on and off-street routes, that makes bicycle and pedestnan travel a fun, safe and enjoyable continuous ease of movement throughout Stillwater • Develop a comprehensive trail system that traverses the community both east - west and north - south and link the local trail system to existing and proposed regional trails • Increase levels of bicycling for commuting and utilitarian trips as a cost-effective and efficient alternative in the transportation system • Establish and maintain appropnate and safe standards and guidelines for bicycle facilities, programs, and projects • Concentrate providing safe pedestrian/bicycle access to downtown's histoncal distnct and facilities along the Saint Croix River • Expand and link the trail system between neighborhoods and to major activity and work centers in addition to local destinations throughout the city routing pedestrians and bicyclists off major roadways wherever possible • Where adequate, uninterrupted right-of-way is available, separate bicycle paths can be used to provide long, continuous routes for commuting or recreation tnps, access to destinations not otherwise available to bicyclists, and as cut-throughs between buildings and other breaks in the street network • Provide pedestnan access to both active and passive recreational facilities, as well as access to Stillwater's natural areas • Ensure the construction of trails in new development to provide for trail linkages consistent with the adopted Citywide PedestnanBicycle Trail Plan • The city should continue to complete and enhance the initially identified essential sidewalk links in those neighborhoods lacking sidewalks • Ensure accessibility of transportation facilities in accordance with the spent and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Trail Design Goals • Emphasis should be on maintaining existing sidewalks and adding new facilities in residential areas where demand dictates 16 • • • • Provide adequate road width on Stillwater streets to accommodate bicycle lanes where separate bicycle lanes are not feasible • Retrofit existing roadways to accommodate bicycles Work with width of existing city roads to create designated bicycle lanes • Encourage regional and state agencies to promote enhanced design standards for regional trails passing through the city • Coordinate local improvements with those of outside agencies to accelerate timing of trails through the city • Promote compatibility on multi -use trail using proper etiquette guidelines • Adhere to Amencans with Disabilities Act Guidelines Specific Location Goals • Examine existing city bicycle lane signage • Examine potential trail sites noting their historical and natural setting such as the Minnesota Zephyr nght of way, city ravines, greenways and their ability to connect downtown and the new expansion area • Integrate McKusick Ravine into the trail system as a natural extension of the McKusick Lake Trail into the downtown • Establish trail within right of way to circumnavigate Lake McKusick and Long Lake • Establish dock -like or appropriate trail across Brown's Creek wetland to compliment the Brown's Creek trail system behind the Creekside Crossing development • Encourage MnDOT to provide continuous bicycle paths along the Frontage Road from CR 15 to TH95 and along 95 from Oak Park Heights to TH 95 through downtown • Encourage the development of a separate path or bike route along Neal Avenue • Encourage the development of a separate path or bike route along Boutwell Road • Enhance and expand sidewalks in the north hill area • Encourage the development of a trail to circumnavigate Stillwater Golf Course on north side • Encourage the development of a sidewalk/bikeway along Eagle Ridge Trail • Develop a sidewalk and bike lane/route along Curve Crest Boulevard • Encourage the development of adequate sidewalks from communities to schools The Comprehensive Trail Plan A comprehensive pedestnan transportation system is vital for maintaining, appreciating and enhancing Stillwater's local character as well as our economic base A number of traffic studies have effected the Stillwater area over the years Stillwater, along with MnDOT, Oak Park Heights and Washington County have all conducted detailed traffic analyses and forecasts projecting accelerated traffic volumes on our roads for years to come These factors make an effective pedestrian transportation system an essential alternative to auto transportation in the years to come To enhance the overall system, pedestnan and bicycle trails can function as an essential component of the planned Stillwater Transportation Plan As such, pedestrian/bicycle 17 • • trails must be considered in the planning process for all land use related decisions and in all transportation related projects The 2000 Comprehensive Trail Plan is presented as a complete network enhancing pedestnan and bicycle mobility throughout Stillwater (figure 6) The intent of the proposed trail system is to serve both a utilitarian transportation function and a recreational function A user study conducted by the city found that the recreation uses of trails are greatly valued by Stillwater residents as interest in bicycling, in -line skating, skiing, and hiking increases (1995 Comprehensive Plan) Other nation-wide studies indicate increasing interest for the utilization of trails as an alternative transportation mode to the automobile The major difference between the two uses is that the primary objective of the utilitarian trip is to arrive at a specific destination as quickly as possible with few interruptions, while recreational tnps are generally more leisurely and less direct To provide for a trail system to accomplish both the utilitarian and recreation functions trail alignments were assessed in relation to not only the natural features and social/cultural features of the community but also the areas of opportunities for employment, shopping and services Natural systems are those environmental features that offer attractiveness and interest to a trail system They also pose challenges to trail engineering in mitigating soils adverse to development while meandering through woodland areas and around wetland and floodplain features Trails in conjunction with natural systems will generally be developed for recreational purposes Social and cultural systems represent the built environment of a community The land uses associated with these systems include residential neighborhoods, histoncal districts, shopping and other commercial areas such as office parks, and public and quasi -public places such as the Public Works Facility, City Hall, library, police/fire stations and other similar uses The Plan proposes to link these social and cultural features to the city's neighborhoods and to the regional trail system as well Major land use patterns and points of interest such as schools and parks within the planning area are indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan map (figure 6) The Trail Plan provides access to employment, shopping, retail/service, commercial, recreational, educational, and governmental destinations In developing trail systems, existing land use patterns along with future uses have been considered We hope this Plan is aggressive and progressive enough to suit community needs through the twenty-first century Maintenance Proper maintenance of on -street riding surfaces is a key factor in bicycle safety and an important consideration in people's decision to nde a bicycle Designing bikeways to reduce maintenance, giving priority to sweeping the sides of streets where bicyclists ride, and ensunng that riding surfaces are relatively smooth are all requisites in attracting more of the general public to bicycling Bicyclists are more sensitive to irregularities and road debns than cars Roadway features that cause minor discomfort to motonsts can cause senous problems and accidents for cyclists Potholes and improper drain grates can cause bicyclists to flip over or lose control Traffic signals that detect automobiles but fail to respond to cyclists encourage cyclists to ignore red lights Repaired patches and railway crossings at acute angles to the roadway will often divert the cyclists' front wheel and cause senous falling accidents General maintenance objectives are as follows 18 1 • • • • Trails located within highway nght-of-way should be maintained by the state department • Strive to provide quick and effective remediation of dangerous and inconvenient facility problems for bicycle transportation • Assign maintenance responsibility for each pedestnan/bicycle facility before construction • Provide ongoing and regular maintenance for all pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Eliminate or reduce hazards such as grates and other drainage features along pathways Project Implementation The following are a set of funding and implementation guidelines • Designate a percentage of total available roadway funds exclusively for provision and maintenance of bicycle facilities Average percentages designated for trailways range between one and five percent in other cities • Provide consistent and on -going funding for pedestnan and bicycle transportation • Accelerate improvements for existing trails and construction of new trails • Acquire maximum available funding from state and federal sources The community should make a commitment to increased non -motorized transportation use by committing a higher percentage of state and federal funds to bicycle and pedestnan transportation • Include trail construction in City Capital Improvement Program • Require new development to plan trails to our standards • Generally follow the guidelines and standards set by MnDOT and ADA for the design of trailways Refer to Appendix A for MnDOT Planning Guide and Appendix B for ADA Guidelines • Ensure the construction of trails in new development to provide for trail linkages consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Trail Plan Maintenance • Provide quick and effective remediation of dangerous and inconvenient facility problems for bicycle transportation • Assign maintenance responsibility for each bicycle facility • Provide ongoing and regular maintenance for all bicycle facilities • Schedule inspections, maintenance, and repair annually • Prevent and remove debns from the bikeway • Eliminate hazards from grates and other drainage features • Reduce hazards to cyclists from edge markings 20 • • • Basic References 1 1993 Austin Bicycle Plan, City of Austin Department of Planning and Development Making Communities "Bicycle Friendly Bill Wilkinson, Planning Commissioners Journal, # 10, 1993 2 Building Bikeways -These paths are no longer the roads less traveled by Michael G Jones, Planning, 1993 3 Greenways-A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, Charles A Flmk and Robert M Seams, The Conservation Fund, Island Press, 1993 4 Liberty Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, City of Liberty, Missouri, 1997 5 Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1996 6 NRPC Region Bicycle and Pedestnan Plan -Technical Supplement, Nashua Regional Planning Commission, 1995 7 PACTS Regional Bicycle and Interim Pedestnan Plan, Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Committee, 1995 8 Pro Bike Pro Walk 98 — Creating Bicycle -Friendly and Walkable Communities, City of Santa Barbara included in the National Conferences of the Bicycle Federation of Amenca, 1998 9 1995 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, City of Stillwater Planning Department 10 Trails for the Twenty -First Century -Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multi -Use Trails, Karen -Lee Ryan, Rails -to -Trails Conservancy, Island Press, 1993 11 Walkable and Bicycle Friendly Communities, Dan Burden, Florida Department of Transportation, 1997 21 • • • Appendix A Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Trails General Guide So what is an accessible trail9 • Under the proposed guidelines, an accessible trail would meet these minimum technical provisions • Clear tread width 36" minimum • Tread Obstacles 2" high maximum (up to 3" high where running and cross slopes are 5% or less) • Cross Slope 5% max • Running slope (trail grade) meets one or more of the following - 5% or less for any distance - up to 8 33% for 200' max Resting intervals no more than 200' apart - up to10% for 30' max Resting intervals 30' - up to 12 5% for 10' max Resting intervals 10' • No more than 30% of the total trail length may exceed a running slope of 8 33% • Passing Space provided at least every 1000' where trail width is less than 60" • Signs shall be provided indicating the length of the accessible trail segment Specific Guide Proposed Technical Specifications for New and Reconstructed Trails to Comply with ADA From REGULATORY NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE ON ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS, FINAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 1999 Following is the portion of the report dealing with trails 16 OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS Outdoor developed areas covered by this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 4 and the special application sections, except as modified or otherwise provided in this section 161 General All newly designed and constructed pedestnan trails or altered portions of existing pedestrian trails connecting to designated trailhead or accessible trails shall comply with 16 All newly designed and constructed camping facilities, picnic areas, and beach access routes or altered portions thereof shall comply with 16 161 1 Extent of Application Departures from specific technical provisions of this section shall be permitted where specified, and where at least one of the following conditions is present The conditions in this section do not obviate or limit in any way obligations to comply with 16 at any point that the conditions are not present 22 • • 1 Where compliance would cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or charactenstics, or, 2 Where compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the facility, or portion of the facility, or, 3 Where compliance would require construction methods or matenals that are prohibited by federal, state, or local regulations or statutes, or, 4 Where compliance would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction practices Definitions Trail A route that is designed, constructed, or designated for recreational pedestnan use or provided as an pedestnan alternative to vehicular routes within a transportation system Designated Trailhead A designated point of access that may contain a parking area, information kiosks, restrooms, water hydrants, and may be reached by vehicular or pedestnan access Tread width The path or visible trail surface perpendicular to the direction of travel The clear tread width of the trail is the width of the useable trail tread, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel and on or parallel to the surface of the useable trail tread The minimum clear tread width is the narrowest measurement on the useable trail tread 16 2 Trails Where trails are provided, the trail shall comply with 16 2 Where provided, elements located on accessible trails shall comply with 16 5 through 16 21 Elements are not required to be connected by an outdoor recreation access route EXCEPTIONS 1 Where one or more of the conditions in 16 1 1 exists, and where one or more of the conditions in this exception exists, the provisions of 16 2 shall not apply after the first point of departure The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure shall comply with 16 2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16 2 The conditions of this exception are (a) The combination of running slope and cross slope exceeds 40 percent for over 20 feet (6100 mm), or (b) A trail obstacle 30 inches (760 mm) or more in height across the full tread width of the trail, or (c) The surface is neither firm nor stable for a distance of 45 feet or more, or (d) A clear width less than 12 inches (305 mm) for a distance