Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-10 CPC Packett ater.. 4x t rrd� THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, December 10, 2001 at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of November 13, 2001 AGENDA Public Hearings - 7 p m Case No SUB/01-56 A subdivision of an existing lot/structure into 11 condominium units and one common area located at 6750 Stillwater Blvd in the CA, General Commercial District Stillwater Properties, LLP, owners 1W 2 Case No CPA/01-02 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing land use designation of 4 15 acres of land located adjacent to County Road 5 and Parkwood Lane from Attached Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential Anchobaypro, Inc, Tim Nolde, applicant 3 Case ZAM/01-05 A Zoning Map Amendment changing the zoning of 4 15 acres of land located adjacent to County Road 5 and Parkwood Lane from Townhouse Residential, TH, (1 du/5,000 square feet) to medium Density Residential, RCM (1 du/2,800 square feet) Anchobaypro, Inc, Tim Nolde, applicant 4 Case No V/01-57 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the reconstruction of a porch at 817 7"' Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District Suzanne K Grovel, applicant 5 Case No CPA/01-03 A minor City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Amendment update pursuant to Metropolitan Council review requirements City of Stillwater, applicant Other Items CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800 go City of Stillwater • Planning Commission Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Present Russell Hultman, Glenna Bealka, Darwin Wald, Robert T Gag, Paul Teske and Terry Zoller, City Council Representative Absent David Perocheski Mr Hultman called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the October 8, 2001 minutes by Darwin Wald Second by Glenna Bealka Vote all in favor PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Case No V/01-51 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 2 feet requested) for the construction on a 20x13 6 foot addition at 419 North Greeley Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Tim and Kay Guild, applicants Mr Hultman opened the public hearing David Henderson, next door neighbor at 423 N Greeley, needed clanfication on the • property lines and the request for a 2 foot variance by the Guilds The Commission explained that the Guilds are not changing the "footprint" of the house but putting the addition on top of the current structure The request for a 2 foot variance is misleading because the house was built out of variance and is grandfathered in Mr Hultman closed the public hearing Motion to approve Case No V/01-51, with conditions, made by Robert Gag, seconded by Darwin Wald Vote all in favor The Guilds were reminded to wait 10 days before beginning the project 2 Case No SUPN/DR/01-52 a Special Use Permit for a 29 unit residential use in the Central Business District, CBD, with variances to the front yard setback (15 feet required, 5 feet requested) rear yard set back (20 feet required, 10 5 feet requested), parking spaces required (92 spaces required, 76 spaces provided) and height limit (50 feet required, 53 feet proposed) and design review permit at 501 North Main Street (Domino's Pizza site) in the CBD, Central Business District and the FP, Flood Plain Jeff Wallis applicant Jeff Wallis with Mondo Management, LLC, William Pratt with Smuckler Architects and Jeff McDonald of Landform presented the proposal City of Stillwater • Planning Commission Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Jeff Wallis stated that the plan, with some changes requested and conditions set, was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission He explained the reasons for all of the variance requests Mr Hultman opened the public hearing Mr Hultman closed the public hearing Mr Zoller asked to add the condition that the developers work closely with the City regarding the flood wall approval Motion by Terry Zoller, seconded by Darwin Wald, to approve Case No SUPN/DR/01- 52 with the 22 conditions as outlined in the presentation Vote all in favor Case No V/01-53 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 17'6" requested) for the construction of a 2nd story addition to an existing structure at 1412 West Olive Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District Brett Christianson, applicant Mr Christianson explained that the reason for this request is to allow more living space in his home • Mr Hultman opened the public hearing Mr Hultman closed the public hearing Motion by Robert Gag, seconded by Darwin Wald, to approve Case No V/01-53 Vote all in favor 4 Case No SUB/01-54 A resubdivision of existing 6 lots into 4 lots of 12,463 49 square feet each at 702 St Croix Avenue West in the RB, Two Family Residential District Timothy J Freeman, representing Clark and Adam Nyberg, applicant Mr Timothy J Freeman of Folz, Freeman, DuPay and Associates explained the resubdivision request He stated that, after meeting with Klayton Eckles and Steve Russell at City Hall, all code requirements have been met or exceeded, with this plan No variances are being requested and the use being requested is a permitted use Mr Hultman opened the public hearing Betsey Whitbeck and other members of the North Hill Neighborhood Association presented an 18 signature petition opposing the project Jun Nelson, 1411 N Carnelian, stated that after reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance he realizes that this is a permitted use but feels that it does not fit with the • character of the neighborhood He expressed concern for neighboring property values and feels 0) City of Stillwater • Planning Commission Tuesday, November 13, 2001 that owned property vs rental property would be better maintained He also mentioned that there are currently drainage problems and that if more hardscape is installed this condition would worsen Mr Nelson expressed concerns regarding the maintenance of the property by the Nybergs since they purchased it Barry Stoddard of 1311 Carnelian St stated that he does not want more rental property in his neighborhood and will likely move out if the subdivision is approved Arlene Syverson of 1322 N William Street does not want renters in the neighborhood because she feels that they do not take pride in their homes and would not `keep up' the property JoAnn Larson of 1404 N William St reiterated the feelings of Arlene Syverson Milton Wicklander of 604 W St Croix Avenue agrees with his neighbors He likes the quiet neighborhood and does not want to see more traffic in the area Jan Kilkelly of 1313 N Owens Street expressed her wish for single family homes, not multi -family dwellings • Doreen Hauser of 1309 N Owens Street stated that there are many problems, noise, etc with the apartment complex already in the neighborhood She would rather see owner - occupied properties than more rental properties Mary Hovland of 1218 N William Street stated that any increase in traffic would be detrimental to the neighborhood Ins Wotzka of 1222 N William Street expressed concern for the safety of her children if the population density increases in the area Brian Amund of 1311 Carnelian Street has concerns for the safety of his belongings Betsey Whitbeck concluded that the desire of this association is to get new neighbors who will make an investment in the area, in the neighbors and in the entire community She feels that owner occupied properties would provide that type of neighbor She requested that the Nyberg's consider some other type of development and thanked the Commission for their time and consideration Mr Hultman closed the public hearing 3 City of Stillwater • Planning Commission Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Robert Gag clanfied that the purpose of the hearing is for the Commission to rule on the subdivision of the four lots in question, not on whether or not the property is rental or owner -occupied Steve Russell stated because the development is consistent with regulations, it would not come before the planning commission or any other governing body for further approval Zoning Ordinances and Proposed Land Use restrictions apply to the size, setback requirements, drainage requirements, etc, not to the residents The owners of the property can construct any type of residence as long as it meets the requirements Mr Zoller pointed out that even without subdividing, the Nyberg's could actually construct five single family houses and a duplex on the property These houses could still be rental units because the City does not require residents of a property to be the owner of that property Mr Freeman pointed out that the subdivision makes no distinction between owner - occupied or rental units, only the number of housing units allowed Mr Wald stated that there was really no valid reason to deny the request and felt that whatever went in there would be better than what is currently there Mr Zoller stated that this is probably the first time he has been asked to combine two lots, rather than separate into smaller lots He also stated that there is no valid reason to deny this subdivision request Mr Hultman asked if North Carnelian will be improved with this development as a public improvement project He asked if the developers will be required to install the curbing, paving and a turn -around for this project Mr Freeman pointed out that the Nyberg's were willing to take on the costs of the improvements to avoid the entire neighborhood being assessed for a public improvement project The applicant does not want that burden to be put on the neighbors Motion by Darwin Wald to approve with conditions, Case No SUB/01-54, seconded by Glenna Bealka Vote four in favor, two opposed Motion passed 5 Case No V/01-55 A variance to the side yard setback (20 feet required, 8'5 5" requested) for the construction of an exterior exit stairway and two elevated decks on the east side of the building located on the south side of Olive Street between Second and Third Streets in the CBD, Central Business District Jerry Runk, representing Donald Marianne Nolde, applicant 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Mr Hultman opened the public hearing Mr Hultman closed the public hearing Motion by Paul Teske, seconded by Glenna Bealka to approve Case No V/01-55 Vote all in Favor Case No ZAT/01-02 An amendment of Fence Ordinance and Supplemental Regulations regulating the location and height of fences in residential districts City of Stillwater, applicant Mr Hultman opened the public hearing Mr Hultman closed the public hearing Steve Russell explained the need for the amendment to nd the ordinance of the ambiguity about fence heights and neighbors approval and apply the normal variance process to fences He also stated that per the Planning Commission's request, the "clear corner" provision from the Zoning Ordinance was put into the fence ordinance Lucille Crowley of 415 W Wilkins St expressed her concerns regarding fences and how some people put up a fence with disregard for the ordinances and she stated that it is difficult to get a response from the City when you have questions regarding ordinances Terry Zoller added, in Section D Number 1, "fences in excess of 6 feet above natural grade shall be prohibited" Motion by Terry Zoller, seconded by Darwin Wald, to approve as amended, Zoning Text Amendment ZAT/01-02 Vote all infavor Other Items Lynn Bly, Project Manager of the TH 36 Partnership Study appeared before the Planning Commission to update them on the Trunk Highway 36 Corridor Management Plan for the segment of Highway 36 between Highway 5 and Highway 95 She advised the commission of tentative meeting dates and open house information session dates Swimming Pool Ordinance - Steve Russell read a brief memo from Cindy Shilts the City's building official regarding the need for fences around above -ground pools The Commission is considering if there is a need for any changes to the current ordinances Terry Zoller moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Russell Hultman Vote all in favor . Respectfully Submitted Kathy Rogness Recording Secretary 5 • Memo To Planing Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date December 5, 2001 Subject Item 1, Case No SUB/01-56 Request for 11 Condominium Lot Subdivision at 6750 Stillwater Blvd The request is to subdivide an existing site and build into 11 condo units and one common area No changes to the structure would result in the subdivision The application map shows the individual spaces that would be subdivided and under separate ownership A Condominium Association would be formed to maintain the building and grounds A copy of the common interest condominium declaration is attached The City Attorney will review the document before final City Council approval 0 Recommendation Approval Attachment Subdivision map and declaration 9 COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NO 155 A CONDOMINIUM 6750 STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM Declaration THIS DECLARATION is made as of this day of December, 2000 by Stillwater Properties, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, herein called "Declarant," pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 515B 1-101 through 515B 4-118 (tbe "Act"), as amended RECITALS Declarant is the owner of the following described real estate located in Washington County, Minnesota See attached Exhibit A Together with all buildings and improvements now or hereafter constructed or located • therein and all rights, privileges, easements and appurtances belonging to or in any way pertaining to said real estate Declarant wishes to establish the real estate as a condominium under the act NOW THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Real Estate is and shall be divided, held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, occupied and developed subject to the Act and to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth in this Declaration, which shall run with the Real Estate and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Real Estate, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of each unit owner, and the heirs, successors and assigns of each unit owner Note to Readers Many provisions of the Act (Chapter 515B which governs this common interest community ("CIC"), and of the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A under which the Association is formed, are not repeated in this Declaration This Declaration should be read in conjunction with both statutes 100 DEFINITIONS S' 1 01 Words defined in the Act shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Act The following are supplemental definitions a "Association" shall mean 6750 Stillwater Condominium Association, Inc , a Minnesota nonprofit corporation b "Board of Directors" or "Board" shall mean the board of directors of the Association c "Member" shall mean any person or entity holding membership in the Association d The "Bylaws" of the Association which are incorporated into and made a part of this Declaration by this reference e "Unit" shall mean any of Units 101 through 111 2 00 IDENTITY OF REAL ESTATE AND CIC 201 Identity This Declaration establishes Common Interest Community No 155, Washington County, Minnesota, under the name 6750 Stillwater Condominium It is a condominium (and not a planned community or cooperative), and is not subject to a master association The real estate included within this CIC is located in Washington County, • Minnesota and is legally described as follows See attached Exhibit A 3 00 CIC PLAT 3 01 The CIC Plat for this CIC is being recorded simultaneously with, and as a part of, this Declaration 4 00 OWNERS ASSOCIATION 401 6750 Stillwater Condominium Association, Inc has been incorporated as a Minnesota nonprofit corporation under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A to act as the association of unit owners required by section 515B 3-101 of the Act 40 2 5 00 UNITS AND UNIT IDENTIFIERS 501 This CIC consists of eleven(11) units The unit identifier of each unit is shown on the CIC Plat 6 00 BOUNDARIES 601 The unit boundaries of each unit shall be the walls, floors and ceilings of each unit, as described in further detail in Section 515B 2-102(b) of the Act 7 00 USE OF UNITS 701 Units Each of the units shall be used only for general office purposes (Permitted Uses) The Association may be rules and regulations specify uses which qualify and which do not qualify as and for general office purposes hereunder, however, that any change in permitted uses may be made only by amendment as provided for in this Declaration In no event shall any unit be used for residential purposes Timeshares are not permitted 8 00 ALLOCATED INTERESTS • 801 Expenses and Ownership Each of the units is hereby allocated the percentage of undivided interests in the common elements and in the common expenses of the Association, specified in Exhibit B attached to this Declaration However, certain expenses may be assessed on a different basis, or against one or fewer than all units, under the following circumstances a Any common expense associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement of a limited common element undertaken by the Association may be assessed exclusively against the unit or units to which that linuted common element is assigned, on the basis of (i) equality, (n) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or replaced, or (m) the actual cost incurred with respect to each unit b Any common expense or portion thereof benefitting fewer than all of the units may be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted, on the basis of (i) equality, (ii) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or replaced, or (m) the actual cost incurred with respect to each unit The costs of insurance may be assessed in proportion to value, risk or coverage, and the costs of utilities may be assessed in proportion to usage 3 d Reasonable attorneys fees and others costs incurred by the Association in • connection with (i) the collection of assessments and (n) the enforcement of this Declaration, the Bylaws, the Act, or the Rules and Regulations, against an Owner or occupant or their guests, may be assessed against the Owner's unit e Fees, charges, late charges, fines and interest may be assessed as provided in Section 515B 3-116(a) of the Act Assessments levied under Section 515B 3-116 of the Act to pay a judgment against the Association may be levied only against the units existing at the time the judgment was entered, in proportion to their common expense liabilities g If any damage to the common elements or another unit is caused by the act or omission of any Owner or occupant, or their guests, the Association may assess the costs of repairing the damage exclusively against the Owner's unit to the extent not covered by insurance h If any installment of an assessment becomes more than 30 days past due, then the Association may, upon 10 days written notice of the Owner, declare the entire amount of the assessment immediately due and payable in full i If common expense liabilities are reallocated for any purpose authorized by the Act, common expense assessments and any installment thereof not yet due shall be recalculated in accordance with the reallocated common expense liabilities Assessments described in Subsections 9 01 a-h shall not be considered special assessments as described in Section 10 02 802 Formula The percentage allocation of interests specified in Exhibit B is calculated for each unit by dividing the area of the unit into the total area of all units 8 03 Voting, Each unit shall have one vote 9 00 ASSESSMENTS 901 General Provisions Section 515B 3-115 of the Act specifies how assessments are assessed and collected Section 515133-116 specifies how the lien for assessments is created and enforced, and to which interests it is either superior or subordinate The following subsections 10 02 through 10 04 supplement those provisions 902 Special Assessments In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the 0 4 Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any unforeseen or unbudgeted common expense, including without limitation the unexpected construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement and including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of not less than two- thirds (2/3) of the voting power of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose 9 03 Commencement of Initial Annual Assessments The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all units not later than 60 days after the conveyance of the first unit to an owner other than Declarant The first annual assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in the calendar year 9 04 Commencement of Annual Assessments By November 30 of each year the Board shall fix the amount of annual assessments against each unit for the following fiscal year and shall send written notice thereof to each owner The due date for payment of annual assessments shall be as set by the Board At the time the Board fixes the amount of annual assessments it shall adopt a budget for the following fiscal year and cause a copy of such budget in reasonable detail to be furnished to each owner 905 Lien Priority, Foreclosure A lien under this Section is prior to all other liens and encumbrances on a unit except (i) liens and encumbrances recorded before this Declaration, (ii) any first mortgage on the unit, and (iii) liens for real estate taxes and other governmental Is assessments or charges against the unit Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a first mortgage on a unit is foreclosed, the first mortgage was recorded on or after June 1, 1994, and no Owner redeems during the Owner's period of redemption provided by Chapters 580, 581, and 582, then the holder of the sheriff's certificate of sale from the foreclosure of the first mortgage shall take title to the unit subject to unpaid assessments for common expenses levied pursuant to Section 515B 3-115(a), (h)(I) to (3), (1), and (I) of the Act which became due, without acceleration, during the six months immediately preceding the first day following the end of the Owner's period of redemption 9 06 Voluntary Conveyances Statement of Assessments In a voluntary conveyance of a unit the buyer shall not be personally liable for any unpaid assessments and other charges made by the Association against the seller or the seller's unit prior to the time of conveyance to the buyer, unless expressly assumed by the buyer However, the lien of such assessments shall remain against the unit was satisfied Any seller or buyer shall be entitled to a statement, in recordable form, from the Association setting forth the amount of the unpaid assessments against the unit, including all assessments payable in the Association's current fiscal year, which statement shall be binding on the Association, seller and buyer 0 5 10 00 ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY 10 01 Common Elements The Association shall undertake the maintenance and repair of the common elements, the expense of all of which shall be allocated as described in the Act and this Declaration, except that each unit owner will be solely and directly responsible for the expense of replacement of broken glass in windows and doors of such owner's unit The Association shall have the exclusive right to manage, maintain and alter the common elements 10 02 Services The Association may obtain and pay for the services of any persons or entities, to manage its affairs, or any part thereof, to the extent it deems advisable, as well as such other personnel as the Association shall determine to be necessary or desirable for the proper operation of the Real Estate, whether such personnel are furnished or employed directly by the Association or by any person or entity with whom or which it contracts The Association may obtain and pay for legal and accounting services necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the Real Estate or the enforcement of this Declaration The Association may arrange with others to furnish trash collection and other common services to each unit 10 03 Personal Property and Real Estate for Common Use The Association may acquire and hold for the use and benefit of all of the owners tangible and intangible personal property and real estate and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise Such beneficial interest shall not be transferable except with the transfer of title to a unit, provided that an owner may delegate the right of enjoyment of such property to lawful occupants of such unit A transfer of title to a unit shall transfer to the transferee ownership of the transferor's beneficial interest in such property in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended, without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other owners The transfer of title to a unit under foreclosure shall entitle the purchaser to the beneficial interest in such property associated with the foreclosed unit 11 00 OWNERS' MAINTENANCE 11 01 Upkeep and Maintenance Each owner shall undertake, at the expense of such owner, the upkeep and maintenance of such owner's unit, and to the extent not otherwise maintained by the Association, of the assigned limited common elements, and each owner shall maintain the same free of hazardous substances or equipment, vermin, cockroaches, pests and debris which may pose a threat to the health or safety of occupants of other units Every owner must perform promptly all cleaning, maintenance and repair work within his unit, which, if omitted, would affect another unit or units, being expressly responsible for the damages and liabilities that failure to do so may engender The Association may from time to time specify reasonable standards for all such maintenance Without lirruting the generality of the foregoing, the Association may require an owner to remove offending items, or to use a professional exterminator, and upon failure of the owner to so do, Association after reasonable notice may 1* 6 enter the unit with a professional exterminator or other appropriate contractor and take corrective action, charging the owner of such unit for the reasonable cost thereof An owner shall do no act nor any work that will impair the structural soundness or integrity of the building, or impair any easement of hereditament, nor do any act nor allow any condition to exist which will adversely affect the common elements, the other units, or their owners 11 02 Heating, For the purpose of preventing damage to and breakage of water, sewer and other utility lines and pipes in a unity which might result in damage to an adjoining unit, all owners shall maintain the temperature of their Units, at all times, at least at 55 degrees Fahrenheit (or such other reasonable temperature or standard as the Board of Directors may from time to time specify by written rule), subject, however, to the inability to maintain such temperature due to causes beyond the owner's reasonable control Any damage resulting from the refusal or failure of an owner so to maintain such minimum temperature may be repaired by the Association and (unless due to causes beyond the owner's reasonable control) the cost thereof assessed against the unit of the