of 20 feet (6100 mm) or more 2 Where one or more of the conditions in 16 1 1 are met resulting in departures from the technical provisions in 16 2 for over 15 percent of the length of the trail, 16 2 shall not apply after the first point of departure The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure is required to comply with 16 2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16 2 16 2 1 Surface The trail surface shall be firm and stable EXCEPTION The provision shall not apply where a firm and stable surface can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 applies 16 2 2 Clear Tread Width The clear tread width of the trail shall be 36 inches (915 mm) minimum 23 • • • EXCEPTIONS 1 The clear tread width shall be permitted to be reduced to no less than 32 inches (815 min) minimum where at least one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 apply 2 The provision shall not apply where 32 inches (815 mm) minimum clear tread width can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 applies 16 2 3 Openings Openings in trail surfaces shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a * inch (13 mm) diameter sphere Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of travel EXCEPTIONS 1 Elongated openings are permitted to be parallel to the dominant direction of travel where the opening does not permit passage of a 1/4 inch (6 5 min) diameter sphere 2 Openings shall be permitted to be of a size that do not permit passage of a 3/4 inch (19 mm) diameter sphere where at least one of the conditions in 16 1 1 apply 3 Where openings that do not permit passage of a 3/4 inch (19 mm) diameter sphere are not feasible, because at least one of the conditions in 16 1 1 applies, the provisions of 16 2 3 shall not apply 16 2 4 Protruding Objects Protruding objects on trails shall comply with ADAAG 4 4 1 and shall have 80 inches (2030 mm) minimu clear head room EXCEPTION Where vertical clearance of a trail is reduced to less than 80 inches (2030 mm) where one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 applies, a barrier to warn blind and visually impaired persons shall be provided 16 2 5 Tread Obstacles Where tread obstacles exist, they shall not exceed 2 inches (50 mm) high maximum EXCEPTIONS 1 Tread obstacles shall be permitted to be 3 inches (75 mm) maximum where running and cross slopes are 1 20 or less 2 The provision shall not apply where tread obstacles greater than 3 inches (75 mm) exist, because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 applies 16 2 6 Passing Space Where the clear tread width of the trail is less than 60 inches (1525 mm), passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of 1000 feet (300 m) maximum Passing spaces shall be either a 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum space, or an intersection of two walking surfaces which provide a T-shaped space complying with ADAAG 4 2 3 provided that the arms and stem of the T-shaped space extend at least 48 inches (1220 mm) beyond the intersection EXCEPTION The provision shall not apply where passing space cannot be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 applies 16 2 7 Slopes Slopes shall comply with 16 2 7 1 and 16 2 7 2 EXCEPTIONS 1 For open drainage structures, a running slope of 14 percent is permitted for 5 feet maximum (1525 mm) with a cross slope of 1 20 maximum Cross slope is permitted to be 1 10 at the bottom of the open drain, where clear tread width is 42 inches (1065 mm) minimum 2 The provisions of this section do not apply where one or more conditions in 16 1 1 applies 16 2 71 Cross Slope The cross slope shall not exceed 1 20 maximum 16 2 7 2 Running Slope Runmng slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the provisions of this section No more than 30 percent of the total trail length shall exceed a running slope of 1 12 16 2 7 2 1 Running slope shall be 1 20 or less for any distance 16 2 7 2 2 Running slope shall be 1 12 maximum for 200 feet (61 m) maximum Resting intervals complying with 16 2 8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 200 feet (61 m) apart 24 • • • 16 2 7 2 3 Running slope shall be 1 10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum Resting intervals complying with 16 2 8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart 16 2 7 2 4 Running slope shall be 1 8 maximum for 10 feet (3050 mm) maximum Resting intervals complying with 16 2 8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 10 feet (3050 mm) apart 16 2 8 Resting Intervals Resting intervals shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length, shall have a width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1 20 in any direction EXCEPTION The provision shall not apply where resting spaces cannot be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16 1 1 applies 16 2 9 Edge Protection Where edge protection is provided along a trail, the edge protection shall have a height of 3 inches (75 mm minimum 16 2 10 Signs Newly constructed and altered trails and trail segments complying with 16 2 shall be designated with a symbol* at the trail head and all designated access points Signs identifying accessible trail segments shall include the total distance of the accessible segment and the location of the first point of departure from the technical provisions OUTDOOR RECREATION ACCESS ROUTES Definition Outdoor Recreation Access Route A continuous unobstructed path designated for pedestnan use that connects accessible elements within a picnic area, camping area, or designated trailhead 16 3 1 Surface The surface of the outdoor recreation access route shall be firm and stable 16 3 2 Clear Tread Width The clear tread width of outdoor recreation access routes shall be 36 inches (915 mm) minimum EXCEPTION The minimum width shall be permitted to be no less than 32 inches (815 mm) minimum for a distance of 24 inches (610 mm) maximum where at least one of the conditions in 16 1 1 applies 16 3 3 Openings Openings in the surfaces of outdoor recreation access routes shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a * inch (13 mm) diameter sphere Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of travel EXCEPTION Openings are permitted to run parallel to the dominant direction of travel so long as, the opening does not permit passage of a 1/4 inch (6 5 mm) diameter sphere 16 3 4 Protruding Objects Protruding objects on outdoor recreation access routes shall comply with ADAAG 4 4 16 3 5 Tread Obstacles Where tread obstacles exists, obstacles on the outdoor recreation access route shall be 1 inch (25 mm) high maximum EXCEPTION Tread obstacles of 2 inches (50 mm) high maximum shall be permitted where beveled with a slope no greater than 1 2 and where at least one of the conditions in 16 1 1 applies 16 3 6 Passing Space Where the clear tread width of outdoor recreation access route is less than 60 inches (1525 mm), passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of 200 feet (61 m) maximum Passing spaces shall be either 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum space, or an intersection of two walking surfaces which provide a T-shaped space complying 25 I • • • with ADAAG 4 2 3 provided that the arms and stem of the T-shaped space extend at least 48 inches (1220 mm) beyond the intersection EXCEPTION Passing spaces shall be permitted at intervals of up to 300 feet (91 m) maximum where at least one of the conditions in 16 1 1 applies 16 3 7 Slopes Slopes shall comply with 16 3 7 1 and 16 3 7 2 16 3 71 Cross Slope The cross slope of outdoor recreation access routes shall be 1 33 maximum EXCEPTION Cross slopes of 1 20 maximum shall be permitted to ensure proper drainage 16 3 7 2 Running slope Running slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the provisions of this section 16 3 7 2 1 Running slope shall be 1 20 or less for any distance 16 3 7 2 2 Running slope shall be 1 12 maximum for 50 feet maximum Resting intervals complying with 16 2 8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 50 feet apart 16 3 7 2 3 Running slope shall be 1 10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum Resting intervals complying with 16 2 8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart 16 3 8 Resting Intervals Resting interval shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length, shall have a width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1 33 in any direction EXCEPTION Where the surface conditions require slopes greater than 1 33 for proper drainage, a 1 20 slope is permitted 16 3 9 Edge Protection Where edge protection is provided, the edge protection shall have a height of 3 inches (75 mm) minimum One of the first steps towards bringing outdoor parks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not to "pave the wilderness," but rather to evaluate existing environments and provide information to users about the level of access Appendix B Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines 26 • MEMO • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Annexation of Expansion Area Lands Date September 7, 2000 Three areas are being considered for annexation The areas are shown on the attached map and listed and descnbed below 1 Brown's Creek Park This area is owned by the City and currently improved as a frisbee golf course 2 Minnesota Zephyr Right of Way A portion of the railroad nght of way is currently in the City East of Hazel Street and between McKusick and Neal Avenue) This annexation would complete annexation of the railroad right of way in the City (from CR 15 to Downtown) 3 Boutwell Road With the annexation of the Phase II area north of Boutwell Road, a portion of Boutwell nght of way will be in the City The Comprehensive Plan calls for future improvements to Boutwell If Boutwell is in the City, the City will receive state road money that could help with its future repair (see memo from City Engineer) After consideration of the annexation, it can be recommended to the City Council as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Proposed annexation map MEMORANDUM TO Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM. Klayton Eckles City Engineer/PWD DA 1"E 8/31/2000 SUBJECT Boutwell Road State Aid Street designation DISCUSSION Currently parts of Boutwell Road are in the City of Stillwater and parts are m the township Ultimately all of Boutwell will be in the city, but it will happen over a 15 year penod unless we accelerate the process When the U S Homes project goes forward, there will be a need to improve parts of Boutwell Road to accommodate additional traffic These improvements will be the developer's and the city's responsibility When the street is ultimately upgraded it will probably be slightly widened, curb added and a trail or sidewalk system added. However staff envisions preserving the rural character of the street to large extent (narrow lanes, no parking, and a curving design) Since Boutwell Road will act as a local collector street, it is a pnme candidate to be put on the city's State Aid system Domg so would allow the city to collect state gas tax money for reconstruction and maintenance As soon as we designate it as a state aid street we would begin collecting up to $100,000 a year for these improvements In order for the street to be so designated, it must be located within the city's corporate boundanes Therefore it would be necessary for the city to annex all of Boutwell Road nght of way from County Road 12 to Manning Of course this would mean all maintenance and plowing activities would become the responsibility of the city RECOMMENDATION In order to proceed with State Aid designation of Boutwell Road, council should first send the issue for discussion to the joint board Staff recommends Council pass a motion directing Staff to do so • i 1Water i ! Fznv,.ri4 , T H PLB FAi�1Kl COMMPSHON CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, June 12, 2000, at 6 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of May 8, 2000 AGENDA 1 Case No CPA/00-1 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use designation of lands in the Phase II expansion area located between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue east of Manning Avenue in the following ways (1) From Large Lot Single Family to Townhouse Residential (24 acres), (2) From Townhouse Residential to Small Lot Single Family (19 4 acres), (3) From Small Lot Single Family to Parks and Open Space (16 9 acres) US Homes, applicant 2 Case No ZAT/00-02 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) Distract US Homes, applicant 3 Case No ZAT/00-03 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR) US Homes, applicant 4 Case No ZAT/00-4 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) US Homes, applicant 5 Case No ZAM/00-4 A Zoning Map Amendment designating 48 1 acres of land from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue in the Phase II expansion area US Homes, applicant 6 Case No ZAM/00-5 A Zoning Map Amendment designating 16 1 acres of land located in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR) US Homes, applicant 7 Case No ZAM/00-6 A Zoning Map Amendment designating 4 5 acres of land from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue US Homes, applicant 8 Case No PUD/00-41 A Concept Plan Unit Development approval for mixed use residential development consisting of 160 townhouses, 209 coved cottages, 11 traditional residential and parks and open space located on 150 acres of land in the Phase II expansion area east of Manning Avenue between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue US Homes, applicant 9 . Case No SUB/00-42 Preliminary plat approval for a subdivision of 152 acres of land into 220 single family lots, 15 townhouse lots (150 HUs) and 8 outlots (parks open space and CR 15 nght of way) located east of County Road 15, north of Boutwell Avenue and south of McKusick Road, Phase II expansion area US Homes, applicant CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800 • 10 Case No SUB/00-24 A resubdivision of a lot located at 1221 North Broadway into three lots consisting of Lot A = 17,292 square feet, Lot B=29,580 and Lot C=36,764 in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Tom Brownson, representing George Middleton, applicant 11 Case No SV/00-31 A street vacation of the west 20 feet of Sunset Dnve to the southeast corner abutting Lot 5, Block 3, Rearrangement of Radley Sunnyslope Addition in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Ryan Smith, applicant 12 Case No V/00-38 A vanance to the street setback (30 feet required, 13 feet requested) for the construction of a detached garage at 127 Birchwood Dnve North in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Ryan and Brandon Smith, applicants 13 Case No ZAM/00-3 A zoning map amendment to rezone from Agncultural Preservation, AP, to Single Family Residential Distnct, RA, a 55,254 square foot parcel at 7970 Neal Avenue North, Lot 3, Block 2, Neal Meadows Wesley Investments, Inc , Jon Whitcomb, representing Michael G Gibson, applicant 14 Case No SUB/00-34 A subdivision of Lot 3, Block 2 Neal Meadows, 7970 Neal Avenue North, into three lots of 31,254, 12,001 and 11,999 square feet Wesley Investments, Inc , Jon Whitcomb, representing Michael G Gibson, applicant 15 Case No SUB/00-33 A resubdivision combining two lots into one lot at 314 Chestnut Street in the CBD, Central Business District Mike and Sandy Hudson, applicants 16 Case No V/00-35 A vanance to the front yard setback for the construction of a deck at 219 Sherburne Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Dan Magnuson, applicant 11117 Case No SUP/00-36 A special use permit to transfer the operation of the Ann Bean Mansion Bed and Breakfast at 319 West Pine Street in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct John Wubbels, applicant 18 Case No SUP/00-37 A special use permit to change use of an existing nonconforming building from retail sales to office at 215 North William (Valley Co-op Market) in the RB, Two Family Residential District Country House Inc , Gregory Johnson, applicant 19 Case No SUP/00-39 A special use permit request for use of 225 square foot storage area for a classroom at 413 Greeley Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Valley Preschool, applicant 20 Case No V/00-40 A vanance to the side yard setback requirements for the construction of an attached 7-car garage at 901-909-913 South Fourth Street in the CA, General Commercial and RB, Duplex Residential Distncts Steve Meister, applicant 21 Case No SUP/88-60 A review and possible modification to an existing special use permit for transient charter and excursion boats located on the St Croix River south of the Dock Cafe in the Duplex Residential District, RB and Bluffland Shoreland Distnct St Croix Boat and Packet Company, applicant 22 Case No TIF/00-1 Review of Tax Increment Financing Distnct #8, Long Lake Villas, located west of CR 5 and north of 62nd Street North for conformity with Comprehensive Plan City of Stillwater, applicant •Other items -Final PUD approval of design of Long Lake Villas rental townhomes • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Present Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Glenna Bealka, Robert Gag, Russ Hultman, Dave Middleton, John Rhemberger, Karl Ranum, Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Others Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent None Mr Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Rhemberger, moved to approve the minutes of Apnl 10, 2000, all in favor Case No V/00-16 A vanance to the Duplex Residential requirements for an 800 square foot addition to an existing duplex on an 8,437 square foot lot, 10,000 square feet required, at 216 W Wilkins St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Marcia Kilbourne, applicant Ms Kilbourne explained that her mother had moved in with her and she needs a bedroom on the main level She also said she would like to construct a three -stall garage in the rear of the building and would stipulate in the lease that tenants must park in the back, in order to address concerns about on -street parking She also said the request was approved two years ago, but she couldn't proceed because of a pipe under the property Mr Rheinberger asked if the building was being used as a tnplex Ms Kilbourne said the building is wired and plumbed as a duplex, and said she will only have two entrances Mr Middleton asked if there were three kitchens in the structure and if the presence of a kitchen constituted the definition of a living unit Mr Russell responded that generally the number of kitchens constitutes the number of living units However, Mr Russell noted the pnmary issue with the request is that this currently is a non -conforming duplex as defined by lot size The additional 800 square feet would result in 10 bedrooms in the structure, Ms Kilbourne responded that she was only adding one bedroom Jon Shimoto, 1015 N Fifth, St , Bnan Kogler, 1016 N Fifth St , and Todd Sharpe, 1003 N Fifth St , reiterated concerns they expressed at the Apnl meeting, specifically the amount of traffic and on -street parking and the number of people living at the residence Mr Fontaine noted that the applicant has a substandard lot for the existing use and is now asking for more living space and garage space on the lot Mr Rheinberger said he thought the request represented an excessive use of the property, and Mr Hultman agreed that 10 bedrooms was an overuse of the space Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to deny the request Vote was 8-1, with Mrs Bealka voting no • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Case ZAM/00-02 A zoning map amendment to rezone the property located south of the Main Street parking lot from RB, Two Family Residential, to CBD, Central Business District Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises, applicant Case No V/DR/00-19 A vanance for a boat ticket office/storage building and vanance to parking south of the Main Street parking lot in the RB, Two Family Residential District Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterpnses, applicant Present for the discussion were Mark Balay and Richard Anderson of Andiamo Enterpnses Regarding the rezoning, Mr Balay noted the zoning switches from CBD of RB about half -way through the proposed new building And he said the property is not connected with any residential property except those properties located above the bluff Dave Newman, 507 S Broadway, talked of an ongoing problem with noise when the boats come in He said residents have called Stillwater police and Andiamo people to complain, and nothing seems to be done He said a rezoning will allow an intensification of use, and he suggested the requested vanance is not appropriate as no hardship is involved Mr Newman further suggested that if a vanance is granted, conditions be placed on the vanance to get the noise problem under control Mr Fontaine noted the DNR is requinng Mr Anderson to move the ticket booth off the docks, and he said moving the ticket office isn't related to noise on the boats He further noted the city does have a noise ordinance Mr Russell added that there are standards for decibel levels, and he said that moving the ticket booth will not intensify the use of the boats Mary Nelson, 509 S Broadway, submitted a letter of opposition from Peter and Susan Boosalis, 515 S Broadway, who were unable to attend the meeting Mrs Nelson also read into the record a letter signed by herself and her husband, Ronald Nelson, citing their reasons of opposition There was general agreement that most of the noise problem is generated by the public docks, not the Andiamo boats, the last of which comes into the docks at 11 p m There was a discussion of policing and enforcement Mr Fontaine suggested that enforcement of the noise ordinance is not a Planning Commission issue, it's a police function, and if the city's current noise ordinance is not adequate, the Council should change the ordinance Mr Ranum questioned the nature of any hardship should the Commission deny Mr Anderson's request, and he said he was against any new construction on the nverfront Mr Rheinberger suggested that the requested rezoning makes sense as the property really is part of the Central Business Distnct Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to recommend approval of the rezoning Mr Zoller noted that he lives by the concerned property owners on the bluff and said that noise is an issue that should be given some consideration Mr Hultman also noted that the city does have a noise ordinance and when people call with • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 complaints, the police should take care of the situation Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning passed 7-2, with Mr Zoller and Mr Ranum voting no Regarding the new building, Mr Balay explained the site location Two signs are requested The signage, one over the door and one visible from the highway, will be pnmanly informational/directional and not lighted, he said The building will appear as one level from Highway 95 and a walkout from the nver side Mr Middleton asked if the DNR had approved the new construction Mr Russell noted the property is located outside the area regulated by the DNR and that approval is not necessary Mr Rhemberger moved to approve Case V/DR/00-19 as conditioned Mr Russell suggested adding a condition that there be no music from the ticket office, and that the use of the railroad property be approved by the Union Pacific Mr Rhemberger agreed to include those additional conditions Mr Wald seconded the motion, motion passed 7-2, with Mr Zoller and Mr Ranum voting no Mr Fontaine suggested recommending that the City Council address the noise issue and direct police to enforce the noise ordinance or change the ordinance if it is inadequate He said he thought noise was a senous issue and the Commission should ask that the Council address the issue as soon as possible Mr Wald made that recommendation in the form of a motion Mr Hultman seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/00-20 A special use permit for a 100-foot monopole telecommunications tower on Bnck Street in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Jaron Johnson, representing Spnnt, applicant Mr Johnson explained there would be no lights on the tower and no interference with the existing tower Spnnt has a 25-year lease for the use of the tower John Yhnen, 201 Deer Path, asked whether there would be any emissions from the tower or any interference with electronic equipment in nearby homes Mr Johnson responded no to both questions Mr Yhnen said in that case, he was not opposed to the tower John Pack, 113 Bnck Street, said he has lots of problems from the existing tower, especially interference with phones He was he was very concerned about the tower going up, and he called the structure a general "eyesore " Mr Johnson said there should be no problems with interference given the range of frequency used by the Spnnt equipment Alden Nelson, 111 S Bnck St , expressed his objection to placing the tower in a residential area Mr Fontaine suggested that it would be a good idea for Mr Johnson to address neighbors' concerns regarding frequency in the form of a letter to them Mr Fontaine also asked whether • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 existing trees on the site would be retained Mr Johnson responded that if trees need to be removed, they would be replaced with new plantings Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as conditioned with the additional condition regarding the replacement of any trees that need to be removed Motion passed 8-1, with Mr Ranum voting no Case No V/00-21 A vanance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 4 feet requested) and rear yard setback (5 feet required, 4 feet requested) for construction of a garage at 1337 S Second St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct, Russell and Jacqueline Saystrom, applicant Mr Saystrom was present He said he had remeasured and will be able to meet the rear yard setback requirement However, he said he still needs the side yard vanance or the dnveway would not line up with the garage Mr Fontaine asked about drainage, Mr Saystrom said the garage will have an 18" overhang Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Gag, moved approval of the requested side yard vanance as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No V/00-22 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 24 feet requested) for construction of a gazebo at 202 N Martha St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Kyle Weed, applicant Mr Weed was present He explained that he had measured his lot line from the curb and the requested gazebo will be 13' off the sidewalk, rather than 16' as initially requested, the gazebo will not go beyond the front of the existing porch Mr Weed presented a petition signed by neighbors in favor of the project Mr Fontaine noted that no neighbonng houses are more than 15' from the street Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No V/00-23 A vanance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 3 feet requested) and variance to impervious surface coverage (30 percent maximum, 44 percent requested) for construction of a two-story addition at 402 N Second St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Martin and Judith Hansen, applicants Mr and Mrs Hansen were present for the discussion They explained the addition would be built over existing concrete slabs and would only be about 48 square feet more than what is already in place The addition would be constructed between the house and garage, over existing concrete patio slab and concrete slab for a dog kennel • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Mr Rheinberger questioned the requirement of the $1,000 fee for the stormwater utility fund, considering the request is for only a few more square feet of impervious surface area Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as condition, eliminating condition No 2 (the $1,000 fee) Motion passed 8-1, with Mr Ranum voting no Case No SUBN/00-24 A resubdivision of a lot located at 1221 N Broadway Tom Brownson, representing George Middleton, applicant This case was continued pending a determination of whether the property is included in the moratonum of construction on the North Hill Mr Brownson said it appears the property in question is outside the moratonum area Mr Russell said the intent of the Council's previous action was to place a moratonum on all unsewered properties on the North Hill, a feasibility for water and sewer services is in process, he noted Mr Russell suggested that if there is confusion as to whether this property is affected by the moratonum, the matter be continued until an opinion is received by City Attorney Magnuson Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to continue the case, motion passed unanimously Case No V/00-25 was withdrawn Case No V/00-26 Case No V/00-26 A vanance to the front (30 feet required, 8 feet requested) and side yard (30 feet required, 20 feet requested) setbacks for construction of a wrap -around porch at 126 N Martha St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Bnan and Serese Honebnnk, applicants Mr Honebnnk was present He explained the porch will face east and north He said the requested addition will add to the character of the house Mr Fontaine asked about drainage, Mr Honebnnk said he was building a retaining wall to contain drainage Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unanimously Mr Ranum left the meeting at 9 p m Case No V/00-27 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 0 feet requested) and side yard setback (4 feet required, 0 feet requested) for rebuilding/expansion at 517 N Owens St in the CA, General Commercial Distnct Edward and Kathleen Schmidt, applicant Edward and Kathleen Schmidt were present Mr Schmidt explained his plans and noted it is more cost-effective to tear the existing structure down and rebuilt than to remodel/renovate Plans call for redoing the rest rooms, kitchen, and making the building handicapped accessible The upper floor would be used for office space/storage, not living quarters, at this time He also provided a petition of people in support of the request • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Speaking in opposition were Dave Haak, 504 N Owens, who cited concerns regarding the lack of parking, noise and trash, Mike Van Laanen, 509 N Owens St , who noted the business is a grandfathered business that would not be allowed today, and the grandfathered use is lost if the building is torn down, Berta Zimdars, 601 W Laurel, who cited concerns regarding the lack of parking and noise level, and the impact on the peace and tranquility of the ravine area, Dave Belz, the adjacent resident/business owner, who expressed concern about the loss of a window on the second level , Vickie Van Laanen, 509 N Owens St , who also expressed concern about noise, Nancy Brown, 1104 Meadowlark, who expressed a concern about patrons' behavior and stated that any expansion of use would be a disservice to the neighborhood Mr Hultman noted that if the second floor is used for office space, parking is an issue, he also referred to the fact that the grandfathered use is lost if the building is torn down Mr Gag referred to the fact that improving the building/business would add to parking/traffic concerns Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved denial, motion passed unanimously (8-0) Case No SUP/00-28 A special use permit for construction of a 4-unit, three-story housing structure with eight enclosed parking spaces on an existing lot on the south side of Olive Street between Second and Third streets in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Donald and Mananne Nolde, applicant Present were Donald and Mananne Nolde and architect Jerry Runk It was noted that the building meets all setback and height requirements, the only vanance needed is for construction of residential units in the downtown business distnct Speaking in opposition was Susan Baker, representing members of the Val