refusing or failing owner However, if the failure to maintain such minimum temperature is due to causes beyond the owner's reasonable control, the cost of such repair shall be a common expense The Association may by rule require units which are unoccupied for substantial periods of time during winter to use alarms which will detect abnormally low temperatures 12 00 INSURANCE CASUALTY AND EMINENT DOMAIN 12 01 Association's Policies Section 515B 3-113 of the Act requires the Association to maintain casualty insurance coverage on the common elements and units The same section also requires general liability coverage, authorizes the Association to carry any other insurance it considers appropriate, specifies minimum notice from an insurer prior to cancellation, specifies other provisions for such insurance, requires the Association or an insurance trustee to adjust all losses, and describes the Association's duty with respect to repair or rebuilding after casualty to common elements or units The provisions of the Act described in this paragraph may not be varied or waived, but are hereby supplemented, as follows a The Association shall carry workers compensation insurance whenever it has eligible employees b The Association may carry fidelity insurance and shall do so whenever required by a holder, insurer or guarantor of a mortgage c The Association may enter into binding agreements with one or more holders, insurers or guarantors of mortgages obligating the Association to keep specified coverages in effect for specified period and to notify a holder, insurer or guarantor of any changes to coverage 0 12 02 Owner's Individual Policies Each owner should carry insurance for his or her own benefit insuring personal liability and carpeting, wallcovering, fixtures, furniture, furnishings, 10 and other personal property, and fixtures and other real estate supplied or installed by this owner or a previous owner or tenant, expect to the extent that the Association in its discretion provides blanket coverage for some or all such items, provided that all such policies shall contain waivers of subrogation and further provided that the liability of the carriers issuing insurance obtained by the Association shall not be affected or diminished by reason of any such additional insurance carried by any owner 12 03 Betterments In all events, betterments or improvements made subsequent to the original construction by any owner to the owner's unit shall be the responsibility of the owner to insure separately (or by rider to a blanket policy at the consent of the Association) if the owner desires the same insured If the Trustee or mortgagee undertakes the reconstruction or remodeling of a unit as above provided, the same need be restored only to substantially the same condition as the unit was as of the completion of original construction 12 04 Eminent Domain As in the case of physical damage or destruction, the Association shall represent all unit owners with respect to any condemnation involving all or any part of this CIC, including the condemnation proceedings, and any negotiations, settlements, or agreements as part of the condemnation or in lieu of the condemnation, and all proceeds shall be payable in the first instance to the Association or an insurance trustee, for the benefit of owners and mortgage holders 12 05 Deductibles The Association may, in the case of a claim for damage to a unit, (t) pay the deductible amount as a common expense, (ii) assess the deductible amount against the units affected in any reasonable manner, or (iii) require the owners of the units affected to pay the deductible amount directly 13 00 ARCHITECTURAL RESTRICTIONS 13 01 Association Control The Association shall have the exclusive control of the common elements (including limited common elements) and no change shall be made to the common elements or to the exterior of any unit, including changes in appearance or color, except by the Association or with the written authorization of the Association 13 02 Windows No films or coating shall be applied to the interior or exterior of exterior windows which darken, make reflective or otherwise change the color or appearance of such windows as viewed from outside the unit, without the prior written consent of the Association All window treatments in a unit which are visible from outside the unit shall be of a light neutral color The Association may from time to time prescribe one or more specific materials and colors All window treatments shall be constructed for use as draperies, curtains or blinds, and no sheets or untailored materials shall be used as window coverings at any time 8 13 03 Awnings No awnings or shades shall be erected over and outside of the windows, nor • shall any articles or structures be hung or placed on any outside window sills, without the prior written consent of the Association 13 05 Wiring or Penetrations No exterior wiring shall be installed nor shall there be penetrations of the walls, window frames or roofs of the exterior of the building except as authorized by the Association 13 06 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment No additional air conditioning or air cooling unit shall be installed or placed in any part of a unit other than that which was originally installed, without the prior written consent of the Association All ceiling fans and all other electrical fixtures installed in a unit must comply with all applicable building codes and underwriting standards and other reasonable, standards adopted by the Association No oil -fired or other combustion type heaters shall be allowed in units 13 07 Structures on the Common Elements No building, fencing, pools, dog runs or other structures which were not part of the original construction, nor any trees, bushes or substantial change in landscaping shall be erected or maintained on the common elements (including limited common elements) except with the written authorization of the Association 13 08 Antennae Except with prior written approval of the Association, no exterior television, radio, satellite, or microwave antenna of any sort shall be erected or maintained upon the common elements or the exterior of a unit However, any requirements with respect to satellite receiving antennas one meter or less in diameter shall be reasonable, shall not impair or degrade reception and shall conform to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 14 00 RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 14 01 Any lease between an owner and a lessee shall provide that the terms of the lease shall be subject in all respects to the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws, and that any failure by the lessee to comply with the terms of such documents shall be a default under the lease enforceable by the Association as well as the landlord A lease of a unit must be for an entire unit, not a portion thereof All leases of units shall be in writing and a copy shall be filed with the Association prior to commencement of the term No lease of a unit may be for a period of less than thirty (30) days, nor provide for hotel type services All leases shall be deemed to include, for the term of the lease, all of the owner's rights to use the recreational facilities, common rooms and open spaces of the CIC, and no owner shall be permitted the use thereof unless in occupancy of a unit Other than the foregoing, there shall be no restrictions on the right of any owner to lease a unit 0 9 15 00 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS 15 01 Prohibition of Damage and Certain Activities Nothing shall be done or kept on any unit or any part thereof which would increase the rate of insurance on the Real Estate or any part thereof over what the Association, but for such activity, would pay, without the prior written consent of the Association Nothing shall be done or kept on any unit or any part thereof which would be in violation of any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, permit or other validly imposed requirement of any governmental body No damage to, or waste of, the exterior of the Real Estate and building shall be committed by any owner or any invitee of any owner, and each owner shall indemnify and hold the Association and the other owners harmless against all loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused to the Association or other owners by such owner or the owner's invitees No noxious, destructive or offensive activity shall be allowed on any units or any part thereof, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become a nuisance to any other owner or to any other person at any time lawfully occupying the Real Estate No heating devices, refrigeration equipment, or other machinery which causes vibrations detectable from outside the unit, is fuel -fired, or is otherwise inherently dangerous, noxious, or noisy, shall be installed or operated within any unit 15 03 Animals No pets shall be permitted to be kept on the Real Estate by any owner or occupant • 15 04 Signs No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any unit, except a Designations, in such styles and materials as the Board shall by regulation approve, of street addresses and names of occupants, b A "For Sale" sign may be displayed provided that it is in such styles and materials as the Board shall by regulation approve, and c Declarant shall be permitted to erect and maintain upon the Real Estate such signs as it deems necessary to advertise the development during the construction and sale periods 15 05 Noises Unit owners and occupants shall not make noises, play instruments or operate radios, televisions, or amplifiers in a way that may disturb other residents, or otherwise create disturbances to the peace and tranquility of the building No nuisance shall be allowed on the CIC nor shall any use or practice be allowed which is a source of annoyance to the other owners or which interferes with the peaceful possession or proper use of the CIC by all unit owners 15 06 Outside Storage Outside storage of any items, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, sporting equipment, outdoor cooking equipment, trash and garbage • 10 containers shall not be allowed 15 07 Vehicle Storage No boats, snowmobiles, trailers, camping vehicles, buses, camper tops, "all -terrain vehicles," tractor/trailers or trucks in excess of 9,000 pounds' gross vehicle weight, or unlicenced or inoperable vehicles shall at any time be stored or parked on the common elements without the express written approval of the Board of Directors, which may be withheld without stated reason 15 08 Repair to Vehicles Save for emergency repairs, no repairs or adjustments to motor vehicles may be carried out on the common elements 15 09 Landscaping No one shall harm, mutilate, destroy, alter or litter any of the landscaping work or improvements on the common elements, including grass, trees, and flower beds 15 10 Designated Areas for Vehicles No motor vehicle shall be driven or parked on any part of the common elements other than on a driveway or parking space 15 11 No Obstructions The sidewalks, walkways, halls, passages, entrances, corridors, stairways, and driveways shall not be obstructed or used for any other purpose than ingress to and egress from the units and parking areas within the common elements 15 12 Flammable or Hazardous Materials No stores of coal or any combustibles, flammable • or hazardous goods, provisions or materials shall be kept on any part of the Real Estate except for reasonable quantities and kinds of usual household materials and reasonable quantities of fireplace wood 15 13 Non -Interference No part of the common elements shall be used by anyone in such a manner so as to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the units or the common elements No part of the common elements shall be used by the owners for the erection, placing or maintenance of clotheslines, incinerators, garbage disposal equipment, recreation or athletic equipment, tents, fences or other barriers or for the placing or disposal of rubbish, garbage or waste without the prior written consent of the Board of Directors 15 14 Cable System Access In the event the Board of Directors authorizes any sort of master, cable or community television or data system, each owner hereby authorizes access to his or her unit upon reasonable notice for the purpose of installing the conduits and fixtures necessary to serve such unit, without regard to whether the owner then elects to subscribe to or use such system 15 16 Rules and Regulations The Board of Directors may from time to time adopt, promulgate and publish other rules of conduct reasonable relating to the enjoyment of the CIC by owners and occupants, including rules for the use of recreational facilities and amenities, 0 11 provided that no such rules and regulations may have the effect of contradicting a provision of • this Declaration or the Bylaws 15 17 No Additional Units Neither the Declarant nor any other unit owner is permitted to create any additional units by subdivision or conversion under Section 515B 2-112 of the Act 15 18 No Time Shares Time shares, as defined in the Act, are not permitted in this CIC 16 00 FIRST MORTGAGEES 16 01 Precedence The provisions of this Article take precedence over any other conflicting provisions of this Declaration 16 02 Notice of Action Any mortgagee and any insurer or guarantor of a first mortgage on a unit who has advised the Association in writing of its name and address and the address of the unit covered by such mortgage, and in said writing has requested the Association to notify it of any of the following, will be entitled to timely written notice of a Any condemnation loss or any casualty loss which affects a material portion of the project or any unit on which there is a first mortgage held, insured, or guaranteed by such mortgage holder or insurer or guarantor, as applicable, is b Any delinquency in the payment of assessments or charges owed, or any other default in the performance of any obligation under this Declaration, the Bylaws, or Articles of Incorporation by an owner of a unit subject to a first mortgage held, insured, or guaranteed by such holder or insurer or guarantor, which remains uncured for a period of 60 days, Any lapse, cancellation or material modification of any insurance policy maintained by the Association, d Any proposed action which would require the consent of a specified percentage of mortgage holders as specified in Section 21 03 below 16 03 Examination of Books and Records First mortgagees and holders, insurers and guarantors of first mortgages shall have the right to exarmne the books and records of the Association, as set forth more fully in the Bylaws 16 04 Designation of Representative Any holder of a first mortgage on a unit may designate a representative to attend meetings of members 0 12 17 00 AMENDMENTS 17 01 Statutory Requirements The Act specifies the requirements for amending this Declaration 17 03 Mortgage Approval In addition to all other requirements set forth herein, and except when a higher percentage is required by law or this Declaration, amendments to this Declaration of a material nature must be agreed to by unit owners who represent at least 67 % of the total allocated votes in the Association and by mortgage holders who have submitted a written request to the Association to be notified of any proposed action requiring consent of mortgage holders, who represent at least 51 % of the votes ascribed to units that are subject to mortgages held by such mortgage holders A change to any of the provisions governing the following matters would be considered material a voting rights, b increases in assessments that raise the previously assessed amount by more than 25 %, assessment liens, or the priority of assessment liens, c reductions in reserves for maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements, d responsibility for maintenance and repairs, e reallocation of interests in the general or limited common elements, or rights to their use, f redefinition of any unit boundaries, g convertibility of units into common elements or vice versa, h expansion or contraction of the project, or the addition, annexation, or withdrawal of property to or from the project, hazard or fidelity insurance requirements, imposition of any restrictions on the leasing of units, k imposition of any restrictions on a unit owner's right to sell or transfer his or her unit, a decision by the Association to establish self management if professional management had been required previously by the holder of a first mortgage on a 13 unit, • m restoration or repair of the project (after damage or partial condemnation) in a manner other than theat specified in this Declaration, or n any provisions that expressly benefit mortgage holders, insurers, or guarantors 18 00 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 18 01 Establishment The Declarant shall establish an Association working capital fund intended to meet unforeseen expenditures or to purchase any additional equipment or services At the time control of the Association is transferred to owners, the working capital fund shall be transferred to the Association for deposit in a segregated fund The fund shall be initially established at an amount equal to two months' assessments on all units The amount attributable to a particular unit will be collected and deposited in the fund at the time of closing of Declarant's sale of the unit, provided that when control of the project is transferred to owners, the amounts attributable to all units which have not then closed shall be collected A contribution from each unit to the working capital fund is measured by two months' assessments but amounts paid into the fund are not advance payments of regular assessments 18 02 Declarant's Accounting This working capital fund is the property of the Association, and is not to be confused with any earnest money agreed upon between the Declarant and buyers of units The Declarant may not use the Association working capital fund to defray any of its expenses, reserve contributions or construction costs or to make up any budget deficits while it is in control of the Association When unsold units are sold, however, the Declarant may reimburse itself from funds collected at a unit closing for money it paid the Association for that unit's share of the working capital fund 19 00 MISCELLANEOUS 19 01 Right to Cure In the event that any owner violates any covenant or fails to perform any condition contained in this Declaration, the Association may perform the act, remove the defect or correct the violation upon thirty (30) days written notice to the owner If the Association so acts on behalf of an owner, the Association may levy an assessment against the owner's unit for the cost of the performance or correction 19 02 Association Acts through Board The power and authority of the Association as provided in the applicable Statutes, the Declaration, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations shall be vested in a Board of Directors elected by the owners in accordance with the Bylaws of the Association The Association shall act through the Board of Directors and the officers elected by the Board, accordingly, all references in this Declaration and the Bylaws to action, consent 0 14 or discretion by the Association shall mean the Board of Directors acting for the Association, • unless action by the vote of the owners, members or mortgagees is expressly required by this Declaration or the Bylaws 19 03 Notices Any notice required to be sent to any member of the Association (or owner) under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such member appearing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing In the case of multiple owners of a unit, notice to any one of such owners shall be deemed notice to all 19 04 Captions The headings in this Declaration are intended for convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect 19 05 Construction In the event of an apparent conflict between this Declaration and the Bylaws, the provisions of this Declaration shall govern The use of pronouns such as "his," "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable the plural and female forms 19 06 Not Subiect to Ordinance This CIC is not a conversion CIC within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 515B 1-106(c), and is therefore not subject to any ordinance of the type authorized or permitted by said statute • 19 07 Rights of Action In addition to all other remedies and rights set forth in the Act, the Association, and any one or more aggrieved unit owners, shall have the right of action against unit owners who fail to comply with the provisions of this Declaration and the Bylaws or the decisions of the Association, and one or more unit owners shall also have such rights of action against the Association for any failure to comply with or enforce such provisions 19 08 Declarant's Rights and Obligations The Declarant shall enjoy the same rights and shall be deemed to have assumed the same duties with respect to its unsold units in the CIC as any other owner, except as modified or extended by the alternate assessment program and the special declarant rights described in this Declaration 19 09 Easements a Whenever in, or whenever by, this Declaration, the Bylaws or the Act, a unit owner, the Association, the Board, or any other person, is authorized to enter upon a unit or the common elements to repair, maintain, restore or reconstruct all or any part of a unit or the common elements, such easements as are necessary for such entry and such repair, maintenance, restoration or reconstruction are hereby declared and granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable condominium document relating to such right -of - entry 0 15 • b Subject to such reasonable rules, regulations and restrictions as may be imposed by the Association, each unit owner and each other occupant of any unit and the employees, agents and invitees of each such unit owner and occupant, including persons making deliveries and pickups, are hereby granted an easement for ingress and egress through all common elements in common with the other unit owners and occupants and the employees, agent and invitees of such person Each unit is hereby burdened with and subjected to an easement for ingress and egress through all common elements by persons lawfully using or entitled to the same c Common elements shall be and are hereby made subject to an easement in favor of the Association and the agents, employees and independent contractors thereof for the purpose of inspection, upkeep, maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year recited on the first page hereof STILLWATEF PROPERTIES, LLP By • Its Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) -k� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2001, by 5.4eue/-r ) /YlA- cl , Partner of Stillwater Properties, corporation, on behalf of the c rporation THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY Steven H Berndt ZAPPIA LeVAHN & HEUER, LTD 941 Hillwind Rd N E , S 301 Minneapolis, MN 55432 763-571-7721 16 day of February, LLP, a Minnesota h%joV ksm CHRISTIANS tary Public ` Imesota 6 / C mr r en Expires Jan 31 20M EXHIBIT A • Legal Description COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NO 155, A CONDOMINIUM 6750 STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM That part of Outlot C, Croixwood Sixth Addition, Washington County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the following described line Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of said Outlot C, distant 168 00 feet Southwesterly to the most Northerly corner thereof, thence Southeasterly at right angles to said Northwesterly line and to the Southeasterly line of said Outlot C and said line there terminating, except that part of Outlot C, Croixwood Sixth Addition which lies Southwesterly of a line running from a point on the Southeasterly line of said Outlot C, distant 110 00 feet Northeasterly of the Southeasterly comer of said Outlot C to a point on the Northwesterly line of said Outlot C, distant 255 05 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly corner of said Outlot C, together with the appurtenant easements contained in Document Number 411487 �J EXHIBIT B • COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NO 155, A CONDOMINIUM 6750 STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM Allocation of Interest in the Common Elements and the Kind of the Common Expenses Unit % 101 3 83 102 3 23 103 323 104 2140 105 2046 106 301 • 107 327 108 13 92 109 1098 110 11 11 111 5 56 100 00 % r SITE PLAN (AS BUMT) The orientation of this bearing system Is based on the easterly line of OuOot C Crolxwood Sixth Addition which is assumed to bear 1,132b8 23 E All drainage and utility easements shown were dedicated In the plot of CROIXWOOD 6TH ADDITION Sign and Trash Area are Common Elements BENCH MARK Railroad spike_ in the west side of a Dower Dole In the most northeasterly caner of the property and Stillwater Boulevard North Elevation = 92477 feet (NGVD 1929) 9 Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 Inch 1 on pipe monument set and marked by license No 20595 Pont Obtenb 255.05 rest Nofhawotey bon in South—tey -omr f Ora t G Crobwood Sixth Addlik" COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NUMBER 155 A CONDOMINI UM 6750 STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM • • -Pohl Obtant I6&00 first Scuthweste) 1 \ bam N in t North cover I WfI C. Goixwood A th Add bon a (� ?�O00 Y A `i Ae('yrpea ryC (, 2O U y V z o a 81 2 till 5� �a` / /a e GRAPHIC SCALE a eo wo I inch w 30 tL V This CIC PLAT is part of the Declaration recorded as Document No on this _ day of . 2001 at o dock _M Washington County Recorder Torrence E. y or the CIC PLAT ofCOMMONINTERESTdo e COMMUNITY by certify hNUMBER 155 Aat the work 9CONDOMNUMb 6750 eme to STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM located upon That part of Outlot C Crolxwood Sixth Addition Washington County M nesoto lyi g Southwesterly of the follow 9 described line B gin g t a point on the No thweslerly line of sold Outlot C d st t 168 00 feet Smthw sterly to the most Northerly com then of then a South a terly at right angles to s d Northwesterly line a d to th Southeast r1y ept that pa It of OutIOt C here heirSouthwesterly s a f mid stt/erlyl of a Ilnearunlning ine terminating a point on thec Southeasterly [me of ea d OuUot Cdd slant 1Si thd10 00 feet h Northeasterly of the Southeasterly comer of said OuUot C to a point an th Northwesterly line of sold Outlot C distant 25505 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly corner of said Outlot C tog ther with the appu tenant ea ments canton d Document N mber 411487 Fully and aecurotely depicts o0 Inform lion required by Min wool Statutes, Section 5159,2-i10 0 led this 4,1* day f M�f'�'s - 2001 Terrence E R Nenbadher Licensed Loral Survey' Mlnnesot Ucww No. 20595 STATE Or MINNESOTA COUNTY Of DAKOTA Th foreg Ing Inetr —t was acknowledged befor in this V, day f- / 2001 by Terrence E Rothenbachor Licensed Land Sui,ey' IOYRrA.I. I�IEiO� N t Public. O N44w. Ca ly MInn t BAKOTACOt�ITY My Commesen E V w .Inn ory 31 2005 ` J / a,:Y-ate °t r 110 rg` i CJ g� eatery a < t t i}v %a ELEMENT r �- r VA - rC 1 / r7a foM th So hsost feat Nofo"'y / - Iron th d S1 isfarlyy Verner / Oue t C, pdmod 9 N Addition / yMt . Purwanl t Min soot St lutes, Sector 515B.2-101( ) do hereby cooly Nat all trucltaal —Pan-t and meth d yslem of oll bUlding containing or wnprhing any It thereby Veal 4 are wbslantloay compl led. cons tent w th y.?a th CIC PLAT f COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NUMBER 155, A CONDOMINIUM 6750 STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM Dot d N� is Cloy of M A 1—'% - 2001 Registered Prot or EngxteV /� �G D M sect Regbtr txs No. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY O DAKOTA / 2001 by TM trm w foregoing In uent was, ack .lodged b form thl Giw• my f Gis.we Reg! tered PmEregstond Engineer / WY=TA� OttTyCou ty wo! N tary P COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER / for th y' 2001 hoe been pcid end tr fer h been Thor delinquent t es, the cement t wo du one p yabl e entered this _ day f 2001 By WashingtonWashingtonWashingtonCau LY Audllor%T craw er Beputy COUNTY SURVEYOR Purwant t Min wooto St t tes, Ch pter 38909 Subd. 2. this CIC pi t hen been apPr red thi -- day f 2001 By By Wosfdngtan Cm ty Surveyor Asalstant Cou tY Survey' ** ** * PIONEEA Lao 5mm = a"HIEpe * engineering IAKa """os `"SCAK ulaeheers * * ,err COMMON INTEREST COMMUIV*Y*iUMBER 155 A CONDOMINIUM 6750 STILLWATER CONDOMINIUM UNIT DETAIL (AS -BUILT) Flow E - 9IS6 Feet U-ner Level Elevations Unit 111 upper level floor elevation = 935 9 feet Unit III upper level telling elevation = 9440 feel urn Levef elevations Units 104 105 108 107 108 109 and 110 main level floor elevation = 924 2 feet Unite 104 105106 107 108 109 and 110 main level ce'ling elevation - 934 6 feet t ower Level t1eVo11on9 Units 101 102 and 103 lower level floor elevation a 915 0 feet U Its 102 and 103 lower level telling elevations vary from 921 3 feel to 922 6 feet Unit 101 lower level ceiling elevation varies from 919 7 feet to 922 6 feet Elevations are referred to a benchmark as noted on the site plan on Sleet 1 of 2 Sheets and are shown in feet and tenths of a fool C E = Common Element Interior dimensions shown are measured to the u (n shed surface of the walls. floors and ceiling GRAPHIC SCALE ( 01 "MT ) 1 Ineb - 10 tL LOWER LEVEL J ^ C0MMOx 13 cdlny a - 33 922a Feet m 2IJ30W 67 108 Wing Elsv- s m 112 - J 9170 v w 921 J Feet _ 2.9 i Uq0 V Eti. Von I 13 11 g 131 I p� 8_ I' ^ •, 18 Wm I ^m u lu , I C, 78 7 4 v � 5.7 u COMMON ELEMENT 135 131 O _ Cs,ln El - 91A7 Feel On •47 I � g U j W.9 El - i 919 7 wait 1 7 ` 9225 Feat 13 o 85 I� m so101, Iu 173 Ce96,g El - 922 6 Feat MAIN LEVEL _J 11 2 ^ I �c.,v,y n !L L3LOFt _110 y,rr m 9JMMO B.B Fwt Cell N 1: ^.I K'I UNIT 105 18.2 14 UNIT 106 182 18.2 m 0 UNIT 107 106 10 5 e 3? &2 1O n IBO 188 a 50 p o ggo _ 1is UNIT 104 DEiEL C v a3� 44 - Z n I aCl, 46 1 .6 `I_ o n - OpEN TD ABOVE I - N Sea Detae A I 1 I 386 ELEMENT 54 175 N 196 I^ COMMON „e SIDEWALK 1Z 39 7 EIENENi ., Ij1-m Upper L Vall12e.__: m L wer L vW a nl C ass Sac ton Not To Scale 1 Ir 0 N m Level I m A. "E1A1L W Cross SecI on Not To Scale e UNIT 108 33 9 UNIT 110 UPPER LEVEL +4 0 * ** * PIONEER iAro,� aem�is * engineering — • Memo To Planning Commission n From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date December 5, 2001 Subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 4 15 Acres of Land from Attached Single Family and Townhouse Residential Zoning to Medium Density Residential for the Site Located between County Road 5 and Parkwood Lane South of Wildpines (Case No CPA/01-02 and ZAM/01-05) The request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow Medium Density Residential from the existing Attached Single Family Attached Single Family has a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet of land while Medium Residential has a density of 1 dwelling unit per 2,800 square feet of land A multifamily designation would allow apartment construction The letter of application indicates interest in construction of a sixty-urut apartment complex (see • attached) Although no specific project is being proposed at this time, it is useful to understand what future development could occur with this rezoning The change in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is appropriate at this location next to community commercial use, a church and youth center Impacts on the single family Croixwood area to the west should be considered in actual project design Additional infill density in already services areas and rental housing is an objective of the Comprehensive Plan This item was presented to the Council for review at their meeting of November 19, 2001 The Council reviewed the residential density change and referred it to the Planning Commission for an amendment hearing Recommendation Review and decision on request Attachment Application package is A • • 0 4 y Pp� a a 2 a 5 5 s °7 v� a � ' � ° � a a • ° "1L+RP Brow rt vw APA e y ^ na 0— ° 7J3+ n'S1 a fu" a 3 , n1N PIN ° s 9 0E +c 0 ° Y 0 8 P� y T30N lY]l ARE N e Q n rvN r9N reN r8N WILDPINES LANE �. m aoMEs Eoc W72N r Case No Date Filed D� Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED Fees COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 CITY OF STILLWATER Variance $70/200 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET Resubdivision $100 STILLWATER, MN 55082 _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 (i e, photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay tt application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION • Address of Project PA-Itk W006 Z-A- rk Assessor's Parcel No Zoning District Description of Project (GEO Code) "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in al 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 kucl*,,w P2d , C__ Representative Mailing Address /PC? // � Mailing Address City- State -Zip 5�wL Gu4-rm , ti LSD t_ amity - State - Zip Telephone No - — /d- 7 Telephone No Signature Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) _ x 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 H Vncnamaralshe11a1PLANAPP FIRM June 22 2000 JH 05 01 %ED 13 27 ;'AC 6514398 013 CENTIRY 21 PALLE} i 11 • I i. • ! a nky M Memorandum 0 To Mayor and City Council From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date 11/l/2001 Re Request for Rezoning for Property Located west of CR 5 and south of Wild Pines Lane The attached letter from Mr Nolde requests consideration of rezoning of property located on the west side of CR 5 south of Wild Pines Lane The area is designated attached single family (townhouse) in the Comprehensive Plan Recommendation Refer request to Planning Commission for study and action Attachment Letter requesting rezoning consideration dated October 23, 2001 U 1 r-)e- V I SE-b i 9 0 Anchobaypro, Inc. P.0.119 Stilhnrater, MN 55082 651439-4187 November 5 2001 Stillwater Gty Council 216 N Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Council members Anchobaypro Inc has recently acquired three parcels of land adjacent to County Road 5 and Parkwood Lane The land is currently zoned townhouse -residential and totals 415 acres We are nearing completion of our Long Lake Villas development and have had many inquiries about additional units especially affordable With many in our area in need of affordable housing similar to the Ann Bodlovick budding I think the site is perfect for a similar structure Our preliminary proposal would be a 60 unit budding consisting of three stones elevator and underground heated parking Units would be one, two and three bedroom with the majority two - bedroom Each unit would have separate heating and air-conditioning dishwasher walk-in closet, washer/dryer and other similar amenities Before any of this can occur I need to get feedback from the council as well as zoning changes to accommodate our proposal Our plan is to set aside 50 % of the units at affordable rents to qualify for tax-exempt bonds and housing tax credits Stillwater needs much more affordable housing especially for the aging population Ths site lends itself perfectly for this type of development The location is proximate to all essential services Please consider my request for a rezoning and do not hesitate to contact me rf you have any questions Sincerely Tim Nolde Anchobaypro Inc. k� it O� r,1 iP m 7r rimiAp PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/01-57 Planning Commission Date December 10, 2001 Project Location 817 Seventh Street South Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Suzanne K Grovel Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the replacement of an existing porch Discussion The request is for a variance to the front yard setback The existing house is nonconforming to the front yard setback, as in much of "old" Stillwater Instead of the required 30 foot front yard setback, it has a 0 lot line setback The applicant is not planning to construct any closer to the street since she would be building on city • right-of-way The intent is to increase the length of the porch, not the depth The existing porch is 6 feet wide and 10 feet long The request is to construct a porch that is 6 feet wide and 22 feet long The proposed roofline will match the existing roof All materials will match the main structure Recommendation Approval as conditioned Conditions of Approval 1 The architectural style, materials and color match the main building 2 The Building Official shall approve all plans 3 All revisions to the approved plan be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 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 hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of isubstantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and i in 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 authorizing 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 public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter from Applicant/Site Plan U OCT-31 -Z001 11 01 PM BRF T I i HR I T I AN UN 14 11 S -n Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 P 02 ACTION REQUESTED Fees Speclal/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 XVarlance $70/200 _Resubdlvlslon $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 (10, photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any Incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Prole (5 li rl I Assessors Parcel Nog � n3n C� /,4 DOS7 r- `GEO CId ) ZoningDistrictDescription of Project r-Q ' (ice22'ital- 10 (i , lit Z-7- 1 "I hereby state the foregoing state"nts 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 1 will comply with file permit If It /s granted and used " Property Owner Malling Address , City - State - Zip Telephone No - o -0.2 Signature a�I,-1.e '�` Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip_ _ Telephone No Signature _ SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) JiD x L'�Q Land Area - 4CO Height of Buildings Sto tes Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area I -Mr square feet Existing- / 2Sd square feet Proposed /7,Cp square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces • 0 • $ J 1 50 i s0 50 so I 75 WEST WILLARD STREET 20 20 40 b 0 m 46 30 ,10 `.t LET t.., `.l I aal 6 5 4 3n 2_-- —1 _ 7 A 6" 5 A A 3 A 2 A 1 -6 5' 4� 3 — � 1: 33 C1436 AI q poe4l 1 q p�71 1Ne _ 140 im q 3 1 q 9 11 ' g 31 ' 1m 1m 135 1030 1437 31 10 ip0�1 140m 1 175 po 1 11 r1me 143e o I 12 143me 4_) 13 28 +m 11 1439 27 I 14 q 30 7430 00 1 15 26 1« 1u 25 WO 1 16 poeor 1u 1M 24 tYt 17 1«1 pUAI IF—) 23 18 q 1M 1 22 19 1 vo " tu2� � 1Y2 21 20 q 0 ,[.P 5U w Y1 2CC 1 1Y3 3 p oal 4W0^ 1 25 to 4 r 1« 4 4 1« 4 24 Sp�l to s � 1 6posal — _fue dwoo) -- —, 7p® 1447 _ _1447___1 c 21 8 R -j_1 1 - 19 fue tuB 10 -- 18 1 i 1«0 +ue 11 ppp 1 1449 pA" 17 �+44 R r _ 1�1 7« 0 16 J 4 1 15 „ Location Map _ 14 °'1 R 30 I 1m 28 20- 1 MG 25 24 OP —I 135 1 r00 a e� 140 q 6 0 c�I 53 WEST. - CHURCHIL 1m 1po.c1 — 29 — R e 12 pos01 q g 1 13 27 pos 1 q 6 140 r 1. 26 14 J g pmi 1m 1as 1po I g ' 25 1m 135 - 2OM" 16 q q� tm 1]5 S 23 W 9 28 - oal e 140 w° 2 AI ,m 27 I 2 ,� a e� 2-, p 1401 tin l'n e�j2f - 20 AI 3 Op.) 1m ,m 35 25 1 4 - 3 p 3 go4I 1m 1m 5 115 24 40 1 g 24 1m _ 135 _ q p 1 6 2 /40 - zg 22 1 7p oel x 22 w Im _--_ 1—e a to _ 11 Wq 260 " Bp oo:m a is a ��3e1 140 140 CO 135 _ 20 g 20 p 1 IF I e q 140-- - 140- 1 J o — — 14 140 140 � _ 'G � 1p 13518 I q = e 18 im- — -1m I— - 135 _ F 1p 1 12 O e �ua1 m I 40 1 i140_ _ re (0 135 _ _� _ e 1 1 tp 71 V q R 135 _ —I — 1R 13s +m 14 6 0 S 15 to l R g 1; >21 1 m 1m 135 R_IW IMIN R19W 132N= ns+ n1N n,N nON r- "r9N7'RN r R_ W MW R_'OW Vicinity Map l 0 148 Scale In Feet ro wweeea wi.n Aim e.w woes_ b ww.� 11wu weeMa��w+r sw..w omr. �me..aawa.00..amra w sa >m R_IW IMIN R19W 132N= ns+ n1N n,N nON r- "r9N7'RN r R_ W MW R_'OW Vicinity Map l 0 148 Scale In Feet ro wweeea wi.n Aim e.w woes_ b ww.� 11wu weeMa��w+r sw..w omr. �me..aawa.00..amra w sa >m R_ W MW R_'OW Vicinity Map l 0 148 Scale In Feet ro wweeea wi.n Aim e.w woes_ b ww.� 11wu weeMa��w+r sw..w omr. �me..aawa.00..amra w sa >m �Ac,, ZI 2cx�,� i 0 P�W✓vuY�Jil� �C�vYv rr�i `> ► t1�(� a'm 'T CL y z z 7 1VA �sTti11- .fUfLl� G1/nC f\A {V"Ci,4-L 'YL-1- I i� 1 ` `►`�'11�R �U��Lt,�C� ��C.z j l.i`� A, 52�1�1 - s2M CAoskct �'1..�'.� t7V✓� t-tj �-l., f1r�c�� � �>� � Y'4�.R, i�1�- (�G� �� V1� U,.'Y".{ Jt ) " q\Ak 4 501:91 Lt +k.),- azn'A S4)1� r } <c � IW0-.�_ , L-J 0 0 TWI Memo To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director PZ Date December 5, 2001 Subject Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment The attached amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is being required by the Metropolitan Council The amendment summarizes changes to the Comp Plan that have taken place since original adoption in 1995 In addition, includes City policy on sanitary sewer and on -site inspections Recommendation Approval Attachment Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11-27-2001 1 Memo To Review Agency From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date November 27, 2001 Subject Minor Comprehensive Plan Update The City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan underwent major review and amendment with final adoption in 1996 Based on a recent review by the Met Council, certain elements of the plan need clanfication or addition (see attached letters) The additional information is being processed as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment A copy of the amendment is attached The Stillwater City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the amendment on December 10, 2001, and the City Council will hear the amendment on December 18, 2001 As a review agency, you have 60 days to submit comments on the amendment to the Met Council (please provide a copy of amendment comments to the City of Stillwater Planning Department) Attached to this memorandum is the following Met Council Comp Plan Review letters General information sheet and Comp Plan Amendment Form comment letter If you have any questions regarding the amendment process or amendment information, contact Steve Russell, City of Stillwater, 651-430-8822 or Michael King, Met Council, Sector Representative 602-1438 TWO Memo To Planning Commission / From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date December 5, 2001 Subject Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment The attached amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is being required by the Metropolitan Council The amendment summarizes changes to the Comp Plan that have taken place since original adoption in 1995 In addition, includes City policy on sanitary sewer and on -site inspections Recommendation Approval Attachment Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11-27-2001 SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION A Sponsoring Governmental Unit City of Stillwater Name of Local Contact Person Steve Russell, Community Development Director Address 216 N 411 Street Stilllwater MN 55082 Telephone Number651-430-8821 FAX Number651-430-8810 Internet Address (if applicable) Date of Preparation November 13, 2001 B Type of submittal ❑Overall plan revision or update or ®Plan amendment Name of amendment/brief description minor amendment providing for storm and sanitary sewer policy/program and land use changes Land use change (describe) Three changes as shown on attached map (1) Stillwater Crossings, (2) Settlers Glen and (3) Public Works Facility Size of affected area (in acres)180 MUSA Expansion? ®No []Yes If yes, size of expansion (in acres) Other (Please describe) C Please attach seven (7) copies of the following 1 Completed Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments (this form) 2 The proposed plan revision or plan amendment 3 A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change(s) 4 The current plan map, indicating area(s) affected by the revision or amendment 5 The proposed plan map, indicating the subject area(s) of the revision or amendment D What is the official local status of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply ) If a report regarding this plan revision or amendment was prepared for the local Planning Commission or City Council please include one (1) copy of that report along with the submittal package ®Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on 12/10/01 date ®Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review on12/18/01 date ❑Considered, but not approved by governing body on date ❑Other (please describe) the land use changes have been approved by the City Council E List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc ) to which copies of the plan revision or amendment have been sent, and the date the copies were sent to them (Required by Minn Stat 473 858, Subd 2) Oak Park Heights, Grant, Lake Elmo, ISD 834, Brown's Creek Watershed District, Middle River Watershed District, MnDOT 958 May 1997 Local Planning Handbook 46;-1(1tr-4-6y Metropolitan Council Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy June 28, 2001 Steve Russell, Community Development Director City of Stillwater City Hall 216 N 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Russell This letter follows up on your meeting with Michael King, and Ton Dupre on June 151h to discuss the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Metropolitan Council staff and city staff has been discussing how to update the city's 1996 plan so as to meet ttie Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 comprehensive plan updates The 1996 plan is thorough and well done It was agreed that the plan could be updated to meet the new requirements through a short addendum to the plan and the submittal of certain sewer and water quality information It was agreed that the items listed below would be provided by September 1, 2001 1 Updated forecasts through 2020, including population, households and employment 2 An updated land use plan map A copy of the city's most recent Capital Improvement Program 4 A description of the city's individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) management program, including inspections every three years Alternatively, a copy of an executed memorandum of agreement with Washington County to provide that service in the city of Stillwater could be provided (see attached) 5 Update Table 3, page 5 of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan to include any anticipated increase in sewer flows in 2015 and 2020 or include a statement that 2015 and 2020 flows are not expected to increase over the 2010 flows (524,700 gallons a day) 6 Describe the city's current and planrmed actn.t es to reriuce inflow and infiltration into the sewer system At the meeting, the city's North Hill sewer project was discussed Staff reviewed the Council's April 27, 1996 comprehensive plan review comments dealing with the environmental concerns about this area The Council report read in part as follows "A 1974 report prepared for the city identified problems with on -site systems in the (north hill) area, and that the level of need for extension of sanitary sewers into the area was immediate Sanitary sewer service has not been provided to date due to the high cost of construction in the area The city's plan update proposes to fully serve the area by 2010 Council staff expressed concern to the city that www metrocouncil org Metro Info Line 602 1888 230 East Fifth Street St Paul Minnesota 55101 1626 (651) 602 1000 Fax 602 1550 TrY 291 0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer It T Steve Russell June 28, 2001 Page 2 the current questionable operational integrity of the on -site systems should not be assumed to be acceptable through 2010 " Through the comprehensive plan process, the Council plays a review and advisory role in water resources planning and we work to promote compliance with state standards for septic systems The Council shares the city's concerns on the broad issues of protecting public health and preserving the environment Ultimately cities decide the timing, scope and method of paying for public improvements Michael King, Sector Representative will be available to work with you to as you prepare the plan materials and to respond to any other questions Sincerely, J� hyllis Hanson, Supervisor Planning and Technical Assistance Attachment CC Nile L Knesel, City Coordinator Klayton Eckles, City Engineer Marc Hugumn, Metropolitan Council District 12 Eli Cooper, Director of Planrung and Growth Management Helen A Boyer, Director, Environmental Services Michael King, Sector Representative Ton Dupre, Senior Planner (s,-� e,-c 2020 19,800 Vlet Council Households Employment 6,100 9,400 7,300 11,400 7,800 12,500 City of a er COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use (City) Acres Percent Residential (� SFLL Single Fanly Large Lot 1,23637 1688 (� SFSL Single Faintly Small Lot 7 749 15 8' / ASF Attached Single Family 7533 0 99 / MF Multi Family 6465 141 Commercial ® CN Neighborhood Commercial 13 73 0 30° CC Community Commercial 4409 096 Business Park BPC Business Park Commercial 14166 3 08 / ® BPO Business Park Office 2395 051 ® A/O Admimstratne/Office 4561 099 BPI Business Park Industrial 11831 157 RDP Research & Development Park 1807 061 Inshtutional ® SS Secondary School 4396 096 ® ES Elementary School 51 90 1 13 / ® CEM Cemetary 3877 084 Public FOR PM Manna 1400 030 ® PN Neighborhood Park 9359 103 ® PC Community Park 1881 063 ® PG Golf Course 30115 655/ (� Water 61083 1318 © Wetland Area 6051 131 0 OPS Open Space 10141 1 20°/ 0 RAIL Railroad 1974 065/ (� ROW Right -of Way 70530 1534 PF Public Facility 1565 034/ TOTAL 4,59925 100 00% / Section Lines Railroad City Limits Streams Disclaimer The data represented on the Proposed Land Use Map displays the current landbase compiled by Washington County Survey Department Questions concerning the Landbase should be directed to the County Questions concerning the Land Use Designations should be directed to City ojStillxater Planning Department 08/31 /01 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 FEET T Sources Washington County Survey Department C Iry or City of Stillwater Planning Department } PlanSight GIS &Planning Technologies Agi Copyright p 2001 city of Stillwater Fngi ke ig /Xjw anent Jgninfa/sw-gis/plaiizon w YZ3 CITY OF STILLWATER FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2001-2005 Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001 INDEX 1 Narrative on 5 year Capital Improvement Plan Schedule A - Operations 3 Schedule B - Potential Projects 4 Schedule C - Financing 5 Schedule D - Expenditure and Revenue Summary 6 Schedule E - Property Tax Financing 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN THE 5 YE AR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ('CIP ) IS A FINANCIAL PLANNING TOOL IT IS USED TO ENSURE EXPENDITURES ARE WELL PLANNED TO EN ABLE THE CITY TO REPLACE NECESSARY CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS WHEN NEEDED WITHOUT REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT FLUCTUATIONS N THE TAX LEVY THE CIP BASICALLY CONSISTS OF TWO TYPES OF EXPENDITURES THE FIRST TYPE OF EXPENDITURE IS FOR OPERATIONS (SCHEDULE A) OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES INCLUDE ITEMS THAT ARE NEEDED TO PROVIDE BASIC SERVICES EACH YEAR SUCH AS LOADERS, GRADERS, COMPUTERS SQUAD CARS FIRE TRUCKS, ETC OPERATION EXPENDITURES ARE ALSO INCLUDED N THE OFFICIAL ANNUAL BUDGET THE SECOND TYPE OF EXPENDITURE IS CALLED POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL PROJECTS ARE PROJECTS THAT MAY TAKE PLACE IF THE FIIv kNl CIN G FOR THE PROJECT IS OBTAINED AN EXAMPLE OF A POTENTIAL PROJECT WOULD BE A NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY OR MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SUCH AS LADDER TRUCK T l[E MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE POTENTIAL PROJECT SCHEDULE IS THAT IT IDENTIFIES PROJECTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT SHOWS WHAT THE PRICE TAG IS FOR THE PROJECT (ACID WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE ON PROPERTY TAX LEVIES) THE CIP ALSO INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULES SCHEDULE C - POTENTIAL PROJECT FINANCING THIS SCHEDULE SHOWS HOW THE POTENTIAL PROJECTS WOULD NEED TO BE FINANCED AS INDICATED BEFORE, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT ALL OF THE PROJECTS WOULD BE FINANCED BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY HOWEVER, THE PURPOSE OF USING THIS SCHEDULE IS TO SHOW WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE ON THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY IF A POTENTIAL PROJECT WAS ORDERED 2 SCHEDULE D - EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE SUMMARY THIS SCHEDULE COMBINES OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES AND POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND ALSO SUMMARIZES HOW THE EACH WOULD BE FINANCED 3 SCHEDULE E - PROPERTY TAX FINAiNCr\G THIS SCHEDULE SHOULD BE USED AS A QUICK REFERENCE FOR DETERNINNG WHAT THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY WOULD NEED TO BE EACH YEAR N ORDER TO FINANCE PROPOSED CIP EXPENDITURES FINALLY, BECAUSE IT IS A PLANNING TOOL ONLY THE ADOPTION OF THE 5- YEAR CIP DOES NOT NECESSARILY TRANSLATE INTO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES CURRENT COUNCIL POLICY REQUIRES THAT ANY CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEM WHETHER IT IS INCLUDED N THE "OPERATIONS BUDGET OR THE ` POTENTI -kL PROJECTS' BUDGET, REQUIRES FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL BEFORE THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE OBVIOUSL'C, THE AVAILABILITY OF NON -TAX FINANCING RESOURCES WILL DETERMINE THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO FINANCE POTENTIAL PROJECTS PRII,IARILY BECALSE THE CITY S ABILITY TO LEVY TAXES FOR DEBT SERVICE (RELATED TO FINANCING POTENTIAL PROJECTS) IS LIMITED BY LAW AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, BY THE TAXPAYER'S OBJECTION TO HIGHER TAXES THEREFORE IT W OULD APPEAR THAT THE I,IAJORITY OF THE POTENTIAL PROJECTS WOULD NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THE; YEAR CIP It CITY OF STILLWATER 5 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN Exhibit A 2001 - 2005 OPERATIONS YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROJECT 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE Imaging System Computers Postage Machine