Croix Homeowners Association, 301 S Third St , who expressed concerns about the potential loss of market value, lack of a retaining wall for erosion control, loss of views, and concern about safety of the garage openings onto the sidewalk Mr Runk noted that it is essential for the use of the property that the garages be built into the hill, the wall of the garages will serve as a retaining wall Mr Nolde pointed out that previously the Council had approved an 80-unit apartment building for a portion of the property in question Mr Fontaine asked about parking for visitors, Mr Nolde noted there is a city parking lot across the street Mr Rheinberger spoke in favor of the project as it cleans up the property Mr Zoller also noted the city's Comprehensive Plan calls for more residential housing in the downtown area Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unanimously (8-0) • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Case No V/00-29 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 5 feet requested) to extend the width of the dnving lane at 1820 Market Dr in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial Distnct David Reimer, applicant Mr Reimer stated the request is to allow access for emergency vehicles Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved approval, motion passed unanimously Case No SUB/00-30 A subdivision of a 22 75 acre lot into four lots of 6 16 acres, 3 37 acres, 3 24 acres and 3 15 acres with two outlots of 2 49 acres and 4 34 acres at the northwest corner of Highway 36 and Highway 5 intersection in the CRD, Campus Research and Development Distnct, Coen and Stumpf and Associates Inc , representing Jim Bradshaw, applicant Present were Jim Bradshaw, Jon Stumpf, landscape architect, and Todd Enckson, of the engineenng firm, who reviewed storm water control plans Mr Bradshaw said the goal is to build a peace garden, similar to one in Rochester, and create something special on the gateway parcel Six acres would be used for the funeral facility, which would not be a crematory and would not be a cemetery Mr Bradshaw said he would return with facility plans at a later date Mr Fontaine questioned whether the other lots are large enough for adequate parking Mr Stumpf responded that the intent is to attract small, local businesses, not large businesses, thus the smaller lots Mr Rheinberger expressed a concern about the service road not going through which puts pressure on 62nd Street, and he said he though the road should be built to standards Mr Stumpf responded that a significant bndge would be required is the road were expanded in the future Mr Zoller said he thought the road should be 36-feet wide as indicated in the onginal plans, but suggested that is an engineenng issue Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval of the subdivision as conditioned, motion passed unanimously Case No SV/00-01 A street vacation of the west 20 feet of Sunset Dr to the southeast corner of abutting Lot 5, Block 3, rearrangement of Radley Sunnyslope Addition in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Ryan Smith, applicant Mr Wald announced he was abstaining from this discussion Present were Brandon Smith and Ryan Smith, 127 Birchwood Dr The Smiths stated the request is to square off the property line They said they have been maintaining the nght-of-way as a part of their property They said there is no Sunnyslope Dnve because it is under water Five properties are affected by the request — three are owned by the city as parkland and two by Swager Bros 1 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 City Engineer Klatyon Eckles recommended continuing the request to the June 12 meeting when a public heanng will be held to vacate the entire road Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved to continue the request to June 12 Motion passed 7-0-1, with Mr Wald abstaining Other business Review of Phase II expansion area plans for mixed use residential development (380 units proposed) south of McKusick Road and north of Boutwell Road US Homes, applicant Present for the discussion were members of the Stillwater Town Board and Planning Commission Reviewing the development concept plans for the Coves of Stillwater were Beth Pntchard, representing Omn Thompson Homes, and Rich Hamson who explained the design concept of coving Also present were Greg Frank, project engineer, and Kevin Norby of Norby and Associates, landscape architects, who explained the landscaping plans, open space areas, recreation area and trail system Also explained were plans for landscaped berming along Manning Avenue Mr Fontaine asked about the width of the streets and the potential impact of traffic on Boutwell Road He also questioned the move of the townhome units to a location adjacent to Manning Avenue rather than the intenor of the development Comments from Township representatives included questions regarding the design of the development locating the high density housing along Manning Avenue, rather than the location indicated in the city's Comprehensive Plan, whether the density of the development is at the maximum allowable, parking for the proposed parks, parking for the townhome units, providing traffic outlets to Manning Avenue rather than having all outlets on Boutwell, the design of the berming on Manning Avenue Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved to adjourn at 11 40 p m , all in favor Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary t 9 • • • MEMO To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Proposed Land Use Map Changing the Land Use Designation of Phase II Expansion Area Land Uses (Case No CPA/00-1) Date June 7, 2000 Background The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Stillwater City Council on December 15, 1995 The Comprehensive Plan includes policies and a proposed land use map that provides direction for the future development This amendment is the third land use map amendment proposed for the expansion area (the other amendments were for the 62nd Street North Planning Area and the 62nd Street North Manning Avenue, Stillwater Crossings Project) Amendment Designations 1 Change designation of 24 acres of land located at the corner of Boutwell Road and Manning Avenue from large lot single family (2 dus/acre) to attached single family (6 dus/acre) 2 Change the land use designation of 19 36 acres of land located south of the railroad tracks and McKusick road from attached single family (6 dus/acre) to small lot single family (4 dus/acre) 3 Change the land use designation of 16 86 acres of land located south of the railroad tracks and west of Neal Avenue from small lot single family (4 dus/acre) to open space (0 dus/acre) Other policy areas of the Comprehensive Plan regarding natural resources, parks and open space, transportation, housing, public services and facilities and community character are not changed and are used to guide development of this area and the expansion area generally The results of the land use plan amendment in terms of dwelling units allowed by the current land use designation and amended designation are listed below by land use category Existing Land Use Map Acres Units Large Lot Single Family 26 52 Small Lot Single Family 91 364 Single Family Attached 16 _16 133 512 Land Use Map Amendment Acres Units Large Lot Single Family 15 30 Small Lot Single Family 75 300 Single Family Attached 26 156 Open Space 17 0 133 488 • • • Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 As can be seen, the amendment results in 24 fewer dwelling umts This is the result of the increased townhouse area and open space designation (The actual cove development proposes 380 dwelling units ) Plan Amendment Review The proposed amendment increases the number and changes the location of the attached housing but does not result in an overall increase in dwellings The proposed townhouse location of Boutwell and Manning is along a minor artenal county road designated for future widening Usually sites next to major roads are attached housing or multifamily sites Access to the sites off of McKusick Road or Boutwell, both collector roads, are adequate although improvements will have to be made to Boutwell as development occurs to the east A special 100 foot greenbelt setback from Manning Avenue will buffer the housing from road noise and housing views from the road Both sites assist the City in providing a range of housing opportunities in terms of type and price Townhouse sites provide housing for older and younger households with fewer children then single family detached development Existing residences next to the site in both the McKusick and Boutwell site areas are single family large lot development More residences are in the vicinity of the McKusick townhouse site than the Boutwell site Other Considerations Adequate urban services are available for either land use designation and environmental review was completed for the Comprehensive Plan area with the Expansion Area Alternative Urban Area Wide Review, AUAR The development will contnbute to the Brown's Creek Mitigation Account to address run off impacts The City is planning a community recreation and open space site south of Boutwell adjacent the area Amendment Process The Comprehensive Plan amendment process is descnbed in the orderly annexation agreement The City of Stillwater Planning Commission reviews the request and makes recommendation to the City Council In the case of amendments in the orderly annexation area, the Stillwater Joint Board, compnsed of Town Board and City Council members, must approve the change before it can be approved by the City Council The Town Board and Town Planning Commissioner was invited to the Planning Commission meeting on May 8, 2000 and to this public hearing to be informed on the amendment and participate in consideration of the request After Planning Commission review of the amendment request, it is scheduled for Joint Board public heanng on July 6, 2000 and City Council public hearing on July 18, 2000 According tot he approved project review schedule, the Town Planning Commission will consider the request • • • Plamung Commission Page 3 June 7, 2000 at its meeting of June 15 and the Town Board at its meeting of June 22 Recommendation Approval Findings Land use plan map amendment designation is consistent with the polices and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application, maps and resolution • • Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Case CPA/00-1 ASF = Attached Single Family LLSF = Large Lot Single Family OS = Open Space RR = Rural Residential SLSF = Small Lot Single Family 0 0.25 Niles i • • • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED _x x Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review Planned Unit Development* Variance x Comprehensive Plan Amendment* x Zoning Amendment* Subdivision* Resubdivision Total Fee FEE $70 $50/200 $25 $500 $70/200 $500 $300 $100+$ $100 *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attache( The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and material submitted in connection with any application PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION R19 030 supporting 20 43 0001 42 0003 41 0004 34 0003 Address of Project CORNER OF MANNINGAVE/80TH ST NO Assessor's Parcel No Zoning District RA Description of Project PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 152 33 ACRE CONSISTING OF MIX -USE OF TOWNHOMES AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY, TOTAL 380 UNITS "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewitt all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " BURT & JO ALICE RIVARD Property Owner ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES / Representative Mailing Address 8421 WAYZATA BLVD #300 Mailing Address 1ZosS ,/ow, 80* Sireel Telephone No 763-544-73 Telephone No r Signature •-�z Asa Signature ke- 4- SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Pnncipal Accessory Feet Total building floor Area Existing sq ft Proposed sq ft Paved impervious Area sq ft Number of off street parking spaces provided _ sq ft Revised 5/22/97 MEMO • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director A---- Subject Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments (6) for the Phase II Annexation Area located between Boutwell and McKusick Roads east of Manning Avenue as Listed Below Date June 7, 2000 Text Amendments 1 Case No ZAT/00-02 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) Distnct US Homes, applicant 2 Case No ZAT/00-03 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR) US Homes, applicant 3 Case No ZAT/00-4 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) US Homes, applicant Map Amendments 1 Case No ZAM/00-4 A Zoning Map Amendment designating 48 1 acres of land from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue in the Phase II expansion area US Homes, applicant 2 Case No ZAM/00-5 A Zoning Map Amendment designating 16 1 acres of land located in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Bout -well Avenue from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR) US Homes, applicant 3 Case No ZAM/00-6 A Zoning Map Amendment designating 4 5 acres of land from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue US Homes, applicant The six zoning amendments create the new Cove Zoning Distncts and apply the distncts to the Phase II Expansion area lands The proposed zoning map and zoning distnct texts are attached Because Planned Unit Development and subdivision is proposed, the rezoning will be applied specifically to districts in the development area Other park and open space areas will remain Agricultural Preservation for park and open space use The three new zoning distracts are Cove Cottage (CCR), Cove Traditional (CTR) and Cove Townhouse (CTHR) Single family residences is allowed in the three distracts The minimal lot • • • w Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 size for the three distncts are 14,000 square feet, 7,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet per lot or dwelling unit , The zoning regulations have special garage setbacks and dnveway limits to help minimize the impact of the auto on neighborhood design Through PUD final plan review, the specific designs of the single family residents and townhouses will be design reviewed The zoning map amendments apply the new zone distncts to the land use distncts single family large lot, small lot and attached The application of the zone district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment (CPA/00-1) Recommendation Approval Findings The zomng amendments, text and map, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended Attachments Proposed zoning texts (CCR, CTR, CTHR) and proposed zoning map • Proposed Zoning Case ZAM/00,4,5&6 CCR = Cove Cottage Residential CTHR = Cove Townhouse Residential CTR = Cove Traditional Residential 0 0.25 Miles • • i ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING BY ESTABLISHING THREE (3) NEW ZONING DISTRICTS ENTITLED "COVE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT" (CTR), "COVING COTTAGE DISTRICT" (CCR), AND "COVE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT" (CTHR) The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain The Zoning Ordinance of the City, found at Chapter 31 of the Stillwater City Code is amended by adding the following provisions A new Distnct is added as follows CTR Cove Traditional Residential District 1 Permitted Buildmgs and Uses In the Cove Traditional Residential District, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted a Dwelling houses each occupied by not more than one family with a garage no larger than three stalls b Parks, playground and other open space areas 2 Pernitted Uses with Special Use Permits In a Cove Traditional Residential District, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted by Special Use Permit a Home occupations subject to all provisions of the zoning Ordinance regulating home occupations for the Smgle Family Residential, RA, Distract b Accessory dwellings subject to the following regulations 1 Lot size must be at least 15,000 square feet, 2 May be located within or attached to the pnmary structure, or withm an accessory structure (detached from the pnmary structure), 3 Off-street parkmg requirements for an accessory unit and single family residence must be provided, Four off-street parkmg spaces, three shall be enclosed All four spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property, 4 A detached accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the pnmary residence, 1 • • 5 Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line 6 Detached accessory structure will not result in the loss of sigmficant trees or require major site alteration 7 One accessory structure may be located on a residential lot 8 Uses may include one or more of the following a Accessory dwelling unit, 500 square feet maximum, b Accessory dwelling and one enclosed structure parking space (720 square feet maximum), c Home office, and/or d Storage 9 Maximum size of a detached accessory structure is a 500 square feet, one story use of loft area is allowed, or b 720 square feet (when grade level used as only garage, i e , no garage attached to pnmary structure), 20 feet maximum building height 10 A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setbacks Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet 11 The application requires Design Review for consistency with the pnmary unit in design, detailing and matenals 12 Detached accessory structures shall not have window openings facing the rear property line 13 Detached accessory structures located on corner lots shall have the garage doors turned away from the side street 14 If there are two garages on site, a minimum of one garage shall not face the street or streets if a corner lot 3 Accessory Structures One detached garage or accessory dwelling subject to above regulations 4 Development Regulations a Area, setback and height regulations Provision Single Family 1 Maximum building height 2 stores and 35 feet 2 Muumum lot area 14,000 square feet 3 Minimum lot width at building setback line 80 feet Cul-de-sac 40 feet 4 Minimum front yard setback 25 feet 5 Side yard setbacks Intenor 7 5 feet Corner 20 feet 2 • • • 6 Rear yard 7 Minimum railroad setback 8 Dnveway width maximum (at front property lme) 25 feet 75 feet 14 feet Special garage setback All garages shall be setback at least 6 feet beyond the front wall of the house or porch or be turned with door facing side lot line (maximum 30 percent of lot) A new District is added as follows CCR Cove Cottage Residential District 1 Permitted Buildings and Uses In the Cove Cottage Residential District the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted a Dwelling houses each occupied by not more than one family and with a garage no larger than three (3) stalls b Parks, playgrounds, greens and other open space area 2 Permitted Uses with Special Use Permits In a Cove Cottage Residential District, the following buildings and uses are permitted by Special Use Permit a Home occupations subject to all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regulating home occupation for the Single Family Residential District, RA 3 Accessory Structures Not allowed 4 Development Regulations a Area, setback and height regulations Provision 1 Maximum buildmg height 2 Average lot area 3 Minimum lot area 4 Minimum lot width at building front 5 Minimum front yard setback 6 Side yard Intenor Corner 7 Rear yard 8 Minimum lot width at street 9 Railroad setback 10 Dnveway width maximum (at front property Single Family 2 stones and 35 feet 10,000 square feet 7,000 square feet 60 feet 20 feet 7 5 feet 20 feet to r-o-w 25 feet 30 feet 75 feet line) 14 feet Garages will be set back a minimum of 6 feet behind the front wall or the front porch of the 3 • • • dence Garages m front of the home may be side loaded (maximum 30 percent) Third car garages may be side entry or separated from the main garage, at an angle to the mam garage, or otherwise screened by a portion of the house, porch, or facade Corner sites may have side loaded garages A new Distnct is adc;d as follows CTHR Coy, Townhouse District 1 Permitted Buildings and Uses In the Cove Townhouse Distnct, the followmg buildings and uses are permitted a Single family attached residences b Parks, playgrounds and other open space areas 2 Permitted Uses with Special Use Permits In a Cove Townhouse District, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted by Special Use Permit a Home occupations subject to all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for the Duplex Residential, RB, District 3 Development Regulations a Area, setback and height regulations Provision Single Family 1 Maximum building height 2-1/2 story 35 feet 2 Minimum lot area per unit 3,000 square feet 3 Minimum setbacks From Boutwell Avenue 70 feet From Manning Avenue 100 feet From other public streets 30 feet Between buildings 40 feet 4 Design Review Administrative Design Review is required for all permitted and specially permitted buildings or uses a Townhouse garages are to front on pnvate alleys End units only are to front on public streets Elevations should include patios and/or porches subject to administrative design review Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 18th day of July, 2000 4 CITY OF STILLWATER • Jay L Kimble, Mayor ATTEST Diane Ward, City Clerk • • 5 • • • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED FEE Certificate of Compliance $70 Conditional or Special Use Permit $50/200 _ X Design Review $25 X Planned Unit Development* $500 Variance $70/200 X Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 X Zoning Amendment* $300 Subdivision* $100+$5( Resubdivision $100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION R19 030 20 43 0001 42 0003 41 0004 34 0003 Address of Project CORNER OF MANNINGAVE/80TH ST NO Assessor's Parcel No Zoning District RA Description of Project PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 152 33 ACRES CONSISTING OF MIX -USE OF TOWNHOMES AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY, TOTAL 380 UNITS "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " BURT & JO ALICE RIVARD Property Owner ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES / Representative Mailing Address 8421 WAYZATA BLVD #300 Mailing Address la.068 A/04t, go* S rtet Telephone No 763-544-7333 Telephone No Signature alp daa,c-oP Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Pnncipal Accessory Total building floor Area sq ft Existing sq ft Proposed sq ft Paved Impervious Area sq ft Number of off street parking spaces provided _ Revised 5/22/97 • MEMO • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Coves of Stillwater Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Review Case Nos PUD/00-41 and SUB/00-42 Date June 7, 2000 Background/Review Process The Coves of Stillwater project is located in the Phase II annexation area (see proposed land use map) The area is scheduled for annexation and development after January 1999 according to the phasing element of the Comprehensive Plan and Orderly Annexation Agreement A Comprehensive Plan Amendment request (CPA/00-01) and zoning amendments (ZAT/00-02, 03 and 04, ZAM/00-04, 05 and 06) provide policy and regulatory direction for the planned unit development and subdivision Procedurally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning amendments must be approved before for PUD and preliminary plat approval This PUD/SUB review is scheduled for Planning Commission public heanng June 12, Joint Board public heanng July 6 and City Council public heanng July 18, 2000 Stillwater Township will review the request at their meetings of June 15 and 22nd Project Setting The development is bounded by tnbutanes to Brown's Creek The tributaries and adjacent wetlands provide a development framework and natural setting for the site City Shoreland Regulations require buffenng and setback from tnbutanes and wetlands The City's Brown's Creek Park is located directly north of the site As a part of the review, the Brown's Creek Nature Preserve will be obtained for habitat restoration, education and passive recreation Single family residential development borders the site to the east, south and north County Road 15, Manning Avenue, a minor artenal, borders the site on the west McKusick Road, a county collector road, borders the site to the north and Boutwell, a future city collector road, is located along the southern border of the development site Across Boutwell Road to the south of the project, is located a township park property and Washington County owned Boutwell Cemetery The City of Stillwater is considenng purchasing additional land in the area to provide a community park and public works site A natural resource inventory was prepared for the City's open space Committee and Planning Commission for the phase II development area to map environmental conditions and to evaluate the environmental quality of the area for natural area/park purchase • • • Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 The Brown's Creek Nature Preserve area is the number one pnonty for City Open space land purchase A horse boarding facility and row crop fields are currently located on the development site outside of wetland areas Project Description Preliminary development plans and plat map were submitted for the Coves of Stillwater PUD/subdivision review as listed below and enclosed with this staff report Development Plans and Maps Map No Location Map 1/7 General Development Map 2/7 Preliminary Plat Map 3/7 Preliminary Grading Map 4/7 Preliminary Utility Map 5/7 Natural Features/Land Use Map 6/7 Tree Preservation Map 7/7 Overall Landscape Plan 1/4 Intenor Road Section 2/4 Berm Planting 3/4 Berm Plan 4/4 The development plans proposes the following land uses Cove Residential Area No of Lots/Dus Traditional 4 46 acres 11 Cottage 48 14 acres 209 Townhouse 16 09 acres 160 Parks and Open Space Active Park 7 85 acres Nature Preserve 17 55 acres Public Open Space/wetland/ponding 40 55 acres Road nght of way 17 64 acres Total 152 acres Residential Development • • • Planning Commission Page 3 June 7, 2000 Three types of housing are provided in the development Traditional residential (large lot), cottage residential (small lot) and townhouse (attached single family) The overall lot sizes are 17,649 square feet for traditional, 10,034 square feet for cove and 46,720 for townhouse buildings and 3,000/du The housing design for the single family lots and townhouse development will require final design review as a condition of final PUD approval At this point, preliminary single family structure designs are provided for staff and Commission review As with the Legends and Liberty project, taming the auto/garage and emphasizing pedestrian spaces (front porches and walkways) are elements of residential design The townhouse buildings are onented so the ends of the building face the road and garages face inward to an access alley Additional sidewalks will be required to better connect the townhouse project to the park and single family sidewalks and trail system Building end and front elevation plans are provided for review Comments from the City's design consultant are attached Parks and Open Space Major portions of the site, 40 percent, are designated parks and open space Besides the dedicated parks and open space areas, nearly 2 miles of trails are provided for recreation use This does not include'/2 mile of sidewalks The park sites are connected to the development areas by a senes of trails malung the recreation area accessible by foot Pathways connect the Cove development to the Brown's Creek Nature Preserve On May 22, 2000, the City's Park and Recreation Board reviewed the plans for trails and park dedication and approved the plan with the condition that the major park, outlot C, be open up to the street by removing or reconfigunng the lot arrangement Beside the natural areas and park, special greenway landscape area is provided along Mammng Avenue, 100 feet, and Boutwell, 75 feet The greenway landscaping will buffer the project from traffic and practically screen the view of the development from the road See map LS/4/4 Natural Resource The City recently adopted a Tree Preservation Ordinance The proposed plan removes less than 20 percent of the trees on site (35 percent is allowed by the ordinance) The City's Shoreland Ordinance requires a 50 foot setback and 25 natural buffer from wetland areas The proposed meets the ordinance setback and buffer requirement It is recommended that street "E" be shortened by 50 feet to further reduce impact of the road location to the Brown's Creek Tnbutary and wetland An environmental impact report was prepared for the development as a part of the • • • Planning Commission Page 4 June 7, 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process The proposed development is consistent with the development studied in the environmental report Other Impacts At the May Planning Commission meeting, the impact areas of traffic and school aged kids was raised The demographer for the school district was contacted to assist with estimating school impact Based on the type of development proposed, the following number of school aged children are estimated School Aged Kids Elementary 105 Junior High 41 Senior High 30 School distnct representatives participated in the preparation of the City's Comprehensive Plan and are anticipating additional children as City expansion occurs Boutwell Road is currently a narrow county paved road The road is a collector With development of the phase II and phase IV area, the road will be improved to accommodate additional traffic (two lanes with 8 foot pathway) The Comprehensive Plan includes the extension of Curve Crest Blvd to CR 15 in the future This will provide for future access to the Stillwater Business Park In the intenm, local collector streets will have to accommodate additional development in this area Grading/Drainage/Road The City Engineer has worked with the developer's engineer in planning for City water and sewer services and is currently reviewing other street/grading and drainage plans The plans will have to be detailed and modified to meet City utility development standards Other agency review besides Stillwater City and Township, the Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct, DNR and Washington County Public Works will review and comment on the project Their comments will be incorporated into development plans as appropnate when they are received (Plans have been submitted for comment As of this wnting, no comments have been received) Recommendation Approval of planned unit development and preliminary plat with conditions as follows Finding The project is consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations • • • Planning Commission Page 5 June 7, 2000 Conditions of Approval 1 The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments for the development shall be approved (CAP/00-1, ZAT/00-02, 03 and 04, ZAM/00-04, 05 and 06) before PUD and SUB approval 2 Comments from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into future development plans (nght of way, public utilities/grading/drainage) 3 A turn land shall be provided at CR 15 and Boutwell as required by the Washington County Public Works Department 4 The developer shall obtain a Brown's Creek Watershed permit as required 5 Comments from the City's design consultant shall be addressed in the final design plans 6 Three trees per lot shall be included in overall site landscape plan as approved by the Community Development Director 7 The active park site, outlot "C", shall be opened up to the public road to the west by removal of a lot or lots or reconfiguring of the subdivision 8 Street E shall be shortened by 50 feet to move it further away from the wetland 9 The trails and sidewalks as proposed shall be improved as part of subdivision improvement 10 Special street crossings shall be installed at all major crosswalks 11 Street lights and signage shall be decorative as approved by the Commumty Development Director 12 