Color copier Fax Network server Network copier Financial Acct System CAFR on Micro Barcode Scanning Wkstation AS400 Printer Networked printer Phase I - E government site Phase II - E government site Copier TOTAL ADMIN /FINANCE PLANT/CITY HALL Elevate paved driveway 3rd Floor remodeling Interior lighting improvements Computers Jukebox Imaging System Software Upgrades Network Upgrades Parking Lot Improvements New lock system TOTAL PLANT/CITY HALL POLICE Computers Squads w/Changeovers BCA Network Varda Alarm Radios IWK Investigator vehicle Radar Units Shooting Range in Basement Guns Investigator Vehicles Video Cameras TOTAL POLICE $20 000 00 $6 000 00 $6 000 00 $3 000 00 $2 000 00 $35 000 00 $20 000 00 $225 000 00 $3 500 00 $2 000 00 $3 000 00 $4 000 00 $15 000 00 $15 000 00 $9 000 00 $7 500 00 $4 000 00 S20 000 00 $320,500 00 $24,000001 $15,000 00 $9,000 00 $31,500 00 $3 500 00 $4 000 00 $8 000 00 $12 000 00 $16 000 00 $18 000 00 $16 000 00 $15 000 00 $8 000 00 $15 000 00 $5 000 00 S20 000 00 $20 000 00 $5 000 00 $5 000 00 S25 000 00 $10 000 00 $45 000 00 $5 000 00 $15,500001 $70,000001 $36,000001 $73,000001 $61,000 00 S15 000 00 $62 000 00 $85 000 00 $90 000 00 $94 000 00 S96 000 00 $7 000 00 $3 500 00 $4 300 00 $19 500 00 $15 000 00 $15 000 00 $120 000 00 $10 000 00 S30 000 00 $22 000 00 S25 000 00 $25 000 00 $96,300001 $85,000 00 $140,000 00 $251,000 00 $166,000 00 A `CITY OF STILLWATER 5 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN Exhibit A 2001 - 2005 OPERATIONS YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROJECT 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 FIRE Female Restroom $27 000 00 Computer (New Secretary) $2 000 00 Mobile Radios $5 530 00 Hose Tester/Pressure Washer $3 780 00 Portable radios $2 250 00 Thermal imaging camera Grass Fire Vehicle SUV Ladder Truck Color Laser Jet Printer Office Furniture 4WD Vehicle Attack Pumper Gas Monitor Outfit Add I P/T Firefighters Main Fire Engine Computer New carpeting Tanker Truck Defibrillator Rescue Boat Water Rescue/Air Truck TOTAL FIRE CIVIL DEFENSE Siren replacement TOTAL CIVIL DEFENSE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEER Furniture Color copier (1/4) Color printer (1/2) Computer disc storage Software Survey equip/misc New work station Vehicle TOTAL PW/ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS/STREET Truck and plow Wood Chipper Skid Loader/attachments 1/2 ton pickup Plow and wing Asphalt box/recycler $23 500 00 $75 000 00 $320 000 00 $320 000 00 $2 500 00 $8 000 00 $12 500 00 $25 000 00 $175 000 00 $1 80000 $18 600 00 $12 000 00 $5 000 00 $145 000 00 $3 000 00 $85 000 00 S150 000 00 $40,560 00 $486,400 00 $337,500 00 $408,000 00 $150,000 00 $19 000 00 $30 000 00 $19,000 00 $30,000 00 $4 500 00 $1 50000 $2 750 00 $2 500 00 $2 500 00 $10 000 00 $10 000 00 $10 000 00 $2 500 00 S25 000 00 $13,750001 $12,500001 $10,000001 $10,000 00 $25,000 00 $46 000 00 $23 000 00 $25 000 00 $21 00000 $25 000 00 $27 000 00 $20 000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER 5 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN Exhibit A 2001 - 2005 OPERATIONS YEAR DEPARTMENTIPROJECT 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PWSTREETS Cont Land $300 000 00 Sweeper $140 000 00 $145 000 00 Sanders $4 000 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $5 000 00 3 ton truck $120 000 00 $120 000 00 Loader $100 000 00 $100 000 00 1 Ton truck $47 000 00 $47 000 00 $50 000 00 Tar Kettle $20 000 00 Asphalt roller $18 000 00 Truck hoist $25 000 00 TOTAL PW/STREET $607,000 00 $169,000 00 $314,000 00 $49,000001 $293,000 00 PUBLIC WORKS/SHOP Diagnostic equipment $6 000 00 $10 000 00 Roof repair $15 000 00 Small equipment $10 000 00 $10 000 00 $10 000 00 $10 000 00 Air compressor $20 000 00 $10 000 00 TOTAL PW/SHOP 1 $21,000001 $30,000 00 $10 000 00 $20,000 00 20,000 00 PLANNING/BUILDING Computers $6 000 00 Software $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 Printers $1 200 00 $5 000 00 Color copier (1/4) $1 50000 Color printer (1/2) $2 750 00 Cell Phones $1 00000 $1 000 00 Pickup truck $25 000 00 $25 000 00 Office furniture $15 000 00 TOTAL PLANNING/BLDG $13,450 00 $3,000 00 $32,000001 $18,000 00 $27,000 00 SIGNS AND LIGHTING Signage $3 000 00 $3 000 00 $3 000 00 $3 000 00 TOTAL SIGNS/LIGHT 1 $3,000001 $3,000001 $3,000 00 $3,000 00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1 $1,147,060 00 $882,900 00 $897,500 00 $871,000 00 $776,500 00 SPORTS COMPLEX - RECREATION CENTER Point of sale software $10 000 00 Netting $1 00000 $1 00000 $1 00000 $1 00000 $1 00000 Generator $80 000 00 r I CITY OF STILLWATER 5 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN Exhibit A 2001 - 2005 OPERATIONS YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROJECT 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 SPORTS COMPLEX Continued Edgers $3 300 00 Computer $7 000 00 Water softner $5 000 00 Point of sale hardware $15 000 00 Copier Bleachers - 2nd sheet Skate show curtain Ice resurfacer batteries Lexan Tools TV - Lily Lake Paint - Lily Lake Rebuild compressor - Main Propane Bottle filler Zambom blades TOTAL SPORTS COMPLEX LIBRARY Computers & Upgrades Shelving/Displays Office Furniture Lighting LCD Data & Video Projector Printers Security Gates Workstation Exterior signage PA system Shades/blinds Fire escape improvements Inset resensitizers Interior signage Tuckpointmg Waste Receptacle Information Kiosk Resensitizers Lighting Adaptive Technology Telephone Improvements Reading Terrace Carpeting SE Extenor Stairs Exit Doors Meeting Room Furniture Automated System Upgrades Micro Film Reader/Printer Digital camera Digital ID collection mgmt sustem Major rehab (without expansion) $10 000 00 $35 000 00 $2 500 00 $7 500 00 $6 000 00 $1 00000 $8 000 00 $1 00000 $1 00000 $5 000 00 $10 000 00 $6 000 00 $2 000 00 $5 000 00 $2 500 00 $2 000 00 $121,300 00 $63,000001 $15,000001 $20,000001 $10,500 00 $5 000 00 $7 000 00 $10 000 00 $10 000 00 S10 000 00 $6 000 00 $8 500 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $2 000 00 $1 00000 $12 000 00 $2 000 00 $4 500 00 $1 000 00 $1 00000 $1 000 00 $1 000 00 $13 000 00 $3 000 00 $4 000 00 $6 000 00 $5 000 00 $2 500 00 $3 500 00 $3 500 00 $2 000 00 $4 000 00 $5 000 00 $2 500 00 $10 000 00 $12 000 00 $5 673 00 $1 000 00 $2 000 00 $3 000 00 $2 000 00 $4 000 00 $40 000 00 $20 000 00 $5 000 00 $6 000 00 $10 000 00 $7 500 00 $1 00000 S45 556 00 $10 000 00 S15 000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER 5 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN Exhibit A 2001 - 2005 OPERATIONS YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROJECT 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 LIBRARY Cont Landscaping $6 000 00 $5 000 00 $3 000 00 Roof repair $3 000 00 $3 000 00 $3 000 00 Computer instruction station $3 500 00 Telephone system $8 000 00 TOTAL LIBRARY PARK Browns Creek nature trail 1 ton truck Rock gardens Band shell renovation Cement Pioneer Park shelters Legends play equipment 1/2 ton pickup Lowell Park improvements Plow for 1 ton Small equipment Boardwalk - Lily lake Benches & Tables Park Improvement Nature Trail Lawn and Mower Cab 3/4 Ton Pickup Tractor/Loader Playground Equipment SKid loader Resurface tennis courts Resurface basketball courts Tanker Truck Parkland TOTAL PARK SEWER Lift Station Upgrades Truck Radio Alarms Sewer sealing �= Back hoe TOTAL SEWER GRAND TOTAL CITY C/O $82,673 00 $136,000 00 $44,500001 $41,500001 $71,556 00 $60 000 00 $46 000 00 $46 000 00 $46 000 00 $8 000 00 $20 000 00 $10 000 00 $20 000 00 $21 00000 $22 000 00 $180 000 00 $9 000 00 $15 000 00 $9 000 00 $9 000 00 $9 000 00 $9 000 00 $34 000 00 $20 000 00 $20 000 00 $60 000 00 $100 000 00 $100 000 00 $80 000 00 $45 000 00 $28 000 00 $30 000 00 $30 000 00 $26 000 00 $50 000 00 $15 000 00 $35 000 00 $27 000 00 $15 000 00 $90 000 00 $300 000 00 $365,000 00 $204,000 00 $277,000 00 $359,000 00 $439,000 00 $220 000 00 $50 000 00 $50 000 00 $50 000 00 $200 000 00 $60 000 00 $50 000 00 $65 000 00 $65 000 00 $100 000 00 $73 000 00 $280,000 00 $173,000 00 $115,000 00 $115,000 00 $300,000 00 $1,996,033 00 $1,458,900 00 $1,349,000 00 $1,406,500 00 $1,597,556 00 CITY OF STILLWATER 5 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN Exhibit A 2001 - 2005 OPERATIONS YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROJECT 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BONDED $1 599 733 00 $1 222 900 00 $1 219 000 00 $1 271 500 00 $1 287 056 00 NON -BONDED $396 300 00 $236 000 00 $130 000 00 $135 000 00 $310 500 00 TOTAL 1 $1,996,033 00 $1,458,900 00 $1,349,000 00 $1,406,500 00 $1,597,556 00 Note Bonded expenditures require the issuance of General Obligation Bonds that are supported by a tax levy Non -Bonded expenditures are financed by user fees or charges for services (e g ice time or fieldhouse rental or sanitary sewer service utility charges 0 CITY OF STILLWATER Exhibit B POT&MML PROJECTS PROJEC— TITLE YEAR 2001 I 2002 1 2003 I 20041 2005 ITotal 2001 PRIMARY Public Works facility site work =00 000 00 S: 00 000 00 Piblic Works Facild Construction S1 750 000 00 North Hill Improvement 5 `00 000 00 - $1 500 000 00 Boutwe9 Intersection 5250 000 00 5250 000 00 1/1 350 000 00 350 000 GO Storm Sewer Projects $100 000 00 5100 000 00 `Nest Business Park sieewalks 5200 000 00 5200 000 CO Total 2001 Primary S4 150,000 00 S-t 150 000 00 SECONDARY Brown s Creek Park 3200 000 00 5200 000 00 Park Trail System S 100 000 00 5100 000 00 Total 2001 Secondary SI-00 000 00 S`00 000 00 Total 2001 S4 450 000 00 54 450 000 00 2002 PRIMARY West Business Park sidewalks P-iblic Works facility Bell Tower (1872 BeiD Lily Lake Phase 11 Long Lake Water Quality North Hill Improvement Local Stormwater Plan UI Storm Sewer Projects Training facility Total 2002 Primary SECONDARY Territorial Prison Park 8 Trail Park Trail System Lowell Park Improvement Total 2002 Secondary Total 2002 2003 PRIMARY West Business Park sidewalks Street Project Lily Lake Phase II Long Lake Water Quality Levy Phase III UI Qt Total 2003 Primary SECONDARY Library Building expansion Library building expansion FF'c Long Lake Trail (CR12 to Boutwelo Park Trail System CR 15 Trail (62nd to CR12) Aiple Property Park Total 2003 Secondary Total 2003 $200 000 00 31 750 000 00 $25 000 00 3150 000 00 $150 000 00 31.50 000 GO 3150 000 00 350 OW 00 3100 000 00 $4110 000 00 $3W 000 00 350 000 00 $4.990 000 00 3=1000 00 $1 000 000 00 $150 000 00 $150 000 00 35-M 000 co 35 400 CCO 00 31 404 COO 00 $250 000 00 350 000 00 3150 000 00 31 000 OCO 00 53154 000 00 $10 354 000 00 $200 000 00 S 1 750 000 00 325 000 00 3150 000 00 3150 000 00 51 500 000 00 5150 000 00 350 000 00 3 00 000 00 $35 000 00 $4 110 000 00 5300 000 00 $50 000 00 5500 000 00 5350 000 GO $4 960 000 00 3200 000 00 31 000 000 00 $150 000 00 S150 000 00 5500 000 00 3100 000 00 $2 100 000 00 $5 400 000 00 $1 404 000 00 5250 000 00 S50 000 00 315000000 $1 00000000 W 254 000 00 S10 3S4 000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER Exhibit S POTENTIAL PROJECTS PROJETT TTTLS 2004 PRIMARY West Business Park sidewalks Lily Lake Phase III R2010 system-800 MHZ Street Proles' 1/1 Total 2004 Primary SE=CNDARY Second Fire Station Brown s Creek Park & Natural Area Lowed Park improvements Total 2004 Secondary Total 2004 2005 PRIMARY Street improvements Uy Lake Phase III Total 2005 Primary SECCNDARY Parking Ramp Downtown Cultural Center Remodel Fire station for Police Total 2005 Secondary Total 2005 GRAND TOTAL r YEAR 2001 2002 2003 I 20041 2005 ITotai 1 3200 000 00 3150 000 00 3500 000 00 S1 000 000 00 350 000 00 $1 900 000 00 31 160 000 00 3500 Q00 00 32 160 000 00 S4 060 000 00 52C0 C00 00 S i 50 000 00 3500 000 00 $1 C00 000 00 SEO 000 00 31 9CO 000 00 $1 1E0 000 CO SSOO 000 00 S500 000 00 32 16000000 $4 060 000 00 $1 000 000 00 $1 OCO 000 00 S150 000 00 S150 000 00 31 150 000 00 S7 150 000 00 $3 500 000 00 33 ECO 000 00 $2 000 000 00 $2 OCO 000 00 5500 000 00 $500 Q00 00 $6 000 000 00 $6 000 000 00 $7 150 000 00 $7 150 000 00 Sd 450 000 00 $4 960 000 001 $10 354 000 00 S4 060 000 00 $7 150 000 00 $30 974 000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER - CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM EXHIBIT C POTENTIAL PROJECTS - FINANCING FOR THE YEARS 2001 - 2005 PROPERTY SERVICE SPECIAL STATE PROJECT TITLE TAX CHARGE ASSESSMENT TIF GRANTS CONTRIBUTION TOTAL 2001 PRIMARY Public Works facility Public Works Facility Constriction North Hill Improvement Boutwell Intersection Ill Storm Sewer Projects West Business Park sidewalks Total Primary 2001 SECONDARY Brown's Creek Park Park Trail System Total Secondary 2001 2001 GRAND TOTAL 2002 PRIMARY West Business Park sidewalks Public Works facility Bell Tower (1872 Bell) Lily Lake Phase II Long Lake Water Quality North Hill Improvement Local Stormwater Plan 1/1 Slorm Sewer Projects Training facility Total Prindty 2002 SECONDARY Territorial Prison Park & Trail Park Trail System A $300.000 00 $1.750,000 00 $750.000 00 $750 000 00 $125,000 00 $125,000 00 $50,000 00 $50,000 00 $50,000 00 $100 000 00 $100 000 00 $3 125 000 00 $50 000 00 $975 000 00 $100,000 00 $100,000 00 $3,225,000 00 $50,000 00 $975,000 00 $100.000 00 $1,750,000 00 $25,000 00 $150,000 00 $150,000 00 $750,000 00 $150 000 00 $50,000 00 $100,000 00 $35 000 00 $100 000 00 $750,000 00 $2,810 000 00 $450 000 00 $850 000 00 $50 000 00 $100 000 00 $100 000 00 $200 000 00 $200,000 00 $150,000 00 $150,000 00 $300 000 00 $1,750,000 00 $1 500,000 00 $250,000 00 $50,000 00 $100,000 00 $200,000 00 $4 150 000 00 $200,000 00 $100,000 00 $300,000 00 $4,450,000 00 $200,000 00 $1,750 000 00 $25,000 00 $150 000 00 $150.000 00 $1,500,000 00 $150,000 00 $50 000 00 $100,000 00 $35 000 00 $4 110 000 00 $300 000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER - CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM EXHIBIT C POTENTIAL PROJECTS -FINANCING FOR THE YEARS 2001 2005 PROPERTY SERVICE SPECIAL STATE PROJECT TITLE TAX CHARGE ASSESSMENT TIF GRANTS CONTRIBUTION TOTAL 2002 SECONDARY Font Lowell Park Improvement Total Seconclary 2002 2002 GRAND TOTAL 2003 PRIMARY West Business Park sidewalks Street Improvements Lily Lake Phase II Long Lake Water quality Levy Phase III Ill Total Primary 2003 SECONDARY Library Building Expansion Library Furnishings/fees I ong Lake Trail (CR12 to Boutwell) Park Trail System CR 15 Trail (62nd to C1112) Aiple Property Park Total Secondary 2003 2003 GRAND TOTAL 2004 PRIMARY West Business Park sidewalks Lily Lake Phase III MHZ radio system $250 000 00 $250 000 00 $500 000 00 $300,000 00 $150,000 00 $400,000 00 $850 000 00 $3,110,000 00 $450,000 00 $850,000 00 $1 HMO 00 $400,000 00 $4,9601000 00 $100,000 00 $100,000 00 $200,000 00 $500,000 00 $500,000 00 $1,000,000 00 $150,000 00 $150,000 00 $150,000 00 $150,000 00 $500,000 00 $500 000 00 $100,000 00 $100,000 00 $700 000 00 $300,000 00 $600 000 00 $500 000 00 $2 100 000 00 $5,400,000 00 $5.400,000 00 $1 404,000 00 $1,404,000 00 $126.000 00 $125,000 00 $260,000 00 $25,000 00 $25,000 00 $50,000 00 $75,000 00 $75,000 00 $150,000 00 $500,000 00 $500 000 00 $1 000,000 00 $7,529,000 00 $725 000 00 $8,254 000 00 $8,2291000 00 $3001000 00 $600,000 00 $1,225,000 00 $10,354,000 00 $100,000 00 $100 000 00 $200,000 00 $150,000 00 $150 000 00 $500 000 00 $500 000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER - CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM EXHIBIT C POTENTIAL PROJECTS - FINANCING FOR THE YEARS 2001 - 2005 PROPERTY SERVICE SPECIAL STATE PROJECT TITLE TAX CHARGE ASSESSMENT TIF GRANTS CONTRIBUTION TOTAL 2004 PRIMARY cunt Street Project $500,000 00 $500,000 00 $1,000 000 00 Ill - $50,000 00 $50 000 00 Total Primary 2004 $1,150 000 00 $150 000 00 $600 000 00 $1 900 000 00 SECONDARY Second Fire station $1,160,000 00 $1 1 000 00 Brown's Creek Park & Natural Area $250,000 00 $250,000 00 $5000 000 00 Lowell Park improvements $250 000 00 $250 000 00 $500,000 00 Total Secondary 2004 $1 660,000 00 $600,000 00 $2,180,000 00 2004 GRAND TOTAL $2,810,000 00 $150,000 00 $600,000 00 $500,000 00 $4,060,000 00 2005 PRIMARY Street improvements $500.000 00 $500,000 00 $ 00 Lily Lake Phase III $150,000 00 $150,000 150 000 00 Total Primary 2005 $500 000 00 $150 000 00 $500,000 00 $1 150 000 00 SECONDARY Parking ramp $1,500,000 00 $1,250,000 00 $750 000 00 $2,000,000 00 Downtown Cultural Center (Armory) $1,000,000 00 $500 000 00 � $250,000 00 $250,000 00 $2,000,000 00 Remodel Fire Hall for Police $500 000 00 $500 000 00 Total Secondary 2005 $3 000 000 00 $1 250 000 00 $1 250 000 00 $250 000 00 $250 000 00 $6 000 000 00 TOTAL 2005 $3 500 000 00 $150 000 00 $1 750 000 00 $1 250 000 00 $250 000 00 $250 000 00 $7 150 000 00 GRAND TOTAL $20,874,000 00 $1,100,000 00 $4,775,000 00 $1,400,000 00 $2,575,000 00 $250,000 00 $30,974,000 00 CITY OF STILLWATER 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan 2001-2005 Expenditure and Financing Summary EXPENDITURE Operations Potential Projects TOTAL EXPEND FINANCING Operations Property Taxes Charges for Service Total Operations Potential Protects Exhibit D $ 1 YEAR OF EXPENDITURE/REVENUE r 2001 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 TOTAL $1,996 033 $1,458,900 $1,349 000 $1,406,500 $1,597 556 $7 807,989 $4 450,000 $4,960,000 $10,354,000 $4,060,000 $7 150,000 $30,974,000 $6,446,033 $6,418,900 $11,703,000 $5,466,600 $8,747,556 $38,781,989 $1,599,733 $1222,900 $1219,000 $1,271,500 $1287,056 $6,600,189 $396,300 $236 000 $130 000 $135 000 $310 500 $1 207 800 $1,996,033 $1 458 900 $1 349 000 $1 406,500 $1 597 556 $7 807 989 Property Taxes $3,225,000 $3,110,000 $8,229,000 $2 810,000 $3,500 000 $20,874,000 Charges for Service $50,000 $450,000 $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $1,100,000 Special Assessments $975,000 $850,000 $600,000 $600,000 $1,750,000 $4,775,000 TIF $150,000 $1,250,000 $1,400,000 State Grants $200,000 $400,000 $1,225,000 $500,000 $250,000 $2 575,000 Contributions $250 000 $250 000 Total Potential Projects $4,450 000 $4,960 000 $10 354 000 $4 060 000 $7 150 000 $30 974 000 TOTAL Financing $6,446,033 $6,418,900 $11,703,000 $5,466,500 $8,747,556 $38,781,989 CITY OF STILLWATER EXHIBIT E 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan 2001-2005 Property Tax Financing F Year of Financing a r 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Operations $1 599 733 00 $1 222 900 00 $1 219 000 00 $1 271 500 00 $1 287 056 00 $6 600 18900 Potential Projects TOTAL $3 225 000 00 $3 110 000 00 $8 229 000 00 $2 810 000 00 $3 500 000 00 $20 874 000 00 $4 824 733 00 $4 332 900 00 $9 448 000 00 $4 081 500 00 $4 787 056 00 $27 474 189 00 =10 RESOLUTION 2001-161 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the memorandum of Agreement between City of Stillwater and Washington County for provision of an individual sewage treatment system management program, as on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved, and the Mayor is authorized to sign said Agreement Adopted by Council this 7th day of August, 2001 IVZjay L Kimble, Mayor ATTEST Diane F Ward, City Clerk 9 FEaW27NT HINGTON COUNTY MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENLam?.. FOR PROVISION OF AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM MANAFPROGRAM �� V The Parties to this Agreement are Washington County and the City of Stillwat rr an �,M NCB subdivisions of the State of Minnesota By and through their appropriate officials, the parties agree as follows Washington County has an Individual Sewage Treatment System Ordinance, which meets all of the rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota 2 State Rules Chapter 7080 require all local government regulations to include performance standards for the maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems The City of Stillwater and Washington County have cooperatively developed an ISTS Management Program for individual sewage treatment astems 4 Washington County has assumed responsibility to administer and enforce the County ISTS regulations within the County, including monitoring and requiring ISTS maintenance for those communities that do not have their own maintenance management system 5 The ISTS Management Program has been developed by the County to assist all local units of government within the County respond to the policy requirements set forth in the review of Comprehensive Plans by the Metropolitan Council 6 The City of Stillwater will assist and support Washington County in efforts to educate citizens regarding the need for regular maintenance of ISTS, and to obtain compliance with maintenance regulations through various means, up to and including formal enforcement methods 7 The City of Stillwater supports the County in its efforts to financially sustain the ISTS Management Program through the establishment of fees assessed to septic system owners and/or private ISTS maintenance contractors 8 Washington County will provide annual reports of ISTS maintenance records to the City of Stillwater 9 This agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties It shall remain in effect until such time that either party shall choose to terminate this agreement by providing one year's (12 months) notice to the other party e,UZ-1 - axs-f Washingto ountri C� nl aj 1 Jam, Kimble, Mayor S-93-01 Date S 7 0/ Date /` Estimated Sewer Flows Year Flow 2010 524,700 gallons/day 2015 541,600 gallons/day 2020 558,500 gallons/day Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Practices The City plans to reduce I/1 as follows The trunk sewer line running in the St Croix River Valley suffers from high infiltration, especially during periods of high river levels The City plans to line this trunk sewer prior to 2005 2 Some downtown businesses and a number of homes are suspected of having illegal sump pump connections The City will develop a program to identify and eliminate these connections The goal is to complete the program by 2010 3 All new development includes design elements to minimize I/I Also street reconstruction projects include investigation and repair of sanitary sewer problems These ongoing programs will reduce the total City I/I and lower the per capita I/I as Metropolitan Council Building communities that work r October 17, 2001 Steve Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE, City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Update Amendment Marc Hugunin, Metropolitan Council District 12 Referral File No 14835-10 Dear Mr Russell The Metropolitan Council received an amendment to update Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan on September 5, 2001 The amendment is intended to update the city's comprehensive plan to address the 1998 comprehensive plan update requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act As discussed with Michael King, Washington County Sector Representative, in order to make the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update complete for review, the Council will need the following additional information A list of land use plan changes since the Council reviewed the plan in April 1996 2 A completed Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments (copy enclosed) It was not clear from the materials submitted whether the city's planning commission and city council have reviewed and approved the amendment for submittal to the Council as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act These actions are needed before the Council can begin its formal review process 3 Clanfication is needed to determine whether the amendment had been circulated to adjacent communities as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act The amendment may not require the 60 day adjacent community review, as called for in statute Enclosed is a draft form letter that you can send with the amendment to adjacent governmental bodies to sign off on the plan amendment prior to the end of the 60-day review period The city of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan is thorough and well done Updating the plan to a 2020 planning horizon helps the Council carry out it planning responsibilities and reflects the city's expectations concerning future growth www metrocouncil org Metro Info Line 602 1888 230 East Fifth Street St Paul Minnesota 55101 1626 (651) 602 1000 Fax 602 1550 TrY 291 0904 An Equal Opporlundy Employer Steve Russell October 17, 2001 Page 2 Once we receive the requested materials, we will begin Council's formal review of the amendment In the meantime, Michael King has requested that staff begin an informal review of the submittal so that we can identify any issues and finish our formal review as quickly as possible once the supplemental information is received If you have any questions, please contact Michael King at 651-602-1438 S cerely, Phylli anson Supervisor, Planning and Technical Assistance Enclosures Cc Marc Hugumn, Metropolitan Council District 12 Eli Cooper, Director of Planning and Growth Management Michael R King, Sector Representative Sherry Narusiewicz, MN/DOT Metro Division Cheryl Olson, Referrals Coordinator i Land Use Map Changes 1 Stillwater Crossings (3/1999) -Single family to attached single family 2 Settlers Glen (6/2000) -Relocation of land use in PUD 3 Public Works Facility (6/2001) -Attached single family to public facility See attached land use map and staff reports SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION A Sponsoring Governmental Unit Citv of Stillwater Name of Local Contact Person Steve Russell, Community Development Director Address 216 N 4`h Street Stilllwater MN 55082 Telephone Number651-430-8821 FAX Number651-430-8810 Internet Address (if applicable) Date of Preparation November 13, 2001 B Type of submittal ❑Overall plan revision or update or ®Plan amendment Name of amendment/brief description minor amendment providing for storm and sanitary sewer policy/program and land use changes Land use change (describe) Three changes as shown on attached map (1) Stillwater Crossings, (2) Settlers Glen and (3) Public Works Facility Size of affected area (in acres)180 MUSA Expansion? SNo ❑Yes If yes, size of expansion (in acres) Other (Please describe) C Please attach seven (7) copies of the following 1 Completed Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments (this form) 2 The proposed plan revision or plan amendment 3 A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change(s) 4 The current plan map, indicating area(s) affected by the revision or amendment 5 The proposed plan map, indicating the subject area(s) of the revision or amendment D What is the official local status of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply ) If a report regarding this plan revision or amendment was prepared for the local Planning Commission or City Council please include one (1) copy of that report along with the submittal package sActed upon by planning commission (if applicable) on 12/10/01 date sApproved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review on12/18/01 date ❑Considered, but not approved by governing body on date ❑Other (please describe) the land use changes have been approved by the City Council E List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc ) to which copies of the plan revision or amendment have been sent, and the date the copies were sent to them (Required by Minn Stat 473 858, Subd 2) Oak Park Heights, Grant, Lake Elmo ISD 834 Brown's Creek Watershed District, Middle River Watershed District, MnDOT 958 May 1997 Local Planning Handbook