The development plan/landscape plan for the townhouses shall be modified and detailed to provide recreation amenities, trails and surface paving, post office boxes and bus stops, lighting in a consistent theme 13 Road right of ways and utility easements shall be provided as required by the City Engineer 14 Educational information shall be provided to all single family lot owners to inform them of approved city lawn care standards 15 A list of trees native to the area and acceptable to the City shall be provided to all home owners 16 Areas around wetlands and drainage ponds shall be planted with native grasses and flowers suited to the environment 17 Fencing detail shall be provided for final PUD approval 18 Before final PUD approval, the townhouse plans and single family elevations shall be approved by the Planning Commission 19 The City Attorney shall review and approve declarations, covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements before PUD approval 20 The developer shall pay all AUAR impact fees before final plat approval 21 A railroad crossing/access permit shall be obtained from MnDot/Washington County as required • • • TOMTEN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN 5 Judd Street 0 P 0 Box 272 0 Marine on St Croix MN 0 55047 0272 0 Phone (651)433 5600 0 Fax (651)433 560 June 02, 2000 To Steve Russell, City of Stillwater Community Development Director Re The Coves of Stillwater, Design Review for residential lots as proposed by Thompson Land Development The applicant submitted site information including general development plans preliminary plat, preliminary grading and utility plans, a natural features/land use plan and tree preservation plan all dated 5/25/2000 Also submitted were landscaping plans including a site plan interior road sections, berm plan, and berm planting sections, dated 5/5/2000 Information presented regarding the unit designs included, home plans No s 881 through 888 (floor plans and front elevations @ approx 1/8 scale) arch guidelines for the HOA and two multi -family building elevations with several variations on one side elevation Response to Concept Elevations and Floor Plans of single family homes • Overall the eight plans submitted provide a good mix of massing variations and diverse street fronts • A concern would be how the massing fenestration patterns materials and detailing are carried to all elevations of the house These should be thought of as three dimensional objects not street front elevations only The coving concept increases the visibility and importance of the side elevations in the overall streetscape • Provide for material changes at architectural elements not just at front elevation • With turned garages and the houses set back from the street are the occupants going to be backing their cars all the way out to the street or will there be pads designed to allow cars to turn around • The driveways should be narrowed to 10 once adequate turning is provided to reduce the visual impact of drive and to reduce impervious surfaces • The separation of the public entrance walk from the driveway is important to the street character of the entire development Plan 887 could incorporate this idea • Pursue the development of a plan that pulls the garage behind the house • Provide a diversity of roof and siding colors throughout the neighborhood • Downplay visual impact of garage doors as much as possible by tying colors into siding color scheme in lieu of contrasting door color with siding color • Provide a range of garage door options including size (going with single doors whenever possible) and style Match door style to house style Response to Concept Elevations of multi -family structures • More variation in material and colors needed in siding window treatment roofing massing etc • Pursue options in unit numbers (building size and massing) to provide diversity • Pursue options of multi -family units throughout the development For example duplexes on larger corner lots page I of 2 • • • Response to Site Plans • Create buffers along McKusick Boutwell and Manning Use existing vegetation and contours to enhance buffers • Maintain as much existing tall, mature vegetation as possible Specifically the north -south windrow • Does the coving concept really use the existing layout of the land? The majority of the lots are graded to provide walk -out building sites even when the existing contours are flat Existing vegetation and slopes are totally recreated • Streetscape is not well defined Are we encouraging interaction between the house and the street? • Boulevard trees help to define the streetscape ♦ Sidewalks or trails should be on both sides of the street where use is highest • Take advantage of opportunities for mail clusters bus stops etc to create community spaces • Active park areas should have a street presence O Trail along McKusick? • What are road islands used for? How are they landscaped? Who maintains them? • Pedestrian scale street lighting and signage • Change street pavement texture and/or color at pedestrian crossings Response to Arch Guidelines for HOA • Landscaping plans do not include native species such as oak aspen etc • Coordinate between development landscaping and unit landscaping • Mailboxes Look into clustering mailboxes and use the opportunity to create a community space • Patios perhaps a nice patio would be acceptable in front of the house • Fences Do they have to made out of vinyl? • Address coordination of retaining wall materials If there are any questions or comments feel free to contact me at 651-433-5600 Respectfully submitted Roger Tomten Tomten Environmental Design page 2 of 2 • '1 1 Legend • 'MoonshineYarrow • Deciduous Shrub • Sedum 'Autumn Jo? • Coniferous Tree • Coniferous Shrub • Dedduous Tree Planting Schedule ti,celtgokowon NAME 1_ SOWOCAL WASS ri.5.!7 ctrr.. 21 :...e.,...04 1 APIrmIXOIrLO ksg6., _ 1,Jr1¢11213n•in Pai : F.Lchtyjacil "24.reff.r___I. 2 E. i %%wool* LT:Cplati Uldel 'CliNI cells% Grow.km,' 2 kAd_ KAI 14.12bny • GAM 410364•1•41. 2 CM' 11.1 i , 1. Biwa Mts,Ratosi Fr—pluose *nom V .1_24 1 GS I *Imre arca ledrasj rvirtasitam 1 tr-rf 53 I is* I SS r Cy I Compri Oyfin YOUT,Lbl Lr-11 SeaSIWIPSIAftw doice..81 r II 1. 1 as 111- .2ti .I Malmo:6 Visr3., Maim distmnp Simms' T.3-2,AiLL . Fr • Ne...W lastriReq 0.3;uvad Game wino %NW . 3r Las ! amo. stows gee : 12 Lm, Yerorre Wisrol Spia Iii_li _sa !Suomi. ..4‘...1 worn? i lr 10 1,..-..4°1111. baton's& i ?Woe r 1 sty lolcamir*Va*D'e 22 Ashem Itkonakine I sit SS Logi 3telspit ..11.4 3.333.3 $.1.4. %item .IW : I mg, OS Sodding/Seeding Schedule • Sod lo hltda-farnily areas where Irrigate:I. • Seed In LealVarnly area* where not Irrigated and in park areas. • Nears Walla to be andes.ated. Manning Ave. N. • 77---------tt____ Ti____--------- -------- .--) -) (- 908 \ ,7"-------- ----- -- , r---------Q__-- ._ . L 11 ! 1 1 _ 1 1 fj 1 I I I I: I g.0 /jtep Y7_ Y_ • Thia yLu Ind dls sow, mpreeerA bsTdb: ;co dr. pmprg al 4.11. d Ara.601. Era Ur al 61.0=1114 rvq.2, 1'-7 Lnin G Na." • Asada. la THE COVES OF S TILLWATER mitimdNotshbothec4 By: P.4.1-Forae Corporation U.S. Horst Copmar;os 24. /02 42•1r110/1;op' . ACK 5202 rpr, KiuOE Notby & Assoc, Inc. "Turn. r.7" Cammt.do. "14.0".. l'••F,.....ro. mom. Is* aftro.oilf 0131p...Pft kir May 5, 2000 I 0 BERM PLAN j21 Preliminary Plat Plans for The Coves of ►St ll vva ter stillrfva.ter, Minnesota Presented by: Thorn sari. Lan d _De vela m erg t- VICINITY MAP Na scale Index of Sheets 1 Title Sheet 2 General Development Plan 3 Preliminary Plat 4 Preliminary Grading Plan 5 Preliminary Utility Plan 6 Natural Features/Land Use Plan 7 Tree Presentation Plan PLANNER/ENGINEER: McCombs Fronk Roos Associates, Inc 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth. Minnesota 55447 Phenix (763) 476-6010 Fax: (763) 476-8532 Contact Greg Frank DEVELOPER: Thompson Land Development 8421 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 300 Golden valley, Mnnesota 55426 Phone: (763) 544-7333 Far (763) 544-9086 Contact: Bill Pritchard _PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19. township 30 North, Rung. 20 West, S(Nhrater Township. Wo1ingtan 0vunty, Minnesota, lyfng south of the southerly eight -of -troy of the Northern Pacific Railroad; excepting therefrom the W.( 67e.00 feet thereat and olio excepting therefrom the South 350.20 feet thereof; Together with: That part of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 30 North. Range 20 West, Lying south of the southerly right-of-way of said Northern Poatne Railroad. Together with: All that port of the Weat Half of the Southeast Quarter, and all that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 19. Township 30 North, Runge 20 west. Stillwater Township. Washington County, Minnesota. described as foto."' The West 678.00 feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Suction 10. lying southerly of the southerly rlghl•-al-way ol.the Northern Pacific Rml.ay, excepting lhere6pm the South 35E.20 feet thereof. The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 19. excepting therefrom the South 228.00 feet thereof. The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quorter of said Seallon 19, lying southerly of the south right-ol-troy line of the Northern Pacific Railway, esceallng from sold Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the following described tract: Commencing at the northwest comer of sold Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence east along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 40.00 feet; thence south and parallel with the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 113.60 feet to its intersection with the southerly right-of-way of void Northern Pocinc Railway, .hke, is the point of beginning of acid exception; thence continuing south along ao:d parallel Hine dra.n 40.00 feet east of the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 626.10 feet thence east and 80rdlel with sold southerly right -of -trey of She Northam Pacific Rolooy for 417.40 feet; thence nanen and parallel *Rh ooid west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Scut/tweet Quarter for 626.10 feet to told Southerly right-of-way Of the Northern Pacific Rados); thence west done .alai sartheny li0ht -of -way of the Northern Pacific Railway for 417.40 feet to the point of beginning. AND AN that part of the West One -Hall of the Southwest Quarter (W1/2 of SW1/4) of Section Nineteen (19). in Township Thirty (30) North. o1 Range Twenty (20) West. lying South of the real estate deeded to Jon Assert Schmoeckel and Kathryn Gail Schmoeckel, husband and wife, as described on Document No. 322494 in the office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota, and lying South and Weat of the recorded plot of "Rivard AdditIon- in the office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. a0d Ipng North of the eentedine of County Highway No. 12 Revisions N Date ey Reworks No, Clete By RempAs 1 herear cervix that n.e von act Weaned el 1rpr .ads my d..0 ayrnHe+ fine mat pout o dew} R.gtl e.c Rrelene.i4 Ciy:sa .nap Nr taws er INr State el u+neesate Seale es teaw. Drx-red Exc.. evN Ore 1,2We EHered eS Swats Engineering • Planning • •Surveyyng Client Project Sheet Title Sheet Revision 4 Revision Date 11el:aln hwwaw F :','YcLembi Front Was Auedlal., the. 0070 Kid Amol Nix%• Wrr -13 phew 117/ N-d410 • los 617/ re-CTti f-0Me tesyaxeerow Thompson Land Development Golden Valley, MN The Coves of Stillwater Stillwater. MN Title Sheet L!t7 -.4 5 N8815'18'W -28.59 • 927 WASHINGTON COUNTY R/W PLAT NO. 83 ' 40.00 N89°29'18"W N89.29'18'W 527.35 53.390 SF 7 57,879 SF 42,200 SF 39 994 5F r, 60,775 SF 67,1137 5F 3 9 35.020 10 43,680 SF OUTLOT G 61.575 SF 1 413.669 5F 760 a 588'c2'4fi'E " -8000 OF BITUMINOUS j4 2C E "80TH STRET -1Tt -- (yvul WELL ROAD- m (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CO. RD. NO. 12) Revisions N0. Dale 837 Rrmurke 113.40 DEED, 115.10 MEAS. N89'29'18'W 40.00 - N89'19'51'W 320.85 -s 4 33.974 S 31,067 SF 5 62,579 SF 500°23'27"W 22.27` No. Dote By Remwks COUNTY ROAD 64 ]1360 DEED, 114.99 HERS. : '•re- --cam' :xxn-r=c1=L-sue-,- --.N> f8'tvis 11 10 3 (L' (4 N89'29']8'W 417.40 N89'29'18'W 417.40 9.547 3 `) I I IT 002 5F 1r. 2 9.913 SF 9,866 SF •1 1j �A 5F i N89'10'44'W 1 WAS, 4ehHy yql lA•f 5901 r95 5495•5 by 1 e 0 momy N kM 4lre 01001 64 ' 0 054r' INK 10n 91 Vi Su14 DI Saonito Herr. D,'o k4p8llreUen N.IW1 4 01 N Lr84 L.85 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND N0. 1 STREET 10.896 SF 2 8 16.331 SF V3711 80TH STREET N. Sce1r AA 9w.., D.TSAI 81Nn A1M Sete 5/141/096 GeeR.e Gi OUTLOT FRA 19ceo(WO. Frei Roos *159ti4tel, 15C. -1312 2 Re211483 ; 5• ��7� /41,1?0 4 2�r � t�Zx- 7$ g676 5T' (McKUSICK ROAD N.) 1 22 J 45 9,395 Sr 9 cJ a 0.389 Sr • 11 0.362 5F TO_ 73.3D7 ST 2 `^y 20,665 SF 1 BOUTWELL ROAD Erq.'neerroy 1,140nrtir,1 . Sur Acyr,q fSOM lsd arty *' o • Ayr A,mo+b' WY? AVav AVM 4:•010 • h. 60/e75-9511 e-MA. eveea•.A,. ,4 Clont Thompson Land Development 6o)Ce6 Valley. MN 579'10'SC'5 Project rrfi09'4f JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND NO 4 -7- m 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY R/W PLAT NO. 84 6547. 44/40,0 a� r \ �150' •Iwdme setback RP OF Now OF P / ..�'�.-.. ....•.ate.. ��..�//!F 1a 11962 5F 15,421 5F 6 5 4 3 130 uq 119 w 1338.40 The Coves of Stillwater SII(Iw8ter, MN No0'03.07• Sheet Tlee BLOCK NUMBER PUeuC STREET RICHT OF WAY TYPICAL LOT (SINGLE FAMILY) (N0 SCALE) LOT NUMBER N1DIC: ' SEE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH LAND USE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND N0. 3 . S89'15'20-E 669 00 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AREAS: GROSS LESS WETLAND STEEP SLOPES NET AREA DEVELOPMENT MIX CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT NUMBER OF LOTS TOTAL AREA OF LOTS AVERAGE LOT SITE MINIMUM LOT SIZE COVINC RESIOENTML DISTRICT ROAM OF 1013 TOTAL AREA BF 1A15 AV68c0 4OT sat 10.91591 LOT 511E T0WNN0M1 Op11LY1 NUMBER OF IR01S 15 10163 AREA OF 91115 700,692 AYE9ACS LOT 511E 46,720 MINIMUM LOT SIZE 31,0137 PARKS/OPEN AREAS OUTLOT A - / MIT OPEN SPACE / WETLAND / P09109C 1,296,917 SF OUTLOT B - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / WETLAND / FORDING 281,908 5F OUTLOT C - AVM PARK / TOI LOT 280,514 5F OUTLOT 0 - PRESERVE PARK 764.358 5F OUTLOT E - PRNAIE OPEN SPACE / *MAIM / PONDINC 170,423 5F OUTLOT F - PRNAIE OPEN SPACE 15,370 SF OIJTLOT 6 - PARK 61,575 5F OUTLOT N - 6U1URE NAN91.SG ROW 83,927 5F PUBUC STREETS RIGHT OF WAY TRAILWAYS {WEAR FEET) 8' 9610594695 TRAIL 5,218 FT 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK 7,175 FT 6' WOOD CHIP (RAIL 1. UTILITY AN0 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE PR0V1060 AS NECE0SRTP. FT 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT. 3 ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO 101E NEAREST SOUARE FOOT. 1. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY. 5. SETBACKS SHALL BE PER PROPOSED ORDINANCE 6 BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN ARE PRELA/NARY II 194,134 17,649 14,136 209 2,097,069 10,034 7,031 5F 5F SF SF SF 5F SF SF SF Preliminary Plat Sheet N00'02'36'E 152 32 AC (le 991AC (0 00) AC 133.33 AC 446 AC 0.11 AC 0.32 AC 48.14 AC 0.23 AC 0.16 AC T6.09 AC 1.07 AC 0.71 AC 2952 AC 6.47 AC 6.1A AC 17.55 AC 3.91 AC 0_35 AC 1.61 AC IA7 AC 704,161 5F 16.17 AC (.5i") NORTH 3/7 grrammil 400 Recision Legend Cum, Owl M MIOiY r./ Moonshine Yarrow Dedduous Shrub Sedum Autumn Joy' • Coniferous Tree Comfbruus Shrub • De kluous Tree Planting Schedule 'KEY! cotworF ro me , BOTANSCAL Kure T 18M Memo i Anr.eairim =Tyr 0 LSoisstanaa Pak � pimawAm sSmi' SI- $ ,M. '{'C.hsgr�k.r ebrLa U' Ihelar trio tio(4 hi 2 tar Hi I rfumrry i Cato amemhols 2 IX T ow 94 sr I.6era= seem M Plow skim am a GS I �s . . �� mamma eZ >e i r2.IWall/ G )Ps praan.mmr . ea is i 1 or 0Canossersmemv ssr., vs. tebbs msss aim I ar u IMma .OdV m4a I VBgron("Mahot Mar ?ea ms 4AI I m i in.eaea r ale Mamma i Coonsmorkao Tom! 1 ss es SlyI Shade Start t AlmgOepea C A rtr i?SOW Lamer I Amy/pmhotlaa�+rto fA�w/ 1 tl 4 MS rSiDo1MWYYCma Adam seoa..mre �l 7p 0. L 11 *Sam Jort Swims ► 2Vidors AILS ,% V t so Soddfng/Seeding Schedule Sod la Mt -Ibm9y areas where irrigated Seed in Ahr1U-falrely arena where not Irrigated artd In pa: t areas. Waters tees robe wxteaicea tr-g� �•y� ~\— n Rivard Addition / Public Park Mq to be Ismael Hof •Mao • =\ f tkLi ranspertatlou Mua pe, r 7i `'- f t tom) S r _/� /1,410(1• fl x11 � 8 r \ —y i e t ,fio l 46\ rilkt 1l i ` ', Acuve Park —‘ •• / `Lt1 lJ '1.Xi .i. l v! t..4 01 COAA-- Pie( it% i\\ \ r I \ 0 / �'� \ m Li/ Entry Moaumestt V / A-1? 