MEMO To Planning Commission G 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 Large Lot Single Family Small Lot Single Family Single Family Attached Large Lot Single Family Small Lot Single Family Single Family Attached Open Space Existing Land Use Maw Acres Units 26 52 91 364 16 96 133 512 Land Use Map Amendment Acres Units 15 30 75 300 26 156 17 0 133 488 Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 As can be seen, the amendment results in 24 fewer dwelling units 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 arterial 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 contribute 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 described 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, comprised 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 hearing 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 MEMO To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director S -, e, ///" ke" � Subject Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment Changing Land Use Designation of the 28 Acre Site from Single Family Large and Small Lot Residential to Single Family Attached and Zoning from Agricultural Preservation, AP, to Townhouse Residential, TH Case Nos CPA/99-1 and ZAM/99-1 Date March 5, 1999 Background The 28 acre site is located east of County Road 15 and immediately north of 62nd Street North To the east of the site, is the recently subdivided Legends of Stillwater Development The Site most recently (1998) was used for field corn production To the north of the site is a 32 5 acre site with a single family residential residence, apple orchards and woods The 28 acre site proposed for comp plan and zoning amendment is currently is Stillwater Township The orderly annexation agreement between the City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township provides for the annexation of site outside of the phased annexation area upon petition by 100 percent of the property owners The petitioner for amendment has indicated that they intend to petition the City for annexation when the comprehensive plan, zoning amendment and development plan are before the City Council for approval after Plammnf Commission and Joint Board review Comprehensive Plan Amendment The 28 acre site is currently designated single family small lot, 4 DU/acre and single family large lot, 2 DU/acre in the City comprehensive plan proposed land use map On a gross acreage basis, this would result in 84 housing units The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would change the land use designation from single family detached to single family attached Based on that designation, 168 housing units could be accommodate on the site A comparison application, PUD/99-9, proposes 142 attached residential units All other comprehensive plan policies regarding natural resources, public facilities and development design contained in the comprehensive plan would pertain to the development of this site One major advantage of the proposed attached single family design is that a cluster development pattern better accommodates the provision of open space area The accompanying PUD plan provides 7 35 acres or 26 percent of the site in open space/park use Zoning Amendment When an annexed property comes into the City of Stillwater, it comes in with an Agricultural Preservation, AP, designation The zoning amendment proposes changing the zoning to Townhouse Residential, TH (see attached ordinance) A portion of the Liberty Project next to the village commercial area at the corner of CR 15 and 12 is currently zoned townhouse Planning Commission Page 2 March 5, 1999 residential Analysis The idea for an attached unit project in this location and the Gadient Site north of this site sprang from the City's Open Space Committee The Committee was formed last year to preserve open space areas of the City The Open Space Committee is particularly interested in preserving the Gadient woods site and feel this cluster attached single family residential concept could be used on the adjacent site for the preservation of the wooded area The City Parks Board has also previously reviewed the housing cluster concept and approved of its use as a density enhancement to obtain a major neighborhood park identified by the Park Board for this area The proposed zoning, Townhouse Residential, TH, required 5,000 square feet per dwelling (similar to older Stillwater Residential Duplex, RB, zoning) The proposed development meets the TH residential requirements Recommendation 1 Approval of Comp Plan Amendment changing proposed land use from single family large and small to single family attached 2 Approval of Zoning Amendment changing zoning designation from Agricultural Preservation, AP, to Townhouse Residential, TH Attachments Comp Plan and Zoning Amendment Map, TH Zoning District regulations and application CPC March 8,1999 CPA/99-1 +6-0 Approval ZAM/99-1 +6-0 Approval :" To From Date Subject Memorandum Planning Commission Steve Russell, Community Development Director 6-7-01 -26 z4z?^44�' z-& on'� Comprehensive Plan Amendment Changing Land Use Designation of 15-acre site from Single Family Attached to Public Works Facility Discussion The Comprehensive Plan designates the site located South of Boutwell Road and East of Manning Avenue Attached Single Family Residential (see map) Based on that designation, the site could accommodate 50-75 townhouse units The proposal is to change the proposed land use to Public Works Facility to allow the development of the City of Stillwater Public Works Facility (The Planning Commission, Joint Board and City Council held a series of public meetings in 2000 to determine the sites appropriateness for such a facility A concept plan resulted from that study along with City Council direction to purchase the 15-acre site ) The proposed land use can be accommodated on the site Public services are being provided to the area with Phase II, Settlers Glen Development Boutwell Road can accommodate the traffic but will need improvement with Phase II expansion area development The City of Stillwater has annexed entire road and plans to make future improvements The 15-acre proposed public facility site is surrounded by existing residences to the South and West and Phase II Settlers Glen to the North Special facility design, buffering development and landscaping can mitigate the public facility visual impact from the adjacent use (See Performance Standards in Public Works Facility Ordinance, ZAT/01-01) Recommendation Approval (Resolution) Finally) The proposed use is consistent with the Planning principles and the Goal and Objective of the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Proposed Land Use Map *I � � -x-) --0,/ Memo To Joint Board From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date June 14, 2001 Subject Public Works Facility Related Planning Reviews Four planning applications are a part of the public facility planning review as listed below The site is a Phase II expansion area site and was recently annexed The reviews are public hearing items and include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment and a Planned Unit Development review Staff reports for the four items are attached The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications at their meeting of June 11, 2001 and recommended approval to the City Council Attached are the applications and staff reports on the applications Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Comprehensive Plan Amendment changes the land use designation of the 15 acre site from Townhouse Residential, TH, to Public Works Facility, PWF The appropriateness of the site for a public works facility was a subject of the Boutwell study last year Since that time, the City of Stillwater has purchased the site Zoning Amendments The zoning amendments establish a new Public Works Facility Zoning District The map amendment designates the 15 acre site public works facility The text amendment establishes a new Public Works Facility District The new district is patterned after the Campus Research and Development District A planned unit development approval (Master Plan) is required for development in the Public Works Facility District Planned Unit Development The Planned Unit Development plans include the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations for the project The Planning Commission approval places conditions of approval on the project in addition to the PUD permit City design review is also required City regulations regarding wetland protection and setbacks/buffers, residential setback buffering and preserving rural character are met by the plans The staff reports for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map and Text Amendment and PUD are attached Recommendation Decision on application Memo To Mayor and City Council From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date July 12, 2001 Subject Public Works Facility Planning Reviews There are four planning reviews required for the public works facility project in the Phase II expansion area The reviews include Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA/01-01), Zoning Text and Map Amendments (ZAT/O 1 -0 1 and ZAM/O 1-02) and Planned Unit Development approval (PUD/01-27) The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the four applications at their meeting of June 11, 2001 The Joint Planning Board held a public hearing on the applications June 14, 2001 Both the Planning Commission and Joint Planning Board approved or recommended approval of all four cases 1 CPA/01-01 (resolution) 2 ZAT/O 1-O 1 (ordinance I S` reading) 3 ZAM/01-02 (ordinance 1 S` reading) 4 PUD/O1-27 (motion) Recommendation Decision on planning applications Attachments City Planning Commission staff report and minutes of June 11, 2001 and Joint Planning Board staff report of June 14, 2001 Cv MEMO To Mayor and City Council�— From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Public Hearing for Adoption of 62nd Street Area Plan as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan Date November 5, 1998 Background In April 1998, the City Council authorized preparation of a 62nd Street North Area Plan The consultants of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates were hired to work with city staff in preparing the study Public meetings were held June 11 and August 13 to identify and review planning area issues and review alternative plans for the subject areas The meetings were well attended and very informative in receiving neighborhood ideas and comments The City Planning Commission chaired the meetings and used the consultant information and area resident input to draft the plan Plan Contents Major issues addressed in the plan include circulation, stormwater management (channeled through the site and site generated), land use, parks and open space, trails and utilities The land use plan diagram shows the various elements of the plan Land use form the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan (1995) was used as the basis for planning The townhouse/attached designation was expanded to the west somewhat to accommodate development along County Road 5 Because Long Lake is in the shoreland district lots within 1,000 feet of the land are required to have 20,000 square feet The Campus Research and Development Land Use and zoning has already been adopted as part of the orderly annexation process Access to the site would be provided from CR 5 Sixty Second Street North would be cul de laced south of Long Lake and a frontage road would eventually connect CR 5 to CR 15 An alignment is shown in the plan for the east portion of that road For the west portion the alignment can be dependent on when the area comes into the City and the proposed development pattern No through access is provided from Nightengale Blvd This dead end street is desirable for the neighborhood and they do not feel the need for better public safety access Portions or all of single family area to the south and east of Nightengale, dependent on proposed development, may get access from Nightengale An extensive stormwater improvement program is proposed to better handle runoff water from the Market Place area through the site The implementation program would result in reduced flows and better water quality (an agenda item Mayor and City Council Page 2 November 5, 1998 under unfinished business recommends the council initiation of a feasibility study to begin the preparation of plans for stormwater improvements) The plans have been referred to DNR and Brown's Creek Watershed District for comment No comments have been received At meeting time, the City's consultant will present the plan for council review and comment Recommendation Approval of Plan for submittal to Joint Stillwater Planning Board for approval Attachment 62nd Street North Area Plan Planning Commission Oct 12, 1998 Mr Zoller moved to deny the request, motion died for lack of a second Mr Weidner, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to approve the request as conditioned Mr Russell suggested adding the condition that there be no non-resident employee as required by ordinance, Mr Weidner and Mrs Bealka agreed to add that condition Amended motion passed 5-2, with Mr Zoller and Mr Wald voting no Public Hearin on 62"d Street area plan Shem Buss of Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik briefly reviewed the plan, highlighting storm water management, traffic circulation, land use, and parks and open space Jon Engelking, 1220 Nightingale Blvd, initially stated he was generally pleased with the plan He noted there had been some talk about the possibility of moving a green space area a little farther south Ms Buss said engineers will determine the exact location during feasibility studies Mary Jo Krenik, 1165 Nightingale, asked whether there had been any consideration given to a meter control gate for Brewers Pond Ms Buss responded there will be a control structures at the ponding areas, which should improve the water quality of Long Lake Ron Pinc, representing Mr and Mrs Sid White, owners of property at 6286 Stillwater Blvd, asked that a two -acre parcel of property the Whites own along Stillwater Boulevard (Highway 5) be increased in density, to 18-20 units per acre, from the townhouse density as indicated in the plan Later in the discussion, Mr White asked that consideration be given to the request for increased density Tim Nolde, potential developer of the Whites' property, indicated a willingness to work with neighbors Richard Huelsmann, 12610 62"d St N , said he was satisfied with the proposed plan, but was surprised to hear of the proposed density change and would be opposed to any increased density He also stated he hopes that the cul-de-sac on 62"d Street will be constructed as soon as possible He also suggested that as part of the long-range plan, the two ponding areas south of 62"d Street and north of Highway 36 be included in the plan It was the consensus of members to add the future ponding areas to the plan Jon Engelking expressed his opposition to any increase in density, as did Phil Martin, 1018 Nightingale Blvd, a resident at 650 Nightingale, and Susan and Dan Whalen, 1180 Nightingale Blvd Art Junker, 1164 Parkwood Lane, asked about paths connections Ms Buss said the path/trail plans will be developed in more detail during the feasibility study Laurie Maher, 3018 Marine Circle, questioned the impact on the level of Long Lake if changes aren't made to the outlet at the north end of the lake Ms Buss and Mr Russell responded that the AUAR is being followed 0 Planning Commission Oct 12, 1998 David Green, council candidate from Ward 4, questioned the size of the proposed park/open space, spaces that are not accessible to residents as a whole, and suggested that in some instances it may be better to accept fees in lieu of park dedication Mr Fontaine closed the public hearing Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Wald, moved to recommend approval of the plan as presented Motion passed unanimously Mr Wald moved to adjourn the meeting at 10 35 p in Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 1jkt J Resolution No CPC 98- Approvmg the 62nd Street North Area Plan Whereas, the City of Stillwater City Council did adopt the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Stillwater on December 12, 1995, and Whereas, the City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township did approve an Orderly Annexation Agreement for the expansion of the City, and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map does provide general land use direction for the future development of the expansion area, and Whereas, additional detail planning and study of stormwater, circulation, parks and opens pace conditions is necessary in the 62nd Street Study Area to provide direction of the coordinated development of the Phase I Expansion Area, and Whereas, the City Council did approve a scope of work and direct the preparation of a 62nd Street North Area Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, and Whereas, notified workshops and public meetings were held June 11, August 13 and public hearing October 12, 1998, to identify area issues, review alternative plans and select the preferred plan, and Whereas, public notice was given to all area property owners and residents that may have interest or be impacted by the plan, and Whereas, after reviewing the plan information and alternatives, the Planning Commission did approve the 62nd Street North Area Plan Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Planning Commission does recommend the 62nd Street North Area Plan for approval to the City Council as consistent with and a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Approved this 12th day of October, 1998, by a +7-0 vote Planning Commission Chairperson Attest ��'-/Z.. Steve Russell, Community Development Director w, �6 MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA October 8, 1998 RE 62nd Street North Area Plan Public Hearing Background The Comprehensive Plan (1995) provides general land use direction for the future development of the North 62nd Street Plan Area Besides general land use, other planning issues for the area are transportation, parks, trails and open space, utilities and storm water facilities These issue areas were not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and needed consideration before development began in the newly annexed 62nd Street Plan Area The 62nd Street North Area Plan provides policy detailed project specific direction for the above -mentioned areas North 62nd Street Area Plan plan preparation began June 1998 with an issues/opportunities public meeting Notices were sent out to plan area property owners and others living in the area (300+) After the June issues meeting a follow up alternatives meeting was held in mid August Additional work was needed based on comments at the August meeting in the area of hydrology and runoff That work has been done and is included in the final plan document At the August meeting, the Planning Commission heard public comments mainly regarding storm water run off and the proposed street system The Planning Commission considered the plan alternatives and comments at a Special Planning Commission meeting held on August 31, 1998 At that time, the Planning consultant and staff were directed by the Comnssion on wluch plan alternative should be included in the final plan document Public Hearing The public hearing tonight is the cumulation of the Planning Commission, consultation and development of the plan The adopted plan will become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan development and provide a basis for actual development in the area when it occurs Recommendation That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing, adopt the plan and recommend it to the Council (Council Meeting November 10, 1998) for adoption as part of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan ( resolution) Attachment 62nd Street Area Plan and Map W -,& & .-43.4. ya 5-- City of a er COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use (City) Acres Percent Residential SFLL Single Family Large Lot 1,23637 688 SFSL Single Family Small Lot 71749 1581 ASF Attached Single Family 7533 099 MF Multi Family 6465 141 Commercial ® CN Neighborhood Commercial 1373 030 CC Community Commercial 4409 096 Business Park BPC Business Park Commercial 141 66 308 ® BPO Business Park Office 1395 0511 ® A/O Administratne / Office 4561 099 BPI Business Park Industrial 11831 157 ® RDP Research & Development Park 1807 061 Institutional ® SS Secondary School 4396 096 ® ES Elementary School 51 90 1 13 ® CEM Cemetary 3877 084 Public ® PM Manna 1400 0 30° ® PN Neighborhood Park 9359 103 ® PC Community Park 1881 063 ® PG Golf Course 301 15 655 Water 61083 1318 © Wetland Area 6051 131 O OPS Open Space 101 41 )00/ 0 RAIL Railroad 1974 065 ROW Right -of Way 70530 1534 ® PF Public Facility 1565 034 TOTAL 4,59925 100 00% Section Lines f W Railroad City Litruts Streams Disclaimer The data represented on the Proposed Land Use Map displays the current landbase compiled by Washington County Survey Department Questions concerning the Landbase should be directed to the County Questions concerning the Land Use Designations should be directed to City ojStillwater Planning Department 08/31 /01 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 FEET Sources ® Washu Washington County Survey Department c It) or City of Stillwater Plannmg Deparnnent PlanSight GIS & Planning Technologies Copyright © 2001 City of Smlwater Fig, i e i fR n pa rm,w Jgisrnfohw_gis/planzorie apr 9 0 9 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S Elaine Cogan on . a decade of change 3 Looking Around Responding to those who see no value in Zoning and planning 6 Planning ABCs A is for Automobile B is for Budget C is for Comprehensive Plan 8 Developing a Sewer Ordinance One towns expenence in managing grox th through its sewer system 12 Zonin$ 8i Changing Lifestyles The impact that changes in our society are having on local Zoning regulation 16 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NL%IBER 44 / FALL 2001 LOOKING AROUND • What's So Bad About Zoning? hatever you do, don't use the `'word " I sometimes get this advice before speaking to groups in small towns and rural areas through out America I typically follow the ad vice but its worth asking — whats so bad about zoning? By some estimates over 9 000 cities towns and counties big and small in every region of the country and repre renting at least 90 percent of the nations population have some form of zoning in place Zoning is the basic means of land use control employed by local governments in the United States Zoning has been around since 1916 when New York City enacted the nations first comprehensive zoning ordinance to protect the health safety and welfare of residents packed into crowded urban tenements Despite longstanding criticism from some academics and property rights advocates zoning is here to stay Does this mean that every zoning decision made by a local planning com mission is a good one or that zoning has produced the beautiful high quality liv ing and working environments that we all care about? No — zoning has not always lived up to its promise and it is sometimes misused For example in some places zoning is used to exclude low-income families or keep out minon ties In other places zoning is used to give every landowner and developer exactly what they want regardless of the cost to the community or the impact on adjacent landowners Want to build a shopping center in a floodplain or a race track next to a residential area? No prob lem — we 11 just rezone the property Zoning is merely a tool It can be used constructively as a positive force for community good or it can be misused Zoning is what you make of it It works by Eduard McMahon bes «hen it is based on a vision and clo-Lk tied to the comprehensive plan At iL-, best zoning can provide landow-n ers --id the marketplace with predictabil It% .-id certaint) It can protect critical reso.irces and it can increase property -, a1L;n, Hon e,,er conventional zoning b\ i_elf hill almost never create a mem orable community This is because conventional zoning is a limited tool It is good for protecting n h- s already there and for preventing nui ances It is not as good for shaping the future or for improving the qualit,. of ne% development This is because most zoning codes are proscriptive in nature The% try to pre-,ent bad things from hap- pening without laying out a vision of ho\ things should be successful communities think be% and con-, entional zoning They use edu,ation incentives and voluntary im tiatiN, es not just regulation They also use design standards incentive zoning o\ erlay zoning density bonuses and other innovative techniques They allow for n alkable mixed use neighborhoods Today s communities face complex issues ranging from dealing with mixed use de\ elopment to coping with a prolif erafion of billboards These issues req-ire solutions going beyond com en tional zonings focus on the regulation of use bulk and intensity DEALING WITH THE " Z" WORD So what about those folks who think zoning is a dirty word? Why do they get so upset whenever zoning is proposed in a previously unzoned municipality or county or whenever a community wants to strengthen its zoning ordinance? In my expenence the most common objection to zoning is a perceived loss of control Zoning opponents say if you own a piece of land you should be able to do what you want with it Related to this is a pervasive fear that regulation of any kind will reduce property values Overcoming these objections is not easy but it can be done particularly if you separate the facts from the myths Mrrii #1 — Zoning is un American Fact A county commissioner from a western North Carolina county once told me how he was called a Communist at a public hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance He replied that while he was a Methodist he was certainly no Commu nist Zoning disputes often inspire inflated rhetoric Perhaps this is because zoning does mean that the interests of individual property owners must sometimes yield to the interests of the public But this is as American as baseball or apple pie In fact for more than 150 years our courts have consistently held that the Constitu tion allows for the public regulation of private land To understand this consider the old principle of law that says your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins This principle applies to real estate as well It means that with rights come responsibilities Even political philosopher John Locke held as a basic assumption that free men would never exercise their rights without recognizing the obligations that the exercise of those rights implied " PLANNING COMNIII TONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 11 ilirrii z2 — Sparsely populated rural areas dor't need to control uses of land Fact It is true that some places grow much faster than others but change is •inevitable every place in America Tech nologv immigration new roads the global economy and many other factors are changing communities whether they are prepared for it or not There are really only m o kinds of change in the world today managed change and unmanaged change Land use planning is one way to mitigate and manage change Rural com munuies that want to preserve the status quo ha% a no real choice except to plan The old timers a ho most abhor change are often the first to realize that without sensible land use controls everything they lo-,e about a place will ultimately disappear Mrrii z3 — Land use controls will increase taxes and reduce property alues Fact it is spra« 1 — not zoning — that increases taxes Haphazard inefficient land uses require taxpayers to pay more and more for roads sewers schools util ities and other public infrastructure As for property values every day hundreds of decisions are made by public bodies that affect someones property values howe%er these decisions are just as likely to increase the , alue of property as to diminish it Sensible land use controls almost always enhance rather than diminish propert< <alues If you dons believe this visit an% historic district and compare property values in the district to property values outside the district On the other hand try selling a home next to an asphalt plant junk yard or other nox ious use Nationally known real estate appraiser Don R%-pkema says "sensible land use controls are central to economic competitiveness in the 21st century Mrni #4 — Planning is a bad idea Fact The truth is virtually every suc- cessful individual organization corpora tion or community plans for the future Failing to plan simply means planning to fail Tr% imagining a company that didn t have a business plan They would have a One of the nations earliest advocates for zoning was then Secretary of Com merce Herbert Hoover hard time attracting any investors and they would be at a huge disadvantage in the competitive marketplace The same is true of communities A comprehensn e plan is like a blueprint It allows a com munity to define and accomplish its objectives Even the Bible recognizes the importance of planning As the boot, of Proverbs says Without vision the peo ple will perish Planning provides the essential bedrock on which zoning should be founded In fact communities that engage in zoning in isolation from plan ning are setting themselves up for failure — as their zoning regulations will often appear arbitrary and without any consis tent or long range purpose SUMMING UP This year marks the 75th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court case Euclid v Ambler Realty which upheld the basic constitutionality of local zoning Zonings original supporters included both progressives and consery ati%es who shared a belief in the power of planning to improve peoples lives In fact it was former President Herbert Hoover who as U S Secretary of Com merce chaired the commission which drafted the first model zoning enabling act As Hoover noted in a foreword to the model act the discovery that it is practi cal by city zoning to carry out reasonably neighborly agree ments as to the use of land has made an almost instant appeal to the Amer ican people Perhaps the most important reason why zoning has flourished despite its imperfections is that it gives citizens a voice in local government Without zoning citizens have no voice when out -of town corporations or big developers run roughshod over local values and traditions It also makes land use decisions public This is important because the more a community under- stands how decisions are made the better future decisions will be Zoning is really about balance At its best zoning can help strike the elusive balance between quality of life and eco nomic vitality Edward McMahon is a land use planner attorney ^;y_U and Vice President of The F Conservation Fund He is former president of Scenic s S/ ` America a national non r profit organization devoted to protecting Americas scenic landscapes On -Line Comments Staff here is still mar veling over the correlation between this article and an inform-itional meeting we had Wednesday night concerning proposed zoning amend ments I was asked by a tyranny response team member what gay a me 6 a the government) the right to have zoning 1 think he was quite sur prised when I discussed many of the points outlined in McMahons article especially the fact th-it the U S Dept of Commerce had been requested by business interests to develop a model zoning enabling act that the courts have upheld zoning since 1926 and that the corollary of the right to hold property is a duty to not cause harm to the community" — Marilyn Ryba AICP Senior Planner Town of Queensbury New York "The importance of the relationship of zoning to the comprehensive plan and capital improvements cannot be stressed enough Zoning is simply an implementation tool that cannot be suc cessful without a dnving vision in fact as any practitioner would agree taken in isolation it generally does not foster good design or enhance a sense of place Linkage of vision and planning to zoning is what enables the creation of a community —J Wayne Oldroyd AICP Director Com munity Development City of Maryland Heights Missouri PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 b09 PLANNING ABCS i 9 How many of you have seen an alphabet book 2 I'd guess each and every one of you has — whether while your kids were (or are) growing up, or perhaps going back to your own childhood An Introduction from the Editor Not too long ago, Beth Humstone, a fellow Vermont planner, showed me a copy of a booklet her father gave her, "The ABC of City Planning" Prepared by the Mayor's Com- inittee on City Planning, it was designed to help New York _,- City children understand what planning is about It now provides a fascinating glimpse of New York in the 1930's (such as D is for Docks, E is for Elevated Railway, M is for Municipal Markets) That booklet provided the impetus for thinking about preparing our own alphabet book, but one designed for citi- zen planners, and one provid- ing some historical context for planning topics we face today (some of which are, in fact, th( same as faced in the 1930Q If we can enjoy and learnfron alphabet books as children, why not as adults 1 Fortunately, both planning historian Larry Gerchens and our cover illustrator Paul Hoffman, agreed to work on this project It certainly wasn easy for Gerchens to narrow down the topic choices for many letters But I think you find that he has come up wit) an interesting, and comprehe sive, selection We will be running the Plc ning ABC's over the next few issues of the Planning Comn sioners Journal, I hope you enjoy — and learn from — thi alphabetical tour of plannin PLANNING CO%1\11SSIO-,ERS JOURIAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 AUTC MOB LE he automobile enabled creation of multi- million -person urban areas spread thinly over vast regional expanses — and shaped the character of the 20th century Amer- ican city The primary city shaper until the mid 1920s was the trolley Electric trol leys running on fixed rails generated high density residential de,. elop ment within a few blocks walk - ing distance of the main streets on which they ran Small mom and pop grocery stores and personal service shops were located at street corner trolley stops regularly spaced along the major streets radiating outward from the central commercial and manufacturing district the downtown 0 The advent of the automobile `z hanged all that Not limited to fixed : main street routes the automobile could , r� travel anywhere there was a passable public way ft,' The auto owning seeker of a housing site could negotiate for a parcel of land be} and the limits of a fe%% major streets This dispersal of new residential develop ment (generally for a population with higher disposable income than that of the average dweller along a trolley line) led in turn to strip commercial development along auto routes radiating outward from the city center By the 1920s the need for street widening to reliex e auto congestion in and near the city center was already tric, gering large and growing public expenditures This required careful budgeting of community resources — and stimulated the formal adoption of capital budgets and the preparation of long-range community plans for physical development Sce B is for Budget and Cis for Comprehensive Plan Auto accessed commercial and industrial develop ments beyond downtown made for increased demands on citx services Zoning was used to limit such developments to spe cific areas This served not only to conserve community tag resources but also to assure the owners of single familx leetached homes in the newly emerging suburbs that the value of their property would not be threatened by the intru sion of undesired neighbors Nft Americas prosperity following the end of the ® ® Second World War encouraged both auto and new home ownership stimulating the explosive growth of sprawling suburbs Unfortunately one out come was that American families became increasingly dependent on the auto- mobile This auto dependency %,.as heightened by curtailment of sub- urban transit service in many ' communities Reliance on the private auto generated the ubiquitous multi car family' as the _ ---" varying transpor tation needs -� of family members required tra-,el a over long distan N ces at diverse times and to widely scattered y ° locations ,,,� More cars in turn led t to a dramatic change in the lay out of residential developments as wider streets were provided to permit parking on both sides wider lots to allow single- storN houses with two car garages to face on 1 the street and deeper front yard setbacks to a emble on site parking of two or more automobiles The resulting increase in lot size — coupled with a reduction in family size — endangered the walk in -school and the concept of an elementary school focused neighbor- hood And for those on the lower rungs of the economic lad- der locked into central cities the new auto based suburbs meant reduced job and life opportunities In many areas cutbacks in trolley service were followed by reductions in bus service father increasing suburbanites auto dependency PLA`NI\G COMMISSION ERc, IOU R\�,L / nL%IBER 44 / FALL 2001 i \;�_yhe public aspects of cities include not only services (i e , police and fire protection, education, and protection of the public health) but also things (i a capital goods) that require labor materials and finance to bring iy into being Acquisition of these capital �+ ` goods requires careful budgeting A Cb A budget balances income Y sources against outgo items a �� in the fulfillment of needs and aspirations A municipal operating budget does this annually for the costs associ '�• ated with the provision of on going city serlowned vices A municipcapital budget dosame for faciliticonstructed on l by the community or to be acquired to fulfill the community s needs Responsible expenditure of public funds requires foresight into the emerging character of the communit) and its needs Responsible encumbrance of public funds and cred it (future income) calls for a plan for public construc tion prepared in most cases well ahead of actual needs BLACKSBURG CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGPL1,M PROIECT DETAIL SHEET b pulod D cpw adi trct TS 71^ a„�n, Platwng aid Engl « ng s th rn S.+em.dl m"ms Jd�eTwmd Gr< ,k�Km p,o tct Tdr Green ny S}Stem Construct o Mil i d n ".t P�.1f .� 6 y L of N�c1k 1 1 G rn f m ma km I E J d B u ptolett Lout on. Townxf(le T Project Status In Pro&" mu pMW Accompllshtd with %To—FO— %Pmu C watt S p elau— to Miss on and Val es TL PmF PP-1110 D. wilted P_..,g +"p'r'w y„d,gdhh tad Ammmawry --I RdauonsWp to room C.Ouml Suanc Goals N u a m Ton C-1 Sm .1� c& Relauotuh p to C' mM 'w " Plan F t Y a Anf n Suategr S ppans Natty Anb Sfnfepe H F�uN g�^Y mJ syuem maafrf .hdt muam�as fh to IfY�PR"'"°` T— amiaaEf1aN"0adS"Ba� Daaumaoofl fh ti lb ,T I (tNittm p ht"t" the t&my m the C"wmamry Co " 9— Ifu dsT-Brmfmm+Im 19P8'lGteem� Obl A) IM 01 Y.°orJ'we dndepxm d N F_ t" aum.+ft _. "m. n Pan.1 ^TiOail ua^°` pngrw 1N m 1 Fn..fa""+" Gal Di One of the principal purposes of the compre O hensive plan (see C is for Comprehensive Plan") is r O to sen a as a guide to the preparation of a capital O O One to assure rationality and efficiency in L(� the expenditure of public funds on capital r1 a projects • Planned F'nanung of Prolea. Cy4 F� Tp�� 1 ApP_ a" Sl L 1 f 5 5 SafwdFvN. a3 SW �I , y S 1 ) SN %e �ailFuJ NS S S f1i $9 S e oPL ,.p, ,I S IS � s f'VI S Te.n 1 Rud Sm� S S 741 Tail Capital funds borrowed to construct municipal projects are commonly provided in the sale f 20 year or longer bonds �Xo Public facilities are con structed to serve and are expected to V V� endure at least ( as long as it takes to 0 A Cy ✓ pay off the bonds sold to construct them O ✓� For this reason a y ^ ^ carefully prepared for O ' ` «ard looking communit) comprehensive plan is valu able in assessing whether the pro posed facility will meet the community s needs years into the fY A Y future and — quite importantly — whether it �rn %% ill be ph) sically located where it can best V serve current and future users This means exam ining ho%% the facility relates not only to current but also to future land use patterns The capital budget (or program ) is often con ceived as a six ) ear budget drawn from the recommendation of municipal departments with reference to a continuousl% updated comprehensive plan The capital budget is periodi cally revised (commonly every other year) as elements arc completed or modified and as new projects are added The capital budget includes not only a list o projects and their estimated costs but also the source o the funds to be used to pay for each project Runnin totals are kept to track their impact on the encumbranc of the municipal borrowing power and on the municip tax rate One of the key responsibilities of many plannin commissions and departments is the preparation of recommended capital program for the local governing body consideration This planning commission role first undertal en in Cincinnati in the 1920s has helped ensure that tl- municipalitys capital expenditures serve to meet the goa and objectives contained in the adopted comprehensive plat PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 COMPREHENS1% 5; PmLAN �ust `� community's comprehensive plan is not t a file cabinet full of plans for future streets, parks and recreation, housing fire protection environmental protection historic preservation land use zoning sewers flood protection eater supply and distribu r tion downto%vn rehabilitation and r` parking school location and community character More importantly the comprehensive plan is an integrated state ment of the aspi rations of the community ( this is what we ' will oursel%es to be ) illustrating how the %arious function specific plans in the community file cabs net are tied together to achieve broad array of community jectives The comprehensi%e plan (alsoSpref. often referred to as the master plan or general plan ) is a practical %ision of thefuture — capable of shifts in detail and arringment over time as available resources and public erences change Note the juxtaposition of the practical" and vision in the preceding sentence The comprehensne plan is practical in that it lays out a series of objectives that the community realistically intends to accom plish over the coming )ears The plan also reflects vision in that it encapsulates the communitys goals and aspirations for its future While comprehensive plans typically include a land use" component this is not zoning The land use element of the comprehensive plan is a more generalized statement of the objectives of future actions — to be implemented in turn by detailed and immediately effective zoning subdivision reg ulation and other land use ordinances Both the comprehensive plan and the capital budget (see B is for Budget ) «ere first introduced in Cincinnati in the mid-1920s as part of a successful political reform move 1wnt Acceptance of the comprehensive plan idea however ead slowly It recened its first major boost in the federal Housing Act of 1949 «hick conditioned receipt of federal central area redevelopment funds on compliance with a community plan The widespread development of local comprehensn a plans was further stimulated by the federal Housing Act of 1954s provision of match ing funds (through Section 701 of the Act) to communities for developing such plans ra Unfortunately by the 1970s a „f very few of these 701 plans were -� - being kept up to date Instead of allocating funds to maintain dynamic and useful compre hensiN a plans many cities and towns fell back on winging it %%ith unco ordinated VAL function �i specif►c plans redevel opment plans and neighborhood area plans that rarely met more than short term local functional needs and those of special interests C 7me The pendulum began to swing back in the other direction in the e 1980s and 90s as a growing number of began to require that all units of govern pare comprehensi,.a plans Some states specified the minimum content for these local plans made adoption of a comprehensive plan prerequisite to the enforcement of local zoning power and/or required sub stantial compliance of zoning ordinances with comprehensive plan objects es Several states also required that local plans be consistent «ith adopted state planning and de%elopment objectives By the start of the new century there was renewed interest in the use of comprehensive plans as many planners — both professional and citizen — rediscovered the benefits of an integrated compre == hensne approach to DIRECTIONS fulfilling Jersey dad — I. commu pinelands i' nit) aspi reF rations and Comp ement r fan ,,ianag functional Allan F. objectives a PLA\NING COMMISSIO\ ERS JOL RNAL / \U\IBER 44 / FALL 2001 - --'1 FEATURE • 0 • Zoning & Changing Lifestyles the genesis of zoning can be tr ced to nuisance theory The principle underscoring the nations first comprehensive zoning ordi nance enacted by New York City in 1916 was the belief that the public health safety and welfare of the commu nity would be jeopardized if incompati ble land uses were allo« ed to locate in proximity to one another (as seen in gar ment district manufacturing and ware house uses beginning to encroach on long-established Fifth Avenue resi dences) The relationship between nut sance theory and public welfare was solidified in 1922 when the U S Depart ment of Commerce led by Herbert Hoover published the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act Editors note fo► more on the origins of zoning see Larry Gerchens The Emergence of Zoning PCJ #42 p 14 It is also important to note that the advent of zoning codes correlated with the freedom of movement provided by Mr Fords horseless carriage Indeed auto sales rose from 4 000 in 1900 to more than 180 000 in 1910 and to near ly two million in 1920 Development practices soon adjusted to the automo bile Low density housing sequestered on individual lots and connected to the central city by a net« ork of roads became the norm in many parts of met ropolitan America Soon thereafter the idea of single family homeownership long the province of only the wealthy captured the imagination of middle class Americans THE "SCIENCE" OF ZONING Management principles were also changing in the initial decades of the twentieth century The emergence of automated manufacturing ushered in a new organization development process commonly referred to as scientific man by Gregory Dale & Michael Chandler agement The premise underlying the concept was that most if not all work processes could be studied analyzed and calibrated using the steps or method- ology long associated with classical set entific inquiry The goal of the inquiry was the identification of the one best way to efficiently make or produce a product Principles of sc►entiftc management when combined with the go,, ernance reform movement of the early twentieth century pro-, ided the basis for the belief that land settlement practices could be managed scientifically This vies% was championed in a brief filed by planning pioneer Alfred Bettman with the United States Supreme Court in the 1926 Euclid v Ambler Realty case In his brief Bettman asserted that the mat ter of zoning had been studied by experts and chronicled in reports affirming the view that the segregation of residential business and industrial buildings would increase the safety and security of home life reduce traffic decrease noise and preserve a favorable environment for children Bettmans belief in the power of scientific expertise to shape and form the community helped convince the Supreme Court that zoning was a sufficiently cogent and reasonable practice which created public benefit The Euclid ruling effectively Banc tioned the practice of separating land uses in order to protect areas from incompatible and potentially injurious uses A by product of the Eticlid decision was the rapid adoption of district -based zoning (residential commercial and industrial) throughout much of America In most instances the zoning ordinances featured as they do today a land use hierarchy with residential districts or uses at the top of the land use pyramid followed by commercial and industrial uses The connection between zoning and quality of life was also reflected in the establishment of specific development regulations applicable to each zoning district Standards governing minimum front rear and side yard requirements as well as parameters concerning building height lot coverage and setbacks from the road«ay were seen as responding to quality of life concerns The articulation of development regulations also corre sponded to the goal of assuring pre dictability in land development practices especially in residential districts OZZIE AND HARRIETT ARRIVE A central goal of zoning from its inception has been i the provision of i healthy surround ings for family life After World War 11 Americans made a headlong rush to Ozzie & Harriet at the suburbs in pur home 822 Sycamore suit of what might Road Hillsdale be called the Ozzie and Harnett way of life To deliver on this lifestyle it became common practice for zoning ordinances not just to separate residential from com mercial and industrial uses but to differ- entiate residential uses by family classification The term "neighborhood " in many localities became synonymous with sin gle-family homes Zoning codes often sought to guarantee this by limiting the number of unrelated persons who could PL-k\NING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 hie together as a family in residential neighborhoods (at least in the predomi mint lo« density residential neighbor- hoods) The U S Supreme Court sanc- tioned such restrictions in its Village of •6,11, Tcnc ruling As the Court noted "a yittLt place v here yards are wide people f._�% and motor vehicles restricted are ILgitimate guidelines in a land use pro ject concerned with family needs CHANGING LIFESTYLES As the 1950s and 60s have receded the lifestyles characterized by Ozzie and Harnett Nelson Ward and June Cleaver and other icons of our popular culture have also changed Indeed the change process has become a dominant and pre vailing theme of modern life In some ways zoning has had to scramble to keep up We know that technology values and lifestyles will continue to evolve whether we like it or not and the resulting changes will impact our culture and our communities As community planners we should constantly monitor changing lifestyles and consider the way in which our planning tools need to be adjusted to lccommodate those changes Zoning ike all institutions must be flexible enough to respond to changes and accommodate altered lifestyles even while continuing to protect the public health safety and %%elfare While there are many examples of how change has had a dramatic impact on our lifestyles lets take a look at four particular areas 1 Working from Home Times have changed Office work no longer necessarily involves leaving ones home and traveling to a place of employ- ment In the 1980s the number of peo- ple who worked at home increased by over 50 percent — and the pace has not slowed down Technological improve- ments particularly involving the Inter- net now allow for even more work to be conducted at home with reports graph- ics sound and video able to be transmit- ted with relative ease to any number of eographic locations More and more eople can — and are — conducting busi- ness from their home 2 Aging Population Ours is a nation of aging people Approximately 15 percent of the popula tion is now over 60 years of age — and this is expected to grow to 25 percent or more by the year 2025 as the entire "baby boom generation (the 80 million people born between 1946 and 1964) will be over 60 years of age These changing demographics will have a profound impact on our built environment with implications for the housing markets and transportation — not to mention our health care and economic systems 3 Changing Economy While it is recognized that the econo- my goes through cycles of ups and downs our economy has sustained the longest running period of growth in a century While the economys growth has temporarily slowed the increased earn Ing power of our population has fueled changes in the housing market and is changing the face of our communities Ironically our verb prosperity has raised concerns in man) communities as hous Ing prices have skyrocketed and as a growing number of homes in residential areas are demolished and replaced with what have been termed McMansions (or monster homes ) 4 Automobile Dependency Our society has become increasingly dependent on the automobile While Americas population has increased 25 percent in the past 20 years the use of the automobile has increased much more dramatically bet%%een 1976 and 1996 the number of vehicle miles traveled increased by over 75 percent While much of this is a matter of choice on the part of the consumer many cities and towns are looking for alternative ways to design communities so as to reduce the dependency on the automobile How do these changes relate to zon- ing issues? The following are some zon- ing implications HOME OCCUPATIONS Almost all zoning codes have provi- sions for home occupations also known as home businesses However unless your code has been updated in recent years these provisions probably allow for only limited uses such as insur ante salesmen beauty care product sales and notaries It is now possible to oper ate a wider range of small businesses out of the home with minimal impact on neighbors Communities should make sure that their home business regulations meet todays needs in light of changing technologies In regulating home businesses and occupations some communities are using different review procedures depending on the nature and likely impacts of the home business or occupa tion For example some ordinances specify that if a business does not involve any onsite sales visitors or traffic (e g a consulting business operated using the continued on Page 18 Burlington Eases ••• Review of Home `Occupations by Ken Lerner All home occupations in Burlington Vermont used to require conditional use approval This meant a time consuming public hearing before the zoning board and written findings for every case With an increasing number of simple office type home occupations being processed it became apparent that this kind of detailed scrutiny was unnecessary — not to mention burdensome for