4,S 411, p9 44, .�� Vi All • / Z Ths or ma.. asanm ego.rd tat* we Om P.r.V.i..b Q Mat, .Ascher. Be La. W& s. . moaning 1 THE COVES OF STILLWATER $ Q r=_ Corporation V S. foine C. us.�c , "`ra �` A _` May 5, z000 gi.r.'re.s,Ie/ Slit. �.�datioloa C�aeV,rr --k6 —------- {�r . L ypp o SITE - 'UA\`. pa PLAIN ►Pe{aulra rapw..ir .a�w.re.ofpyyi�yl�ae�ya a_ su ire .�_ ,�p —• �� r r i •1.5 Vim r.m fret" - F e • • • `s, '.' t ''� f ` 5 Y 4P "�, r -"It ^ �r J �,F a,i y e-..y a -. y t i '� 4 t 1 !- -� _ ` E.A as >t _"LL' .�.x 4 '"> 5 -?• w f y,r� ). ., .-r C 1 +t f 4 t A. s „ Y .. t .t t r 1 �? y r ♦' ° Y s .. - ,5 F w 44 lam— .. • fir 1 1 41 4 Li 1 -I, 1 }1. Ft I {f tl j East Road Section C - C' Nest Road Section D - D' G r 3 - C1:)M OF'S TILLWATER1 1 tag-C:941(m 3I e - !. .u►I•.m.ara.": •r 7- 1 Y imiwortlairItlaa • s �r a � I (11/1Adi 66t,p,<_,• W urk r Ww.id inn � -f- may 5, 2tXX0 V `/ o 71i"led OesuormiertlGidrer OfterWObiA tapbrvn1k•pon++l i SONS AD LaJr v r '..,.._ i ' r. rim �.•.. t.. u.. ti1F F_ ..owe' 0 1 It Malta V North Section A - A' South Section B - B' a 13tRis4 P�,nrrr�rr� TIO ^� x Y n— tea .�. 1nf•t•t • THE COVES OF STaLWA A PranneefielObothoedikr flome-Corporation - d } Kezni G. Norby & Asoc.,Inc y - -f.— NAMPO laaltitlatamal• Muff MA* g4RifiGts.A NOV s..,m Dir Apia, RV —WASHINGTON- eOw.n- `R7W-PLAT N0--83 - - -- _ —__-- __-- - _COUNTY _-ROAD 2 64 _ _ (McKUSICK ROAD N 1 li 501 50 II 0 53 W W zI Q I2 U 1 5 L5 90 EZ—r1Tf.�Sss-s- POND0 1' / \ I M 9060 1 I 1 t �i ‘f\� ♦ l I 6 F OS3 \ \ V; t(3 UPN0ON2 I[OD 1-D‘ 31RBSa0nNNAL \ REILAND NO 5 L. 1L�--.__ - -- �EOtE 0 01fu1 0 i --80TH STKEET-N-- UU WELL -ROAD - (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CO RD NO 12) ="'t t—ice_ 11%ISDIC110NAL MEMND N0 1 - \ M/NN�so q ZFpyF LkNlfa iFO� 6145DIC110PAL 41UND N0. 2 POND1'/ .4 YL \\ Ife N-890 9i011II 1 1711 \ \ _.1. 011 POND N 8955 6-898.0 \ 101 11 _ ..../. AO / /' 1 Jl85aCn01AL ,/� \ NERAND NO A O \�'. P y V / TRAIL KEY 6 WIDE W00DCHIP TRAIL - 4979 LF 8 WIDE BITUMINOUS TRAIL - 5248 LF 5 WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK - 7175 LF ION WASHINGTON COUNTY R/W PLAT NO 84 0SS �elk -7 IL laarra,d 1atlNri - N 892 0 N 89 0 10 OF � O Not MI1..0a AmatAI, GAOL MO SAND t =MI 14.1.4 A 40401 RT ➢6 VMS 01011:04. TYPICAL STREET SECTION NO WAS 21 an VON 1p1 08 4 SIMI 3. r�V4 .NIRISacn01 L METIANO NO 3 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AREAS GROSS LESS WETLAND STEEP SLOPES NET AREA DEVROPYENT 10% CONVCN110NAL RESIDEMIAI 0SI1C1 RAMER Of LOTS TOTAL AREA OF LOTS AVERAGE LOT S7h 110I9UY LOT SIZE CMG RE5SENT1AL 0 11111CT NURBER OF LOTS TOTAL AREA 0f LOTS AVERAGE LOT SITE Y ARUN LOT Sal TONNNOYE (*STAR N111RER 0f U1135 TOTAL AREA Of {ROTS 8VIRAGE LOT SITE KIRIN Y LOT Sat PARRS/OPE AREAS OUIID A PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / KILLED / PONDRNC OUTID B PRIVATE OM SPACE / WETLAND / TWANG (*1110 C AC7M PAef / TOT LOT OU1L0 0 PRESERVE PARK OUTLO E PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / WEIEAND / POND NG 0UTL01 f PRIVATE OPEN SPACE OUTLOI G PARK WWI N MNA MINK ROW PUKE STREETS RICHT Of MAT TRAILMR (LINEAR RET) a BITUMINOUS TRAIL 5 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6 I000 CHIP TRAK lmnhn4446 aAM 15232 AC (1899)A (000)AC 133.33 AC 11 19 1U A 4.4 AC 17.649 A 0. 1 AC 4,136 A 032 AC 209 2,0970E9 A 40.14 AC 1003 SF 013 AC 7134 A 0.16 AC 15 700.803 Sr 1619 AC 46 720 A 1 07 AC 31.087 A 0.71 AC 1.291917 Sr 2912 AC m1,908 A 147 AC 280.514 A 6.4 AC 764358 A 1755 AC 170423A 391 AC 15.370 5F 0.35 AC 61175 A 141 AC 83927 SF 1e7 AC 70441 Sr 16.17 AC 624 R 7175R 1 UT6117 AND MANNA EASEMENTS SHALL BE PREMED AS tomtit, f 2 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT 1 ALL AREAS ARE ROOKED TO THE 12ARC51 SOMRC T001 4 STREET MAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BT CITY ND amok 5 SETBACKS MALL BE PER PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8 BOUNDARY ARES MOWN ARE PREt3Y1MRT 7 11a113 AS SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL 0 50 100 200 NORTH I 400 Revlslons NA 0 By Raub 1 H Dal By Remkr8 I hereby Any 1/111N Wan .0 prepared by der my d'kal d9Ar Th and t yam yy Recalod R Imwnd Eggame Oe trSan of of the St0t f Y Nam Oat Rg a tan N mbe Sod As Pawn 0m9 ed Oran 4.419 D I 5/10/00 Checked 61 PPP red 1, �1111 FRA to .0 McCombs Prod R063 Amgen. In £ 9Mee ng Planning SAr0e)ing 11050 ud MR1n D0 A ed2Ok 35447 Prow 617/ann 76-6070 kr 617/ 76-6117 E-Nat eadaanhacaa Client Thompson Land Development Bolden Valley MN Project The Coves of Stillwater Stillwater MN Shed Thk General Development Plan Shed Revision r-2/; MFR(FILEl10 12774 —'� • ur }.i 1 r — — / 1 tis ` 1 ti — 5 \ .' 4iY RJW PPLr4 F'NO'�3 = �McKf1SICK RO/tb7N,I) ^I :, I I. 1 •u '13��� ! j8 eon- A` — _ _—@} +--. / -- �---•l .��r --t r fi- t-- _ ter- w ei Fv� f,ODAT�Y/WLd7—lfT0 �d — 1= - WASHT17GlON --- - =_ �--- — "". v — — — 1 --� M e[ T \ \ 1 I �. - - `�' _ t. r 'Izt + ( I - - _- _ _ / I'1 r _..r—' II' RI I a I {Pr II s eu 60 1 CIA 3-7 4 t1 0 N b 5020 N 0010 1 JUNa DtCOONAI WETLAND NO 5 POND ens BBB0 —bOTH—STREET -7G— B XPT'WELIL''ROAD p `-" \ - , - -"� � RED =- 3+ T_W �L • 0.> r c` • QORAIERLY KNOWN"p5 CO, RD NO. 2) `+11' 11 ,, - = au , L 7 _ ( J \ 7 7 j 1 ) ri /--=1 ' '� \ \l / '''._ _, :,'---::: --:--- / /J1 ett- • �- �C▪ /ri0 r ua 50 axt.wnd ..le.eA N-5920 i B-741A,----- %+ - ram - iILAND 70 t Poma / / ✓r ilk \ -o fare v f Si !O0 Cy(J too / /' An 691 / Dt13 _ ,'`LEGEND ` \ COSTING rallrauRs 1 S 13 EWING STORM SEAR J PROPANE U IT PROPOSED SPOTF1EVAnON I PROPOSCO CONTOUR 441 PROPOSED SIOIM SEMEA 1, Ij UI" — 0I 0 ear ST we 1270 NORTI 50 100 200 400 Revisions N Bel By RemRY No. Dot By Reaohs Newsy ee1411 NI Rot 5 m Roomed e! Om my dreC7 s ermeon Rd 1 I owe o ly Reg tarot P lesam-el E.q eer der tll I 1 IN 51 t I Y Noon Dot Reg tr hen umber Sal A Siam 0eag 5 a AY3 Oat 5/30/00 [Tea. 5 CF MR red ,°MFRA '" Ccir s Fr4N Roos As oc ala, lec E g eermg Pronnmg Su veymg 15030 230 Nees RA8N.0, I.r mf. 55}el p.me 612/ 76-60 0 lee a 2/ 7e-6532 E wa eo.de.xnm. Ctleat Thompson Land Development Golden Watley MN Protect The Coves of Stillwater SbOrater MN Stunt TWe Preliminary Grading Plan Shea Revlsro 4/7— 1dFRA FILE NO 12774 • -- -- -'-1-- --14,A37-TAPGTQN--CpuNT r R/w PL7tT NO `8.3= - - - - .Qf}NTY-f�B�lp� t-ter 3-1ftr. Y' BMX — r — i �f ! 1SFIA4,_ -_ L: ��(cKUSICK RO1dIFA —� —F'L i_.1.......„.......1—=...,. V.'\ �.4i. _WAINGIUN GODkTY�/D-PA lPD �d -- "-_-' -- - -- � / _`.„,yF/Q / ce,,00P/le 47E,0 /Pl/ /ERCRLL� ._\Rl/ nCrs tiFN ��� 1 _ i �9999 es' y\ • J`\ • ,'!" I I L I • w\111\ ,/ItWETLANDD No23 COB �ITI R - Q „eN,niL�It; — — �—w - _S►Rf —/tip—_ CYTW� =�Afi 8l}TF] STKLET`71i�/ BOLL ROaU I - J —r - �' i (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CO RD NO 12) N71 TE a _� I — + (er oTNERs) / I ao illil Revisloos N Dal By Remark N 0 By Remo t hereby cetyN 1 th don astirepoec Dy ae. my a 11,1 rwm and u t un� OW Reg to 0 Pr 1.o omJ Enq to earth r 11 5 t at Non Da Rrg t ron N be, Sow A 9Nnn Deson h .a AN3 Da 5/10/00 Oman Gf ApprmM INFRA 5' McCombs Fred R666 Eng neermg Plonn ng Surveying 00e6 ue mow Nutt Rpm" A1e®N1 SW/ 01660612/475-60 0 /u 6 2/476 WM f Nat 0.0e41n30.44474 Want Thompson Land Development Golden Valley MN Prvied The Coves of Stillwater SBDwder MN /l I.� r,\ 7— shed rdle 1 � 141 0: 0 Preliminary Utility Plan CONNECT 10 SANIT NV ELEV .LRISIDICRENAL 6ETIAND N0 3 LEGEND PROPOSED STORM SEVER PROPOSED Y TEANAN PROPOSED SANITARY SERER Cat 0 SANITARY SERER COSTING STORK SERER WETLAND MT 50 100 200 414 NORTH 400 E11eet RevIo oar -577 1tFNA FILE ND 12774 r � F r: - _�-.,Z ovs r 1, \ r l p a„ /(` \ "9 1 I - - _ ` „S G3 CgU11'iY R/W PLAT"NO" 83 - EOUNLY J y' _ — -s -t4AB� 64 - T- ill' : - j (McKUSICK R 9r t --�� r d /113,60 -- --- — -- 1--- - � _� --ill': _-- ▪ -- _ _ J Z 11 air I� , Aea5rnn c � It e ±r1 r 1 1 a, ��- 1 11.�` !N Ir t \ 4 4 s.. • ti \ _ I \ - •rA ♦\ —x 4 0-9969518 w5 �JGH thQVEN WIRE FEOLCE ,r - \ N89'29 18 9 62 35 Qd 104 � S ALA 0 ml S� _ y y j ca w OiA�TRF��TQiV1NQEl,L ROAb I r' z1 1.�gnERgr�(J OWF4 s co v�RD 00 12) °9/ Ru / arf w1. - 1 1 11 ' d .0 n .ama�� 65(19 51 Lr- 320 ea • 4.3 ` }' w,s f -W� HfN N —_ — - L — — _ a� - - ---_ - — _ _ - •� 4 . DEED._ 11i99_1,,FAS - - —�— _ ''` _ _ _ - - �_ - : `-rrr �!7 y-�'� NB9�418 w�„� � Jd" 0 } g f l c _ 111 441 • NV =.,arm-za xro - - - - - -`'� = - _ -. �, nA _� —-swOfiE. l,rr-c' .c-•,.) ��� 1� _ � - - -_-=:------ - - -- `a - - J-��__�^ ` n _ - 1. \1 1 g& ..:- A ' _ `ti � 93 �� � ass�� � � a / i \ ', \ y s t \ ✓ Ill p4 ( _ • 5 - �'e em ( / /y I is 1'\ C► ,� C, C 2 7 ti Off] _ / 1 IP A.L195.l % z ,. ��.,'� 4'q 1 / - i �' 1 iJ "'b'-... _ \ r, AREA = 133 AC �'"r etti '�. �/ .'1 '!� �m _ �n _ 81 l4891„ 29 18 76-a11 40 w r ieome� / j T - » In. ea. ac- • 1 \ ws •AL 1 4 S \.a i Po ♦y 1 S\ t y-\ -.- flu \ {{ / \ \it ♦ �� - • \ ` �, r_ \ ' 5- 7t r c \ \--. - 0 s,'8 ivr y Cr - ♦ • \ 6 51� S�NGL GRpSs1 a ▪ b ( p MPS\' -\ PCRzS A - 1 sta / 2A E o'' 4 r ,' - .� 4 0 , / � i .,. i-6- AAAL i � -/ t •f D¢ S kA / / R s s ACF+t� / 4F / 75 7 .. 5-, / \ -- ♦\ 1 AG r j ! • / / .-�-xy 1 . / y �� r' �. / � \' : - f \ -' ( t I , N { I / ell/ /)j «. 1 ♦sos yi ' / i / // i j \1 ; `",'\ __ r r t Q z!< 1 I r �s6c�r10N\‘‘ �� \6 as ` \ l �/ \ WETLAn.ND NO 5 s °' ,. It D, Ter An/ 3 / J 1 \ , aia -r .,,firN { _= `= �f89 ,1i it- s�T4iRr_%z-i0.= _ i , in-' , � L �— - _OLtTINi f�9�S1 s if — l / v ti Went Thompson Land Development Golden Valley MN 0 \ n 4 _ r x'Y -- /jam? I�1� :r a er.a A NI '- ' I I I IE� 1 �i+il '°'a 6p -*or 4/ ..✓ $'• ^ / \ w R. � rr „� �.- WASHINGTON COUNTY R/W PLAT -NO 84 Revisions N Dot By Rea N D 1 By Remark whbe6 cet that t 7 O Aa a W a a NAunder y Qend 9ma 9sm and In , I cm du R g end R l seed eso undo N y, N 51 1 N r Red dim N m5er Sc As Shown Des a gad 0 w, ANB D 1 5/30/C3 ab64c G$ APPr44d Englneerng P/on mg Suneyng 15050 Ld Aleve Nne, 1140rt5 ARwmle 55.17 .700,. 612/ 76-6010 0,. 6 2/476-85& E-e..e wddeaa.eva F l - 6 1-°v 11 • sr` / f - .111R�CRWAL r / Jam✓ WETLAND N0 4 e3,810.01.ems 0 l a4e1 we9 lscr �J ~•�. J - q ^-1-1...vxa \ -" \ \ i e4 \ „ J ts C ti.. z a rw K r AZEA - 82♦AC r Z n 1 RE- a 118 AETLANDIONAL ! 11ETLNND N0. 3 I 77 33.04 . ., 1 W I or 99 we t nd99 ACE /J N / ,a1REA = - • 1 ,/ 3 t41 \` yr A - A 00 AC r saS `11- • � ♦ G ♦ �~fir �.� - - Z. t 7- ,r —T AREA OF CREEK, 1 = 28 AC �g \ — r S89 lB 50 E i 1339 30 nv CAM fob 4( J - fI e a � a A mT ..a IMJS S$ • am • 115. - LEGEND EASING STC164 SEWER • - oCc • 1-444 47. NORTH Projeet The Coves of Stillwater Stlllwatet MN Steet Natural Features/Land Use Plan Sheet Revision 6/7 [ MFFIA FILE NO 12774 - a0�4 �'-wA HINCITIN- -C-0©RTY R-/W PLAT-NO-83- L- _ -- - _15-77lY t - -' - - =—•kx �_ - r r sue.. ,,,!" `7 3 p atT — j— - - = _ :-,.� b�' ASH_ ru i 6 '� C 8►64 t J - 4 `� 0, '; row .�`c.`w = -•'-� ,� ,� L� .. 7a La {k 7 s , { 111 l a m f I 1 «X. e ac - m 1 : I • , 0 b ix iv) -1V 1 r^ et i> a 44 l 061 aL -,� 4a LJ I, \ 1 - 1)- — S \ f' et ` 5'6riiGr WIVE* WIRE FEE C: r r �f �t Ilfrr w w s 4 4 L, I R I J1a ; c men MN MK Mt _ 4 04— El -15 OAKS f ?OTTONWOQD ASPEN 6 — 41 7iam �,KEE4T,rryx B ga/grvvae'Ro-iii. '"1 yf, _4.. 60 `.+-" LIF RIlf 7Ow7?`A5 CO1PRD fl0 i2) \9�f 11 1 �._..n �T — { { "I r- 4, t Ie -vim 45 c__`I-- ®\, t Revisions N Dot B/ Romano N 0I By Rem>b 16en6erth 1601 too pan prop. a 6y weer y 6rel sma.vol pod t 1 ern d1 y R tAs wee Pea®ond E0g eer n/er M to f me Slot 1 Nrmes0l Nan 0m R g 1 iron N T6er Sc1 As9.o.n Devon Dr A1*B Do 5/33/00 Check W ATM r1 IM FRA Frank Roos Assod>tn. 1Tu. £ngmeermg Plan mg Su .ey 9 IS050 75b A... /bl6 Roma One* SW pone 617/ 75-60 0 la. 6 7/ 16 6132 (-M.6 neaeneam. - (MCKUSICK R( D_ N) at a ,SF $r a _-,, _t_ ' �VVVxr ✓✓-JJerg - `}`__ ` -�� _ _ =-WASHING- TbN COUNTR/W p_LAT�NO�� I I — ; � — 1 .���Iifa�aFli / 1 ~l. 5 A. / ', N 2 Client Thompson Land Development Golden Valley MN 4' I /p ,6., (/� R S 65n o y acr��e1 •' y is' / / 7 r rm 4" z 0 46 Pooled rF�ra r The Coves of Stillwater ShWater MN 0 rr r 41 44 _ = — S )1 L t'.�= ---- — is Ms i t t3 74a ELI Sheet Tale )A6516CT10NAL REMAND N0 3 TREE FRE5ERVATION LEIEND ADC , rc ) g8} 519661...ANT TREE IODVYW NON•SbMF.CANT 5LONDICANT TRTT,_5- LIM OF 6RA01N5 TREE FRE5E iVATION CALCU-ATIOIG AREA OF 516A MART Tltz5 ARF-A OF SYN FICANT TRESS QY' .W S1661FLAVT T6235 P'G A. TREE REIIL.00lV1' CA.ALATLTO AREA Oo SKIURCANT TREES RCMOVE7 REPX613.T n_5 fSJ.1eZ 00 TREES r ACRE REMOVED) r 6 5 SF I5 A.. 06565 5F SOS AL Mb% 1366.53 T SOS AC 31 TIME-5 ICTE CA.CJ AT'.011500 LOT 61,.2.0E TREF5 N RRESERYE AREA OTREE PROTECTION MSTAO. so le mg Tree Preservation Plan NORTH 0 50 100 200 400 Shed Malden 7/7 1 leFRA FILE NO 12774 w • • Concept Elevations and Floor Plans • • rivIr"44;.÷7,=-,•,...........=---4,..-47---...‘.....;--;.."....._ whaailiormswww r cl it ul I. i II -i-i�1}. illC�1IrE �i:3Tpl � _ � ,° I L.ig. - `0,v mI f�I =niI�O.7y =MRr.,:,, v. OF STILLWATER ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES ,,,.... It. On Minnesota Calls Us Home • • • • II N I �I riosisitwl.�in i MIRK 70)61 INIMMIIMIIIII 1■Iw 11111IIIw1IfYI�iIM MIN wI I jt Iwi aim-- iiaii%iiriiiiimil MAIMIIM I I I I SIIIPI . 11E-9L=Tilmeamil- ,g161111.,.. irimi_m! \. *I I Il11IAFI I WEI K u, 1II nI m nI A I1111 1■I i■ 440 LAN 881 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Q Mmnesoca C'lls Us Hone ©Copyright 2000 U S Home 1618 SQ FT • • ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Or�d LLSNw Minnesota Calls Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home • • • 1111101 IIII1 IIIIIupIIjlltrur� u,'� III1 Ir�I IIgitII 1 I II t- -�t�.6, ri[liFitilii-rIE-1-1111- 3 rims -Ili -II IL4 L tl LI L1-II i 1 1, !Stpooill � r II a II I . 0I_I_ II I !_ u..iwiiu puoia•al �� ! I I Nil kii�i�i� wn�w _I_ I gyp' �i IIII I II R 1 n Ir ai riri�c -a�. — M I —I ll -I I Ii11IR1�iH1NW�I�L,n� Iwi ui dl IIIr 11 )fID h IK ifI i I iariaTi�l ILuTICIIf1' rIIII r I D�rl it If L 4Emu ■iia 11111 PLAN 882 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Minnesota Calls Us Home ©Copynght 2000 U S Home 1950 SQ FT • GARAGE *ea 1- o C4 z z e DW KITCHEN UP ti • PORCH ;o FIRST FLOOR DINING OPT STUDY • PLAN 882 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES ....- O. Mamesota Calls UsHome o ©Copynght 2000 U S Home • 'bol O • • MASTER CLOSE C )MPUTER NOOK DN BEDRM 3 LIN 4 O BATH BEDRM 2 -LI IL SECOND FLOOR `PLAN 882 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Mmnesoca Calls Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home i • 0 r wx 400, immimmammmimm mmum I I mown a�r lid I + 1 ~ IormoMI�IY Imii�IU Imo, II �INl�lir11l iMMl111111 ■INl um i■i'_ilai I ■ II IMI1 .i I I ! PI !_ � Ill`' 1 � �i�1= I!iiiil i� N1i I■� r� I 1iwu Aria..ier►wl.ii mmoommmmm=1 ■11111! _pgl■n 'ail tEg_ 1.1 IIIII it: =10 1 = LAN 883 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES MmnesotaCons Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home 2110 SQ FT inh i REF MUD 11 NOOK II II 11 UP PANTRY DINING ROOM GARAGE MASTER FIRST FLOOR -44 r' 'o a i PLAN 883 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Mmnesoca Calls Us Home ©Copynght 2000 U S Home • • • SECOND FLOOR ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES �..- O. MmnewcaGnc Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home • �If F 11I 1!- 1 1 IWIMI II I 1111N/!■MIIA■11111-Ili 1I11 �I I 1 ' i11p A I�awYIYIiINI�liMY U j��YI��'�lwlili1 I I ■IIi■ !Imilw I. y Ii� u■11■11■!Ilnl�l_._�miloIMI�s Iw IW!�iiIm■IMalM1wwM■IwI •aI■IIIM' IMI!■I- IIIIMIMINI11iIM!!4E!.IYI�Iw1fI1111HIUl!l.VIIII1! • 1 t111N11■■I_I II kp1 I . I i NIIMI!