applicants staff and the zoning board As a result the City Council — following the Planning Commissions recommendation — amended the zoning ordinance to allow for administrative approval by staff (without public hearing or zoning board review) of home occu pations involving simple office or design studio uses — provided that the home occupation involved no visitors no signs and no activities visible from near- by homes In all other cases a condition al use permit is still required This allows neighbors to become informed as to the applicants plans — and provides a forum for addressing any concerns Ken Lerner is Assistant Planning Director for the City of Burlington Vermont PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 • • i Zoning & Changing Lifestyles conunutd from pa_ 1 i Internet) no =oning permit or approval is required On the other hand if the home business «ill include customers or the retail sale of goods a higher lei el of scrutin) is called for (e g by having standards limiting the amount of traffic or delneries to the home business and by regiring approval as a conditional use J..i Burlington Eas s Rnieu of HomL OCCU pations p 17 )fi �r 7 In Sumner 1Aashuigton In%csco Pioperties lush ington Court dnelopinent c�en includes six units especially designed for those home occupations which require more headroom The residential units can be seen atop the x orh space There are several other considera tions to be aware of as ) ou re examine whether your home occupation regula tions are adequate First many zoning codes set limits on the amount of area within a home that can be used for bust ness purposes Similarly restrictions on number of employees are common (many communities also prohibit employees who are not famil) members) Signage and parking are important con terns with many communities requiring nothing larger than a small name plate sign next to the main entr, and parking limited to several spaces SENIOR HOUSING AND ACCESSORY APARTMENTS There are new housing options for seniors that were not contemplated in older zoning codes Mam zoning codes still allow for elderly housing only in the form of nursing homes \i hile nursing homes are certainly important there are other variations of housing designed for older populations that are becoming prevalent Assisted living units — those that include some limited communal facilities such as kitchens and community rooms along with freestanding dNN elling units — can be developed with high quality designs that are assets to communt ties With good site plan standards that recognize the unique nature of senior facilities your cit% or town can accommodate this changing demogra- phic while maintaining community quality Second as more and more people deal with the issue of caring for aging parents there has been an increased demand for the creation of accessory apartments sometimes known as "granny flats Elderly parents often need to live near family but wish to maintain an independent living arrangement The result has been a demand for separate dwelling units either within or detached from a single family home (e g a remod eled garage) Many communities have found this to be a desirable arrangement reinforc ing the importance of family and provid ing needed housing options for older residents On the other hand once an accessory apartment is established it is difficult if not impossible to limit occu panty to family members on a perma nent basis The key when considering whether or not to allow accessory apartments in certain residential zones is to consider them to be land use issues regardless of their occupancy Factors such as the character of the neighborhood whether accessory apartments would be compati ble with surrounding land uses and the way in which parking is handled should guide these decisions "MCMANSIONS" Our thriving economy has certainly created economic benefits and opportu nities It has also created some unantici paced consequences that have zoning implications One of these has been the trend in a growing number of commune ties for buyers to acquire a single family home and then demolish the structure and replace it with a substantially larger new home — known as a McMansion In certain neighborhoods large new homes can be out of character dwarfing and overpowering existing single-family homes McMansions can also exacerbate housing affordability problems pricing more people out of the local housing market This is a difficult issue to manage from a zoning standpoint Most zoning regulations have setback and building height restrictions that allow for very PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 1 tr_L structures The way in which some ,onimunities have handled McMan ,,oils is by instituting design standards for new single-family construction WIL standards can address issues such „ the structures location on the lot I„d its scale proportions shape and m issing — all in an effort to preserve character and compatibility within existing neighborhoods The drawback to this approach is that it requires additional staff resources and review procedures and is often perceived to be an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion by the local government into pni ate property rights Editors note For nioic on dei.eloping design standards see llene Watsons An Introduction to Design Guidelines " in PCJ #41 (Winter 2001) MIXED USES AND DENSITY There is no question that our society has become increasingly dependent upon the automobile The more difficult issue is understanding the implications of this for local plinning and zoning One of the causes of automobile dependency can be found in the very way On %%hich most zoning codes isolate dif ferent kinds of land uses Historically zoning districts were designed to keep incompatible land uses from occurring in proximity to each other For example noxious industries were kept away from single family neighborhoods The unin tended consequence of this principle hox%ever has been the separation of vir tually all differing kinds of land uses from each other requiring the use of the automobile to travel between home work shopping and school Many communities are now working to undo decades worth of segregating land uses One way is by encouraging mixed -use developments There is no reason why residential school retail and employment related uses cannot peace- fully coexist if designed properly Simi larly mixed uses can be designed to encourage pedestrian access or to take ad% antage of mass transit facilities *Quality mixed use is a basic objective of the new urbanists who urge a return to historic mixed land use patterns that predate the automobile era For more on this see Philip Langdons Neiv Develop ment Traditional Patterns in PCJ #36 (Fall 1999) Similarly land use density play s an important role For many years lower density zoning has been equated with promoting higher quality dei elopment According to some the larger the lot the better the neighborhood How e-% er this need not be the case Attractn e neigh borhoods can be de%eloped at higher densities There are countless examples of excellent single family detached hour Ing at eight to ten dw elhng units per acre Through good standards and plan review procedures higher density can occur in a quality manner SUMMING UP Over time many zoning codes have become institutionalized and rigid Chinges in the lava often lag behind changes in society Planning commis- sioners hai e an important and challeng ing Job in seeking to ensure that their communitN s zoning regulations are con sistent ,\ ith the ching►ng needs of rest dents and businesses There is nothing more frustrating thin try ing to explain to people that some obsolete or counter productti a zoning code pro-, ision must be follow ed because no one has taken the time to update it C Gregory Dale ,s a Principal %%ith the plan ning and zoning fern of McBride Dale Clarion in. Cincinnati Ohio Dale manages planning projects and conducts training for planning officials through out the country He is also a former President of the Ohio Chapter of the Amer ican planning Association Michael Chandler is Professor and Community Planning Extension Spe cialist at Virginia Tech L in Blacksburg Virginia Chandler also conducts planning commissioner training programs across the counts and is a fre quent speaker at workshops Special thanks to our 10 year subscribers conunuLd from back cove[ Lake Osv+ego City of McMinnville City of Portland Cit+ of Reedsport City of St Helens City of Sherwood Cin of Tigard Tillamook County City of West Linn City of tachats PE\\stua',i.\ Bradford Countv Chambersburg Borough Chester County Delaware County City of Harrisburg Lancaster Township Newtown Township Township of Spring City of fork RHODE ISLAND Town of Coventry City of Pawtucket SOUTH CAROLINA City of Aiken Beaufort County Town of Hilton Head Island SOUTH D4kOTA Southeastern Council of Govemmenis City of Spearfish TENNESSEE City of Bristol City of Franklin City of Germantown Johnson City RPC Knonille Metro Planning Nashville Metro Planning Rutherford County Lniversity of Memphis City & Regional Planning Wilson County TEXAS City of Amarillo Cm of BLiumont City of Benbrook City of Bn an City of Denton City of Fnendswood City of Georgetown Houston Galveston Area Council City of Midland City of Missouri City Cit+ of Round Rock City of San Marcos City of SchLrtz Cin of ThL Colony City of Victoria UTAH H Gene Moser Ogden City Provo City Salt Lake City Sandy Cin City of South Silt Lake Tooele City VERMONT Addison County RPC Bennington County RPC Town of BrattlLboro Central Vermont RPC Chittenden County RPC Town of Esser Town of Jencho Lamoille County Planning Comm Town of Manchester Town of Milton City of Monipt her Rutland RPC Town of Shelburne Southem \\ indsor County RPC Town of Waterbury Town of Woodstock VIRGINIA Brunswick County Fauquier County Town of Front Royal Halifax Counn City of Hampton Isle of Wight County James City County King George County Montgomery County City of Newport News City of Norfolk Roanoke County Rockingham County Warren County Westmoreland County WASHINGTON City of Bellevue Cin of Ken newick City of Kirkland Kitsap County City of Lacey Mason County City of Mountlake Terrace City of Pullman City of Sumner City of Vancouver Whitman County Yakima County WEST VIRGINIA Jefferson County WISCONSIN Dodge County Door County Manitowoc County Cin of Mequon City of Milwaukee City of Oak Creek Ctn of Superior WYOMING Carbon County Cheyenne Laramie County RPC Town of Jackson PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 44 / FALL 2001 i 0 December 3, 2001 Stillwater City Council 216N 4hSt Stillwater, MN 55082 RE Ci C_ounci No 01-27 Dec ^A, 2001 ase No SUB/01-54 an Stillwater Planning Commission Training Dear City Council PL--- With regard to the North Hill Neighborhood Association's objection to the resubdivision of lots, I support a position whereby the City Council follow the City's Comprehensive plan, and to the extent that it conflicts with the applicant's request for resubdivision, that Mmn Stat Section 473 865 be followed, as required, a copy of which is included In other words, the use must conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan under State law If it does not so conform, the use applied for must be denied I also question what if any training the Stillwater Planning Commission members have as to the purpose and significance of the job they are charged with I do not know if they have read the Comprehensive Plan or understand its significance I do not feel sure they all understand theirjobs When leaving a recent Planning Commission hearing, I heard one member remark, "Someone called me at home about this case How did they get my number9" He continued, "I don't want to be called at home about this stuffl" Clearly anyone who plays a role as a public official should expect and welcome calls from the people they represent I hope this is only one member's expression of his own misunderstanding of his role as a Planning Commission member Yet, it was disheartening to hear these statements, particularly when the only group represented on the Policy Advisory Committee for the Highway 36 MNDOT plan is the Planning Commission Not one citizen or business owner is representing Stillwater in this matter I applaud the City Council of Oak Park Heights for including 2 citizens and 2 business people, as well as city planning officials, a city council member and a parks commission member this represents a balanced group which is inclusive of all stakeholders My Impression is that the Stillwater Planning Commission is mostly a "rubber stamp" for the City's Community Development Director and is not comprised of informed, independent thinkers with vision, for the most part, with some exceptions Page 1 of 2 I hope that you, the members of the Stillwater City Council, will take a look at whether the City • Attorney should be providing informational training when new Planning Commission members are appointed The citizens of Stillwater deserve more than they are getting from at least the one member of the Planning Commission e M Anderson South Fourth St vater. MN 55082 (W) 430-8457 (H) 439-8093 cc Betsy Wlutbeck, North Hill Neighborhood Association Stillwater Gazette • 0 Page 2 of 2 r Page Citation/Title SA § 473 865, Adoption, conflicts, amendment of controls, devices *75347 M S A § 473 865 MINNESOTA STATUTES ANNOTATED METROPOLITAN AREA CHAPTER 473 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT LAND USE PLANNING Current through End of 2000 Reg Sess 473 865 Adoption, conflicts, amendment of controls, devices Subdivision 1 Control copies to council Each local governmental unit shall adopt official controls as described to its adopted comprehensive plan and shall submit copies of the official controls to the council within 30 days following adoption thereof, for information purposes only Subd 2 No conflict with plans A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is to conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity to conflict with metropolitan system plans Subd 3 Amendments If an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by the unit within nine months following the amendment to the plan so as to not conflict with 41he amended comprehensive plan CREDIT(S) 2001 Main Volume Laws 1976 c 127 § 16 ef" Apnl 3 1976 Laws 1977 c 347 § 68 HISTORICAL NOTES HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume Laws 1977 chapter 347 § 68, provides Laws 1976 Chapter 127 [m part enacting §§ 473 851 to 473 872 and amending§§ 462 355,473 121, and 473 175] as compiled in Laws of Minnesota for 1976, is reenacted, effective retroactively to April 1976 0 REFERENCES LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U S Govt works Page MSA § 473 865, Adoption, conflicts, amendment of controls, devices Municipal Corporations (°-41 WESTLAW Topic No 268 C J S Municipal Corporations § 83 84 ANNOTATIONS NOTES OF DECISIONS Concocts 2 Official controls 1 1 Official controls Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act requires that each metropolitan local government unit adopt official controls i e ordinances and regulations whicl implement general objectives of their comprehensive plan and which may include ordinances establishing zomng and requires amendment of ordinances which conflict with the comprehensive plan Amcon Corp v City of Eagan 1984 348 N W 2d 66 *75348 2 Concocts Discrepancy between zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan does not affect presumption that municipal zoning decision is valid rather refusal to zone in accordance with comprehensive plan is merely evidence that city's action was arbitrary RA Putnam & Associates Inc v City of Mendota Heights Dakota County App 1994 510 N W 2d 264 review denied City council s concern that development project which necessitated rezoning of property from low density residential to high density residential planned unit development was not appropriately scaled in light of surrounding land use and city councils concern about increase in air traffic over property which might affect development were legally sufficient reasons for denial of rezoning request even though zoning decision may have conflicted with designated use for property found in city's comprehensive plan R A Putnam & Associates Inc v City of Mendota Heights Dakota County App 1994 510 N W 2d 264 review denied Requirement in subd 2 of § 473 865 that conditional use permit be for use that is conformative with comprehensive plan supported city council s denial of conditional use permit based on fact that comprehensive plan did not allow that use BBY Investors v City of Maplewood App 1991 467 N W 2d 631 review denied • Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U S Govt works er 3. 1 a - ���f'-�llnYi:CWY .rV�"✓��t�SiiJ��'i"- Via.-.�wr... `• rt�.filV'1 µ4� - OF MINN E S 1 Addendum to City Planning Commission Agenda Monday, December 10, 2001 7 p m City Hall Council Chambers 216 N Wh Street Stillwater MN 55082 Addtional Items -Review of Trolley Use Permit -Review of Andiamo Use Permit (continued from October and November Meetings -Annual review of Special Use Permit for Andiamo Transit and Charter and Excursion Boats Case SUP/88-60 0 P S Don't miss the Christmas Party 0) CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800 • Memo To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date December 6, 2001 Subject Review of Trolley Use Permit (Case No SUP/89-26) This trolley use permit was originally approved in 1989 At that time, one trolley was apporved and one on -street parking space was provided for the use In 1997, a second trolley was added to the operation requiring a second on -street parking space This was reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission This past summer, as many as four trolleys have operated or been parked in the downtown Trolleys were regularly parked at the Riverview Parking Lot along South 4" Street as well as two trolleys along Nelson Street and at times in the River Parking lot next to the trolley office This review is to consider the existing operation and any changes in operation that may be proposed by the owner Recommendation Review of use Attachments Staff report of 3-10-94 and letter of 2-10-1997 I] J MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Ann Pung-Terwedo DA March 10, 1994 RE ANNUAL REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND REPORT ON 1993 RIVERTOWN TROLLEY ACTIVITIES, ROBERT RALEIGH, APPLICANT, CASE NO SUP/89-26 Background The trolley special use permit was issued in 1989 with a condition that the applicant prepare a written report each year The attached letter gives a broad overview of the trolley use activity during the 1993 season The trolley booth will stay in the same location as in the past years A letter is attach from the Freight House giving permission Recommendation Approval of Special Use Permit (SUP/89-26) for the 1993 season with the following conditions The ticket booth shall be located on the Freight House property, setback five feet from the south and east property boundaries 2 The temporary booth shall be removed by December 31, 1993, unless special approval is given by the city council (this is necessary because of the flood plain section ) 3 This use permit is granted for one year The applicant shall submit a written report describing the tour activity and suggesting improvements to the business regarding booth location and bus loading area 4 The ticket booth sign shall be a maximum of eight square feet 5 The trolley booth may be four by twelve feet Staff Recommendation 0 Approval city of Stillwater 216 N 4th St Stillwater,Mn.55082 To whom it may conern. 1993 was our 5th year in business operating the Stillwater Trolley, Each year our business seems to grow a little more, which is important to us since we are such a seasonal business. Ever L year we get more Stillwater residents riding the trolley, who then seem become some of our best customers. Every year it never ceases to amaze me the different countries that people travel from to visit Stillwater or how they happened to hear about us. English, ScottishIrish, Japanese, and German citizens are among our best customers along with people from Australia, New Zealand, China and Spain, Each year we change the tour a little since we get a large number of re— peat customers. We are also very thankful to the residents of Stillwater who ore so helpfu with the history of their homes and buildings when we need new information 1994 promises to be our best year yet, provided we don't get flooded out again. Thank you again for having the opportunity of being o part of a great community Sincere Robert. T Raleig Stillwater Trolley Co. J SSTIL.�-.WATE/ El/, R� TR�OjLU �,Y • • • 400 E NELSON STREET, STILLWATER, MN 55082 (612) 430-0352 PHONEIFAX To City Of Stillwater Stillwater Mn 55082 This past season, The Stillwater Trolley purchased an additional trolley as concern with increased mileage, wear and tear necessitated a backup unit It also helped us to be able to facilitate doing more shuttles forgroups, especially weddings held in Stillwater and receptions held on the riverboats As we begin a new season, we hope to continue to have an excellent relationship with the COS, it's residents, and the tourists who visit here from all over the world The past 2 years we have been doing more and more tours for Students from both here in the valley as well as from other cities in Minnesota We are always interested in ideas where we can help work with the city to decrease parking problems by better utilization of existing parking lots We also would like to thank the many residents of Stillwater who have so graciously supported us, especially the past 2 years ank oIr Ro b er e1gh Stillwater Trolley Com V "NARRATED SIGHTSEEING TOURS OF HISTORIC STILLWATER" CHARTERS - WEDDINGS - NEW & USED TROLLEY SALES • 0 U #^ er THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA August 11, 2000 Mr Bob Raleigh Stillwater Trolley Company 100 Nelson Street Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Bob 6fC,- /;2- Ig- t'91 I have received two complaints about your expanded operation Concerns expressed in the complaints deal with a number of trolleys (4) use of city permit and pay parking lots and on - street advertising After the season is over, I will schedule a Planning Commission review of your permit and current operation Sincerely, Steve Russell Community Development Director cc Nile L Knesel, City Coordinator CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800 r lop Memo 0 To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date December 6, 2001 Subject Annual review of Special Use Permit for Andiamo Transit and Charter and Excursion Boats Case SUP/88-60 The Special Use Permit for the Andiamo Boats requires an annual Planning Commission review of the use before the City Council issues the Dock Permit for 2002 The conditions of approval for the use permit as approved by the Council in 2000 are attached Since the approval, the configuration of the docks have been changed in response to flooding Some of the conditions of approval have yet to be met Conditions No 7 and 8 regarding the garbage enclosure and restroom are or will be constructed before the next boating season It is suggested the applicant provide the City with a revised dock plan showing the new dock configuration Recommendation Review of use Attachment SUP/88-60 ORIGINAL E CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING USE PERMIT Certificate of Compliance X Special Use Permit Planned Unit Development Applicant St Croix Boat and Packet Company Rezoning Variance Grading Case No SUP/88-60 Permit Fee N/A Date Fee Paid N/A Sign Conditional Use Amended Other Address 431 East Nelson Street just south of Dock Cafe Restuarant and east of South Main Parking Lot City/State/Zip Code Stillwater MN 55082 Property Description Section 28 Township 30 N , Range 20 W , Washington County, Minnesota Project is located at river mile 23 2 of hte St Croix River Zone District RB Two Famiy Residential, Flood Plain, Bluffland/Shoreland Permitted Use Amendment of special use permit for transient charter and excursion boats Conditions of Approval 1 The maximum number of boats are as listed below Three boats on City docks a Jubilee Showboat Empress Transient slips - 14 -21 (dependent on size of boat) b Owner dock Avalon c Sunnyside Andiamo (boarding only) 2 The pedestrian walkway running north to south along the river shall be open for public pedestrian use 3 No outside vending machines shall be located on City property 4 Walkway and site lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 5 No food service shall be provided to boarding staging areas 6 A site lighting plan shall be prepared by the City and owner providing customer and security lighting and minimize impact on surrounding areas 7 Two restrooms shall be provided for boat customers The use of boats restroom for boat 0 patrons waiting to board boats shall be communicated to waiting patrons If portable restrooms are provided on a temporary basis, they shall not be a permanent solution The St Croix Boat and Packet Company shall work with the City on a permanent solution to restroom problems in the are of boat operation 8 The outside storage building shall be converted to a garbage container enclosure and all garbage stored within the building 9 Noise from the docks shall be held to a minimum after 10 p m 10 Excursion /charter boats moored at City docks shall not play music at docks after 10 p m 11 The use and these conditions shall be enforces by the City through issuance of its annual dock permit 12 This permit shall be reviewed annually before the dock permit for the City owned property is approved by the City Council We accept the conditions of this permit We understand that any changes from these plans must be resubmitted for approval A4--� Community Development Director ate • Memo To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date December 6, 2001 Subject Amendment to Approved Plans for Change in Drop -Off Location for Andiamo Ticket Office This item was continued from your meeting of October 8, 2001 (minutes attached) At that meeting, the applicant requested continuance to this meeting No additional information has been received as of this writing The attached is previous staff reports and submitted plans Recommendation Decision on drop-off location and design E To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date November 8, 2001 Subject Andiamo Drop Off At the October Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved modifications to the Andiamo ticket office site plan with direction to staff and the applicants representative to propose a specific design for the south end of the Main Street Parking Lot adjacent to the Andiamo office Since that meeting, I have met with Mark Balay to come up with a design A graphic of the design will be presented at meeting time The substance of the design is to • widen the parking lot entrance and move the curb line of the lot further to the south (this may require repositioning the Stillwater entrance sign) • providing a raised curb or island separation the drop off area from the parking lot access drive (this may eliminate one or two parking spaces) • constructing a sidewalk connecting the drop off area to the boat access walkway • provide one or two handicapped spaces next to the drop off • eliminating handicapped spaces from the office site With this proposal, there would be no vehicular access from the south end of the parking lotto the riverfront A bus drop off would be supported by the City and proposed for TH 95 Main Street (this may require some street widening and sidewalk construction) A plan showing these changes will be presented at meeting time Recommendation Decision on design for parking lot drop off area 9 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 8, 2001 parking line be repainted according to the original agreement Mr Russell suggested conditions could be added that all deliveries be made between 8 a m and 4 p in Monday through Friday, that delivery vehicles not block the roadway or driveway and that the garage door remain closed except when vehicles are entering or exiting the garage Mr Ranum suggested adding a condition that signage be installed indicating delivery vehicles are allowed only between 8 a m and 4 p m Mr Ranum, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved the amendments to the original motion Mr Zoller stated the amendments were acceptable to him Mr Ranum seconded the amended motion Amended motion passed unanimously Case No V/01-49 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 5 feet request) for construction of an addition to an existing garage at 115 N Harriet St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Mark Balay, representing John and Madeline Macindoe, applicant Mr Balay was present and reviewed drawings of the proposed addition He noted that with the addition, basically a garden shed structure, the garage will be under the 1,000 feet allowable for accessory structures Mr Ranum asked if the eaves on the new structure overhang the wall of the existing garage, and if they do, if it would be possible to change that in the plans Mr Balay said that change was acceptable Mr Zoller, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that no part of the new structure extend west of the existing building line Motion passed unanimously Case No V/01-50 A modification to approved plans including a special use permit, variance and design review for the St Croix Boat and Packet Co ticket office, south of the Main Street parking lot in the CBD, Central Business District Mark Balay, representing St Croix Boat and Packet Co , applicant Mr Balay reviewed the requested changes to the original SUP The primary issue of discussion was the request for vehicular access to the upper plateau near the ticket office The original plans called for four parking spaces, and the request is to make that area available for drop-off for handicapped persons only Mr Balay said his client had no problem with staffs' recommendation that buses not be allowed to use the driveway for drop-off Members' primary concern was one of safety due to cars backing up after dropping persons off Mr Ranum suggested the possibility of eliminating one or two of the parking spaces so cars could loop around, rather than having to back up There also was a suggestions to have the drop- off at the existing curb cut Mr Russell noted that with plans for development of the Aiple property, the goals is to keep as much congestion as possible off the pedestrian pathway planned for the Aiple property It was noted that the Downtown Parking Commission currently is undertaking a study of the use of Main Street for additional parking 2 City of Stillwater • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 After considerable discussion, Mr Ranum moved to approved the realigned pedestrian walkway, to limit the number of parking spaces in the upper plateau area to one and to temporarily close the ingress/egress to the site at the south end of the south city parking lot subject to further study by city staff with more recommendations to be made at the November meeting Mr Gag seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Case No V/01-41 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 0 feet requested) for construction of a single family residence at 1511 N Main St in the RB, Two Family Residential District and Bluffland/Shoreland District John Hoeschler representing Elayne Aiple, applicant (Continued from Sept 10, 2001, meeting) ' Present were Mr Hoeschler and Jack Moms, the potential buyer Mr Moms expressed his interest in constructing a single-family residence on the parcel in question He noted that with the 100-foot setback required from the river and the 25-foot setback from the railroad tracks, he would be left with just 20 feet on ,"hich to construct a residence Mr Hoeschler suggested the question is what the city wants the ultimate use of the property to be He said the Manna has expressed interest in the property, as have potential developers of the Territorial Prison site to provide river access for condo owners He said there is pressure on the property and some type of development will occur He suggested that a single-family residence would be the least intrusive use Mr Zoller said his personal preference would be for the property to be in public use He noted that a goal of the city has been to get the Territorial Prison site back on the tax rolls, and he would look favorably on a use of the Aiple property that might encourage development of the prison site Mr Teske also spoke in favor of putting the prison site back on the tax rolls, and of providing river access to more people than a single-family residence would Mr Russell noted the city had not received any response from the DNR on the proposal due to the state employees' strike Mr Hoeschler also stated he thought the DNR would prefer a single- family residence as least intrusive He also noted that a single-family residence likely would generate more taxes than a homeowners' association use would Bruce Ahlers, 110 Lakeside Dr , who owns property to the north of the Aiple property, spoke in favor of the single-family use He said he was opposed to the increased traffic other uses night bring Mr Ranum said the parcel is developable, even without the requested variance Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Teske, moved to deny the variance Mr Zoller, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to amend the motion to grant a 10-foot variance from the rear setback Motion on the amendment failed on a 4-4 vote, with Mr Zoller, Mrs Bealka, Mr Hultman and Mr C a Mark S Balay AIA S t I I I w a t e r M i n n e s o t a 110 East Myrtle Street Swte 100 Stillwater Minnesota 55082 (651) 430-3312 11/12/01 City of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Commission Members Michael E Balay ALA I n d i a n a p o I 1 s I n d i a n a 6801 Lake Plaza Drive Swte C 305 Indianapolis Indiana 46220 (317) 845 9402 We are communicating with you in regards to your current Agenda Item #7 We request that this item be continued to your next scheduled meeting We need additional time to prepare and this will afford us the opportunity to both shorten tonight's long agenda and get into the first position on your next agenda While much progress has been made in regards to concepts for Bus and Car drop off, we cannot agree with any proposal, which eliminates entirely, vehicular access from the • south end of the parking lot to the riverfront Attached is the graphic which was mentioned in the staff report Please note that this solution shows a depressed curb cut and does not eliminate vehicular traffic at the south end of the parking lot As we represented before, this curb cut will be signed to limit access and be used by service and certain client vehicles infrequently We look forward to seeing you at your next meeting Sincerely, Mark S Balay Enc Cc Steve Rus ^� ` V 6YI—It 4V aL 0 TZ Nry oftk �cmag/ • 9 4) 11 Memo To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date October 4, 2001 Subject Request for Modification to Approved Plans for Variance for Construction of Ticket Office The request is to modify the approved plans as outlined in the letter of application The Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the design aspects of the request and approved them as conditioned (See HPC staff report and conditions of approval) The request before the Planning Commission is the change in pedestrian, auto and bus access to the site Plan 1 shows the originally approved site plan In that plan, four handicapped spaces are provided directly north of the office building Driveway access to the space is provided from the north end of the south main city parking lot (next to Brick alley parking) Pedestrians access the office and boat docks using a dedicated walkway from the south main lot Plan 2 shows the proposed revision The reason for the revision includes location of sewer pipe, and separate bus drop-off The proposed change would be restricted to bus drop-off and handicapped parkers The proposal would result in buses heading into the driveway and backing into the city lot to get out The proposed change would result in pedestrians, cars and bussing using the driveway ramp for access to the ls` level ticket office location Buses would back into the travel isle where pedestrians walk and autos access the lot off Main Street City staff cannot support the change in site design and driveway access because of safety concerns, possible traffic impacts and impact on operation of south main lot The City has hired a consultant to study the use of Main Street for additional parking A curbside drop-off could be considered in that study The police chief and parking lot manager feel the existing bus drop-off arrangement works fine If the handicapped space cannot work because of the sewer pipe location, spaces could be relocated in the Andiamo parking area Also, handicapped spaces in the south main lot could be relocated closer to the boat boarding area ticket office Recommendation Deny site plan change for bus/handicapped access from south end of the south main parking lot and direct Main Street bus drop-off be considered in the South Main Street parking study Attachment Original Approved Plans and Requested Revision Condition of Approval for Design Approval 1-0 ��" Z,(/, , ':� / <--, HPC APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/DR/00-19 HPC Date May 1, 2000 Project Location South of Main Street Municipal Parking Lot — no address available Comprehensive Plan District Central Business District Zoning District CBD Applicant's Name Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises Type of Application Design Review Project Description Design review of boat ticket office plans and signage for Andiamo Enterprises Discussion The Commission reviewed the concept of this project at the February 7, 2000 HPC meeting Architect, Mark Balay, has refined it according to HPC's and Community Development's suggestions Attached is a letter from Steve Russell The 1250 square foot building will be sided with corrugated metal sheeting — galvanized finish The various levels of roofs will have asphalt shingles There will be a walkout basement on the east side All windows will be non -reflective glass with cross -hatching detail All mechanical equipment will be inside the building except for a small condenser on the south side of the structure An enclosed dumpster is proposed near the Dock Restaurant's dumpster site A dark green wooden fence would be used to enclose the dumpster The applicant needs to procure the City Councils approval to place the dumpster at the shown location because it is City property Budding lighting will consist of four "goose- neck" fixtures, two on the east side, and two on the west face of the building Any other lighting would be pedestrian lights along a planned eight -foot asphalt walkway The light fixture would be similar to the Downtown decorative lighting fixtures There is enough existing lighting for the parking lot The applicant will also be seeking a variance to the parking from the Planning Commission Signage if approved, will be on the north and west side of the building The signs would not be lit, and will be the same colors as the signage on the paddle boats The lettering is red on a deep bronze background Conditions of Approval 40 1 All changes to the approved plan would be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 No additional signage 3 Staff will review and approve the sign fabricator's final drawings and issue the sign permit 4 Landscape plan be reviewed and approved by staff 5 All landscaping shall be installed before final inspection Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings The project is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines Attachments Application/Site Plan/Building Elevations • 9 Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2000 Present Howard Lieberman, chairperson Beth Diem, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Robert Kunbrel, Dean Miller and Roger Tomten Others Planner Sue Fitzgerald Absent None Mr Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p in Approval of minutes Mr Tomten, seconded by Mr Miller, moved approval of the minutes of April 3, 2000, all in favor Case No DR/00-10 Design review of addition at Ascension Episcopal Church, 214 N Third St Jim Christopherson, representing Ascension Church Present for the discussion were Jim Christopherson and Bob Zimmerman representing the architectural fine Bentz/Thompson/Rietow They noted they have met with city engineering staff regarding drainage issues With the exception of the north side, the existing footpnnt of the buildings will not be changed a great deal Existing bnck/stone will be matched as closely as possible, window glazing will be done to match the existing coloration in the parish hall, and roof pitches will remain the same There was a question about the location of the transformer/condensing unit and the trash enclosure The transformer/condensing unit will be placed at the west end of the church building and be screened by landscaping The existing trash enclosure will be utilized Mr Kimbrel asked about exterior lighting Mr Zimmerman noted a site plan with cuts of lighting types was included in the packet, some existing wall sconces will be utilized Mr Johnson noted that conditions of approval No 2 and No 8 were redundant Mr Johnson moved approval as conditioned, eliminated condition of approval No 8 and changing condition of approval No 2 to read, "All lighting shall be directed away from the street and adjacent properties Light sources shall be shielded from direct view and protected from damage by vehicles " Mr Kunbrel seconded the motion Ms Diem asked if the architects had met with building officials regarding spnnkhng requirements, Mr Zimmerman responded in the affirmative and said the sprinkling requirements will not affect the architecture Motion of approval passed unanimously Case No DR/00-09 Design review of exterior signage for Wells Fargo Bank at 2000 Northwestern Ave Robert Sherlock — Signart Co Inc representing Wells Fargo 11 Mr Sherlock was present He said there will not be any new signs, faces will be replaced on the existing signs He also noted the existing marquee signage will be eliminated, the structure will Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2000 remain, but it will be non -illuminated Also some existing signs that currently are illuminated will be non -illuminated when the new sign faces are installed The ATM signage will be addressed in a separate request Mr Johnson noted that the original proposal had the corporate stagecoach logo on the directional signs and that a revised proposal has been submitted removing the corporate logo Mr Tomten moved approval as condition, reiterating that corporate logos are not allowed and will not be used on mformation/durectuonal signage Mr Miller seconded the motion Mr Johnson suggested adding for the record that the marquee signage is being removed, Mr Tomten noted that signage is an allowed use and therefore isn't an issue regarding a possible grandfathenng of use Motion of approval passed unanimously Case No DR/00-19 Design review of a boat ticket office south of the Main Street parking lot Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises Mr Balay explaining the location of the site The request is for a 25x50' structure of galvanized siding in keeping with the industrial look in the area, he said, with wood trim soffit Lights would be placed at the front entrance only The request is for two signs, one flush mounted above the is entrance and other mounted vertically off the roof on the west elevation Colors would be red with a dark gray or bronze background, Mr Balay said he would return with final colors for the signage and the building trim/framing Ms Fitzgerald noted that just one sign is allowed E Mr Kimbrel asked about landscaping Mr Balay said that except for the area right in front of the entrance, there will be gravel the rest of the way to the end of the property, there will be some shrubs and plantings Mr Balay also noted the DOT owns the property from the highway to the proposed site Mr Johnson asked about lighting Mr Balay said he would like to use pedestrian lights similar to the NSP lights, and he said the existing NSP pole lights on the property will likely remain Mr Johnson said he would like to see the floodlights removed from the utility poles, Ms Fitzgerald will check to see if that is possible Mr Eastwood expressed a concern about the use of the galvanized siding Later in the discussion, Mr Tomten noted the design guidelines call for new construction to be of materials compatible with surrounding structures, and Mr Miller pointed out there are other buildings in the downtown constructed of the corrugated siding Mr Tomten said he would be more concerned if the proposal was to use vinyl siding 7 Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2000 Mr Miller asked about the number of parking spaces Mr Balay said a variance will be required for parking as the property where parking will be located is leased from the railroad, unofficially, he said, the site can accommodate about 45 cars Mr Lieberman, seconded by Mr Johnson, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/DR/00-28 Design review of four -unit housing structure located on Olive Street between Second Street and Third Street Donald and Marianne Nolde, applicants Present for the discussion were Donald and Marianne Nolde and architect Jerry Runk It was noted that height is not an issue The building is about 10 feet under the maximum allowable 50 foot building height The only variance required is for construction of residential units in the downtown business district Mr Runk briefly reviewed design plans and provided samples of brick/rock-face concrete block and cloth awnings Most of the discussion centered on ways to improve the pedestrian scale appearance of the building Suggestions included the introduction of some brick by the garage doors and the use of a brick pilaster at the west end to terminate with a brick comer post at the other end Mr Lieberman summed up the discussion by saying he thought it is important to provide residential housing in the downtown area Mr Kunbrel moved to approve as conditioned with the applicant to provide a brick pilaster on the west corner and landscaping if possible Mr Johnson seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Other items • Presentation of draft Hersey Staples & Co architectural survey by Don Empson Mr Empson said the narrative is pretty much done and is on schedule, a final draft should be completed in a month or two Members expressed appreciation of the readability of the document Mr Ki nbrel noted that #20 is missing from the description of the Bird's Eye View Map Mr Johnson asked if in addition to listing homes by date, it might also be possible to list the homes by streets • HPC annual awards Ms Fitzgerald noted the awards were to be presented at the May 2 City Council meeting Mr Lieberman was to attend the meeting for the presentations • Ms Diem provided elevations of the addition/renovation project at St Michael's Catholic Church Mr Johnson said he thought the HPC should review the project Ms Fitzgerald said she will check with Mr Russell on that issue • Mr Johnson raised an issue regarding a wall pack mounted by the doors at the new ice sheet • at the Recreation Center 3 Heritage Preservation Commission • May 1, 2000 • Mr Kimbrel raised the ongoing issue with berming along County Road 5 Ms Fitzgerald said the business owners in question are not receptive to complying with the City's request and there is no way to force them to do so Mr Johnson suggested the possibility of putting landscaping in the right-of-way if necessary Mr Kunbrel, seconded by Mr Miller, moved to ad9m ouat 9 p m , all in favor Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 9 4 • • I i ,K SHEET w c 0 fT A • • _ ;i•. - .:?.��: ;ram �-[� �r7:..,r., I`r-J u • Lo ► 01 �4 p c c t) tz,� r--, t -n ors 1) Lower Level East Elevation Light FlxturesMie three wall mounted light fixtures Type B wtuch are located on the east side of the building should be centered over the three doors at that lower elevation 2) Upper Level West Elevation Light Fixtures/ The four proposed wall mounted light fixtures, Type A should be reduced to 2 and placed at the comers of the budding 3) West Sign Lighting/ Five light fixtures have been requested equally spaced over the 24 long sign. These are approved as an Abolde AD100 angle reflector with a maximum 60-75watt bulb the color of this fixture is approved as black Any substitution should be approved by Sue Fitzgerald 4) North Elevation Window Adjustments/ There are 6 windows proposed for the north elevation All openings are approved as presented with the condition that an adjustment of the three windows in the center below the large skylight be made to proportionately compliment the horizontal (5 R dimension) of the large skylight opening above by these alternative proposed methods a) build a small shed roof overhang as proposed at one time in the process to act as a belt between the two disproportionate window horizontal dimensions b) change the dimension of the three mulled windows by changing the windows to match the large window dimension above c) Suggest a wood trim solution around the existing two windows that works out the dimensional differences d) Combine any of the above solutions to accomplish a proportionate joining of the two disproportionate horizontal window dimensions PLANNING MINUTES COUNCIL MINUTES ZONING USE PERMIT YES_ NO — MAILED RETURNED BLDG DEPT COUNTY RECORDING YES_ NO_ MAILED COUNTY RECORDING DONE ►TF C Mark 5 Balay AIA s t i I I w a t e r Ni i n n e s o 110 East Ivfyrtle Sheet Suite 100 • Stillwater Minnesota 55082 (651) 430 3312 9/20/01 City of Stillwater Ann Steve Russell 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Russell Michael E Balay AIA n d i a n a p o 1 1 s I n d i a n a 6801 Lake Plaza Drive Suite C-305 Indianapolis Indmmt 46220 (317) 845 9402 My architectural firm is representing the St Croix Boat and Packet Company in the design and development of a new ticket office, auxiliary parking and dumpster enclosures, to be located on property they own adjacent to the City of Stillwater Docks and current boat gangways at the south end of the Central Business District We request an adjustment of the existing SUP to accomplish the following items 1) Revise Site Plan per attached drawing a) maintain a controlled connection to the City of Stillwater parking lot for purposes of Bus drop-off and handicap parking only ( with control signage) b) adjust position of retaining wall structures on both ends of the building per attached drawings c) add signage lighting on the west elevation sign, copies attached d) add a decorative iron fence on east elevation e) adjust landscape plan to new wall layout f) delete two unnecessary wooden stairs g) adjust design of window on north elevation of building Per our preliminary discussion with you, we are anticipating a meeting with HPC, Oct 1 and a public hearing with the Planning Commission, Oct 8 Don't hesitate calling if you have any questions or require additional information Sincerel Mar S Balay Mark S Balay Archit s, Inc • cc St Croix Boat and Packet Company 0 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED Fees COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _Special/Conditional Use Permit 200 CITY OF STILLWATER _,V�Vanance hOD11=16,> .-f, yj qz 00 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET _Resubdlvision STILLWATER, MN 55082 _Subdivision* $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 Certificate of Compliance Design Review_ $25 1 116VrF(.X�10J *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 (i e, photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay tl application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project Assessor's Parcel No Zoning District Description of Prol "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in al 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 STC�(K�—� Representative Mailing Address Mailing Address �2_ ` iq ' City - State - Zip. S;�( _��47 -� City -State -Zip C Telephone No Telephone No e — Signature C Signatur SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) _ x 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 H Vncnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 H P C APPLICATION REVIEW FORM • CASE NO DRN/DR/01-50 Heritage Preservation Date October 1, 2001 Project Location Comprehensive Plan District Central Business District Zoning District CBD Applicant's Name Mark Balay, representing St Croix Boat & Packet Company Type of Application Design Review Project Description Design review of exterior modifications for the Andiamo Ticket Office Discussion The applicant received design approval from this committee on May 1, 2000 Since the initial approval, several revisions to the original plan are proposed They are as follows a A connection to the City parking lot south of the Brick Ally building would be used for Bus drop-off and as a connection to the handicap • parking spaces on the site of the ticket office Original approval was a drive east of the ticket office The buses refuse to drive into that space due to the lack of space to turn around b The retaining wall is being adjusted at both ends of the building to incorporate the new entry for bus drop-off and handicap parking c Add signage to the west elevation of the building, lit with "goose -neck lighting fixtures I d Add a decorative 3'/ ft iron fence to the east side of the ticket office e Adjustment to the landscape plan to accommodate the new wall layout f Adjust the design of window on north side of the building, which was originally a double door and ticket counter The ticket counter has been moved to the east side of the building closest to the restrooms Recommendation Approval as conditioned Conditions of Approval 1 All revision to the approved plan be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission Findings • The proposal meets the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines Attachments • Application Form/Proposed Site Plan and Elevation Drawings/May 1, 2000 Staff Report/Drawings and Minutes C� • 'D1.4M C-SN�r' 2i� S - - s$-%LW AMCA C ---- 9EWWPb"l1ENT RYJM,-.-6' ---_ � yrf1LLWM�13r1'it, .�wR� MtJ -- cst 436 wiz V ZO o ) c1ECTi-�<<�L GI7� Dc Fit sw 3 - � Irr 1 • LL Gee. it of 0 tl or