■N! 1111 i =�I�Ii1II 1F :; • 1 0104 Mr* • -40 11-11 Ir1 rI ntr. IU II II 4 Il 11 I I ICI �■I�i I L rm. ! �■iZ. II U q II_ �wlai, FFF rff FE FF1 II, ■ • r 1 h r i i PLA ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES MmnesotaCalls Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home 2216 SQ FT 051:0.o s GREAT ROOM U PARLOR NOOK II MUD — T DWG KITCHEN FOYER X DINING PORCH -I II - RESOURCE CTR ?,I FIRST FLOOR GARAGE LEA N t0 _o» PLAN 884 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Min tesotaCans Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home • • • MASTER DN BEDRM 2 2' M BAT` CL55 =� VP" - COMPUTER NOOK BEDRM 3 PLAN 884 SECOND FLOOR ORBIN TTHOMPSON Q HOMES ,� �. Mmnewca Calls Us Home ©Copynght 2000 U S Home i f • • PLAN 885 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Q Mmncwra C llls U Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home 2289 SQ FT 041—. ami PLAN 885 2:-.; ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES MmnesotaCdLs Us Horne ©Copynght 2000 U S Home FIRST FLOOR • • • SECOND FLOOR PLAN 885 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES orsus� M meter. Calls Us Horne ©Copynght 2000 U S Home • • • ii hill 15111114, �rIlI11�11Ai ii■lwm&. ►immalri liabiiftiLMiW'MI NiiillfiiWlifis i�!��=i► lital atm AIM E W!� .�IllE11!lll1'. Jf MINI\ �Ir I� IIIiiI!�Iiisi� ilir►riiiiiwi�!I��� r■l�■JI I _ MIIMIIlI1111111I=I01.1I�1•1i1 I III ■■I I r �-i rr� rrr I Id glq-lommumn -gym=E 0 : ,0!!, ,PLAN 886 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Minnesota Calls Lls I lome ©Copyright 2000 U S Home 2304 SQ FT ; ' 0 NOOK PANTRY GREAT ROOM�� DINING i I 41 I� STUDY GARAGE KITCHEN 010 010 FOYER MUD LAUN GARAGE FIRST FLOOR PLAN 886 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES M!l71Ps=Calls Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home • • O O 1 MBATH MASTER CLOSET BEDRM 2 >-- BEDRM 3 UN ' DN UN LOB COMPU'FJ4- NOOK BAT1 fl PEN TO BELOW -4 PLAN 886 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Calls UHorne ©Copynght 2000 U S Home II SECOND FLOOR i II • • iiiliiii1 " ALLY Sr 1 9!iplMil Mir.R RIVER— ns II PLAN 887 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES MmnesomGills Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home 2668 SQ FT • • NOOK KITCHEN PDR Q \ DN it DINING LIVING FAMILY PORCH FIRST FLOOR a b Nd PLAN 887 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES b.vsusx_ Q Minnesota C'.,lls Us Home ©Copyright 2000 U S Home • 141 MASTER 0 0 BATH UN UN BEDRM 3 BEDRM 4 0 0 MBATH�! rCLOSE7F1 COMPUTER NOOK N BEDRM 2 DN OPEN Tr BELOW SECOND FLOOR PLAN 887 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES �... Q Mrnnesoo cgsUsrorne ©Copyright 2000 U S Home • • (v. %ice San*1INI 1 mois7 Alt I I I I I M ,411i�i I 1 I I iw�,wii� �I rows wwiiliiraraiiriiiuiiT4RiiiiJ liiiri�i� -� u �t-I�11 II 1. rrr rrr FW-F FF F 02) PLAN 888 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Calls UsHome ©Copynght 2000 U S Home 2752 SQ FT GREAT ROOM DINING II 1I II II sr- -_-_=_--i2.-4 II �I PARLOR 1 1 II FOYER PANTR Sae NOOK i MUD ,w ACCESSORY GARAGE PORCH GARAGE FIRST FLOOR lb' O' PLAN 888 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Mm tesora (ells Us Home ©Copynght 2000 U S Home • • MASTER BEDRM 2 BEDRM 3 MBATH\ 1LOSET LOFT 0 0 BEDRM 4 N OPEN TO BELOW SECOND FLOOR PLAN 888 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES MmnesocaCanc Us Home ©Copynght 2000 U S Home • MEMO • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director '1V/ Subject Continued Request to Subdivide a 83,636 Square Foot Lot into Three Lots Date June 5, 2000 This item was considered by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2000, and continued to this meeting to clanfy the location of the site in relationship to the sewer moratorium area The Planning Department reviewed the request at our staff project review meeting Representatives from Engineenng and the City Attorney were present The request for subdivision was discussed The site is not in the City North Hill moratorium area and does not have city sewer service The lot size requirements for new lots not serviced by City services is 1/acre The City Engineer has been directed by the City Council to prepare a feasibility study to provide sewer service to the North Hill area including the subdivision site In order for the proposed subdivision lots to be smaller, the developer would have to extend City services to the lot At this point, the City Engineer would not approve the subdivider's extension plans To conclude 1 The site does not have City sanitary sewer services 2 The Engineenng Department is prepanng plans to service the North Hill area including the subdivision site 3 The proposed subdivision does not meet the one acre size requirement of unsewered lots 4 The City Engineer will not approve the developers plans to provide sewer service to the proposed subdivision property Recommendation Denial of subdivision request or continuance until City sewer service is available Attachment Planning Commission staff report, minutes and application of May 8, 2000 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Mr Rheinberger questioned the requirement of the $1,000 fee for the stormwater utility fund, considering the request is for only a few more square feet of impervious surface area Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as condition, eliminating condition No 2 (the $1,000 fee) Motion passed 8-1, with Mr Ranum voting no Case No SUBN/00-24 A resubdivision of a lot located at 1221 N Broadway Tom Brownson, representing George Middleton, applicant This case was continued pending a determination of whether the property is included in the moratonum of construction on the North Hill Mr Brownson said it appears the property in question is outside the moratonum area Mr Russell said the intent of the Council's previous action was to place a moratonum on all unsewered properties on the North Hill, a feasibility for water and sewer services is in process, he noted Mr Russell suggested that if there is confusion as to whether this property is affected by the moratorium, the matter be continued until an opinion is received by City Attorney Magnuson Mr Rhemberger, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to continue the case, motion passed unanimously Case No V/00-25 was withdrawn Case No V/00-26 Case No V/00-26 A vanance to the front (30 feet required, 8 feet requested) and side yard (30 feet required, 20 feet requested) setbacks for construction of a wrap -around porch at 126 N Martha St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Brian and Serese Honebnnk, applicants Mr Honebnnk was present He explained the porch will face east and north He said the requested addition will add to the character of the house Mr Fontaine asked about drainage, Mr Honebnnk said he was building a retaining wall to contain drainage Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unanimously Mr Ranum left the meeting at 9 p m Case No V/00-27 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 0 feet requested) and side yard setback (4 feet required, 0 feet requested) for rebuilding/expansion at 517 N Owens St in the CA, General Commercial Distnct Edward and Kathleen Schmidt, applicant Edward and Kathleen Schmidt were present Mr Schmidt explained his plans and noted it is more cost-effective to tear the existing structure down and rebuilt than to remodel/renovate Plans call for redoing the rest rooms, kitchen, and making the building handicapped accessible The upper floor would be used for office space/storage, not living quarters, at this time He also provided a petition of people in support of the request i • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUB/V/00-24 Planning Commission Date May 8, 2000 Project Location 1221 North Broadway Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name George Middleton Type of Application Subdivision and Vanance Project Description Request to subdivide a 83,636 square foot lot into three lots of 29,580, 36,764 and 17,292 square feet Discussion The request is to subdivide a 83,636 square foot lot into three lots of 29,580, 36,764 and 17,292 square feet The proposal requires a vanance to the conservation ordinance because a slope greater then 24 percent runs through the middle of the middle lot A moratonum on development and subdivision is also in place for this North Hill area because of lack of City sewer service (moratonum attached) This Public Works Department has recently received Council direction to prepare a feasibility study for providing City sewer and water to the North Hill Area Further, staff does not support the vanance to the conservation regulations This would eliminate one lot Recommendation Denial Attachments Application and plans 2 8 2 6 6 2 c-co LL 0 Z 1- 0 Z 0J 1503 -1-505 1419 1421 1412 0 1410" ' if 413 _ , 132 313 1 322 1320 1312 1305 324 AVENUE -.lat.P .1419 1220 1217 1208 1203 1204 VENUE 1123 1122 1116 111 0 1103 STREET 1023 1020 1015 1012 1011 1008 a 0 0 m 1- 0 Z Z 1423 14'19 1401 • RE ST 1408 1317 s 1307 1307 11i >- 1- Z 1-117 Location Map 910 913 1513 • • 1513 R21W R2OW R19W R22% R21W R2OW Vanity Map 0 229 Scale in Feet iwawv o. real w' __,0_ M W�.ybrCargy T. trc tlolEbrs!bnlwv �b Wry r CenYbb Roo l6S rO6®5 4•2a� • • • ORDINANCE NO 8 8 2 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING A MORATORIUM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF STILLWATER BY RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING BUILDING DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISIONS ON PARTS OF THE NORTH HILL 1 Findings a For the purposes of this Ordinance, the North Hill is descnbed as follows Beginning at the intersection of the north line of St Croix Avenue and County Road 5, thence northwesterly along County Road 5 to the south line of the Minnesota Zephyr Railroad Tracks, thence east along the south line of the Minnesota Zephyr Railroad Tracks to the north/south centerline of Section 21, Township 30N, Range 20W, thence north on the centerline to the north line of Section 21, thence east on the north line to the shore of the St Croix River, thence southeasterly along the shore of the St Croix River to the north line of Laurel Street as extended, thence west along the north line of Laurel Street to the west line of Highway 96, thence north along the west line to a point 150 feet south of the south line of East Poplar Street, thence west along a line parallel and 150 feet south of the south line of East Poplar Street extended to the west line of North Second Street, thence south along the west line of North Second Street to the east line of Sycamore Street extended, to its intersection with the west line of North Fourth Street, thence north along the west line of Fourth Street to Moore Street, thence east along the north line of Moore Street to the west line of William Street, thence south along the west line to the north line of St Croix Avenue, thence west along the north line of St Croix Avenue to the point of beginning b The North Hill, as defined in this Ordinance, has no sanitary sewer or water facilities and a storm sewer system that is either nonexistent or wholly inadequate c That much of the North Hill was developed more than one hundred (100) years ago, leaving only marginal property that is difficult to develop and a threat to the health, safety and welfare since it must be developed without municipal sanitary sewer or water facilities d That further in -fill development on the North Hill could have a serious impact on the North Hill itself and the surrounding area and remainder of the City e That within the past calendar year, the City has experienced a significant expense involving correcting ravine washouts on Hazel Street, erosion at the end of North • • • Third Street, rutting and washouts on Hazel Street and Schulenberg Park, failed septic systems, contaminated wells, numerous washouts, pothole repairs and minor flooding problems f Until the City completes a feasibility study or a master plan for development of the North Hill, in -fill development will create more problems and make existing problems more difficult to correct, and budget constraints have not allowed the completion of the needed study during the year 1999 2 Moratonum Based upon these findings, it is hereby determined that any in -fill development, building permits, or subdivisions within the North Hill be and the same hereby are prohibited for an additional penod of eighteen (18) months from October 1, 1999 3 Savings In all other ways the City Code with remain in full force and effect 4 Effective Date This Ordinance will be m full force and effect on October 1, 1998, and after its passage and publication according to law Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this SI' day of 0 ctu-b-44,.J 1999 CITY OF STILLWATER ATTEST Lam, Moils Weldon, Clerk Published Stillwater Gazette October 11, 1999 BROV(/NSON, BONNER-, . - MUHLENPOH 4, Wyk_ •& associates -1; k l • • -,r Transm itta! To City of Stillwater Planning Commission From. Jim Brownson Date 04/21/00 Re Proposed Subdivision 1221 North Broadway The attached information is the preliminary work in an effort to subdivide the property at 1221 North Broadway The parcel is currently combined under one property I D (R21 030 20 44 0003) However it includes 5 original plat Tots ( 75 X 150 ) and parts of 5 other onginal plat lots The highlights of the property include 83 636 square feet of area 357 feet of frontage on North Broadway The development plan includes Subdividing the existing parcel into 3 separate lots Bnnging city specified sewer and water with approved hydrants and manholes from connection points in First Street down Stillwater Avenue and along Broadway to the property Creating a new dnveway to the existing house at 1221 North Broadway Building homes on the two newly created lots Thank you for your consideration I look forward to presenting this project at the May 8 meeting • Page 1 11343 3qth St N Lake Elmo MN SSo4L Office 6si 773 3000 FdX 6S1 773 3030 • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED FEE Certificate of Compliance _ _ Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review anned Unit Development* Variance $70 $50/200 $25 $500 $70/200 Co prehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Wing Amendment* $300 Subdivision* $100+$50/1( Resubdivision cio $100 Total Fee "f 270 6O *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application �I PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION • Address of Project 12 11�r f L Er02.1,3,2 sessos Parcel No Zoning District - Description of P Pre i t 1 a �DUS� sir., an w2' -k7 pro o • l� 5;1� �1 a le P_xts 1/1 Gt4- 1 "I fisav1, reby state th to foregoing statements and all data, inf rmation and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify ! will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner Mailing Address Telephone No Signature %RO Cost e0 ��. -&rS- 4-30 -2571 Representatives Mailing Address j 154?2 3'11--L SCD4.2 Telephone j (�-�T�/? �- - 1795' Signat SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 375 x231. (sfzR�) Land Area 63 6.56. Height of Buildings Stories Feet / Principal 1 2 (Q.00) Accessory Total building floor Area DO Existing ZCo0O sq ft Proposed sq ft Paved Impervious Area 60000 sq ft Number of off street parking spaces provided sq ft Revised 5/22/97 st. Lroix Avenue New New Sanitary Block Hydrant Manhole - Existing Existing I6 Sanitary Sewer Water Main New 8 San itary Sewer Connected to manhole in First Street New 6" Water Connected New Hydrant New Sanitary Service to main In First Street Manhole East S#UIwater Av Connect New Sanitary to Existing Manhole Connect New Water Line to Main nue • All new sanitary and water service Supplied, installed, and paid for by Developer • Total Lot Area 83,636 Square Feet v 7 to y a 68' dn.., s ..a. 01 mega, es dIe.&Akio a ddtll m IepCObtt pbR.M6 b - Nary white. de m. ..meal oUlnametaMe Revisions Date Description Plat Utilities Scale 1 = 50 10 20 Site-1 I &\\\\\ if (Peel reate xisting Prop roposed Sub 100' 140' North Broadway 117' ofOs an.aull Moe. de war cram se ate Rewsrons s. a. Proposed Plat Descrl • on Scale:I = 30 10 20 Site - 2 • 1 1 Existing Property Line Proposed Subdivision Buildable Area 1 100' 140' North Broadway Limestone Retaining Wal To match Existing 117' 1 Scale• l' = 30 10 za Site - 3