The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-11-10 CPC Packetillwater ssv� THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, November 10, 2003, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of October 13, 2003 AGENDA 1 Case No V/03-90 A variance to the street setback (30 feet required, 13 feet requested), accessory building size (120 square feet allowed, 508 square feet proposed) and for a second garage located at 2440 Bayberry Avenue in the RA, Single Family Residential District Joe Fisher, applicant 2 Case No V/BM/03-91 A building moving permit to move a house from 1104 South Everett to a lot between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street (a newly created lot) and a variance to the front yard setback(30 feet required, 24 feet requested) in the RA, Single Family Residential District Larry Dauffenbach, applicant 3 Case No V/03-92 A variance to the street setback (30 feet required, 17 feet requested) for the construction of an enclosed stairway to basement and front porch (30 feet required, 29 feet requested) located at 523 West Moore Street in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Erica Flutz, applicant 4 Case No V/03-93 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 1 foot requested) for the construction of a 3-season porch, mudroom, tool shed, basement entry and replacement deck (partially completed) located at 107 North Owens Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Jeffrey S Kartak, applicant 5 Case No SUP/03-94 A request for modification of a special permit for additional services at St Croix Valley Life Care Center located at 713 County Road 5 in the RA, Single Family Residential District Nancy Kiolbasda, applicant 6 Case No SUB/03-96 A subdivision of existing two lots (15,000 square feet each) proposed into two lots of 22,500 square feet and 7,500 square feet located at 921 North 2nd Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Jim Russell, applicant 7 Case No SUB/V/03-97 A subdivision of a 10,800 square foot lot occupied by a duplex into two substandard lots (variance) of 5,400 square feet each (7,500 square feet required for single family residence) located at 1002 6th Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential District Tony Lodge, applicant 8 Case No V/03-95 A variance to the sign regulations for additional canopy signage (one sign permitted) located at 601 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District Todd Weiss, applicant 9 Case No CPA/03-01 Downtown Plan update for area bounded by Myrtle, Mulberry, Main Streets and the St Croix River designating park land, flood protection location, parking, trail and pedestrian corridor between Main Street and the St Croix River City of Stillwater, applicant Other Items CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 City of Stillwater Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Present Robert Gag, Chairperson David Junker, David Middleton, David Peroceschi, Karl Ranum Paul Teske, Mike Dahlquist, Jerry Turnquist and Darwin Wald Others Steve Russell, Community Development Director Absent None Robert Gag called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7 30 p m Mr Gag announced that Case No V03-87 (Item number 7 on the agenda) was withdrawn This was a variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet requested) and to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet requested) for the construction of a residence located between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Laura Borndale, applicant Mr Dahlquist, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved approval of the minutes of September 8, 2003, motion passed unanimously Case No V/03.-81 A variance to the north side yard setback (20 feet required, 10 feet requested), a vanance to street setback (east) (30 feet required, 18 feet requested), a variance to the parking stall size (9'x 18' required, 8 5' x 18' requested) and a variance to the parking regulations (75 parking spaces required, 56 parking spaces requested) for the expansion and renovation of the Carnegie City Library located at 223 North Fourth Street in the PA, Public Administration Distnct John Mecum of Miller Dunwiddie Architecture, applicant (continued from September 8, 2003 meeting) Bill Hickey, President of the Library Board introduced the project and explained that this was a continuation from a previous meeting and that there was additional work done and invited any and all questions from the Commissioners John Mecum of Miller Dunwiddie Architecture presented the completion of the schematic design phase and stated that the architects are continuing with the design process with the library board This review is necessary because of the vanances required to complete the project The entire plan for the addition and renovation of the library is driven by three factors, respect for the histoncal aspect of the library, the need for an efficient modern facility that will meet the anticipated 20 year growth of the community and the desire to be a good neighbor to both the immediate neighborhood and the entire city Joel Stromgren presented an overview of the project featunng views from each direction with elevations and matenals descnptions Mr Junker questioned why a vanance to the parking stall size was requested Mr Stromgren explained that the vanance would gain 4 to 5 parking stalls dependent on the column layout, bunging them closer to the parking space requirements Mr Middleton asked which side of the building is the 10 foot vanance being requested for Mr Stromgren told him that it is the north side but only a portion of it because when Mulberry Street was vacated, the City deeded over the eastern 100 feet of the north half of Mulberry to an adjacent property owner The northern half of the western 200 feet of Mulberry still belongs to the City The existing building does not sit square to the lot lines Mr Gag opened the public hearing John Uppgren, of 10145 Arcola Lane, representing the Vestry of the Ascension Episcopal Church In 1904 the Vestry deeded a portion of the lot that is impacted by this plan, to the library There is a "reverter" clause in the deed that requires that the Library not build on a portion of that lot else the property reverts back to Ascension church Mr Uppgren stated that the church is currently in negotiations with the Library and they have retained legal council to continue these negotiations/conversations at a formal level The church is also involved in conversations with City staff to review the deed Mr Uppgren is confident that these concerns will be addressed satisfactonly and if so, the church has no opposition to the vanance requests being made Kevin Sanderson, 304 Third St N, expressed his concerns regarding the chiller units near his dwelling He feels that if the units were placed on the south side of the building there would be much less impact on everyone, probably only on church mornings He is concerned for his tenants and his ability to rent out his three-plex Mr Stromgren assured him that sound abatement is a pnonty and specialty of Miller Dunwiddie and that they have created a structure that will obscure the units and mask the noise Jerry & Cathy Helmberger of 303 North 4th St -Aurora Staples Inn, a bed & breakfast They are vehemently opposed to this expansion Their view will be of a three story high block wall, their property value will plunge and their ability to earn a living from the bed and breakfast will be adversely affected Mr Helmberger asked if this was a "done" deal, what the next step was Barb Knnke, 110 E Mulberry St strongly objects to the expansion and the fortress -like look of the building John Johnson, 311 Third Street N, questioned why the expansion was necessary Is it for more storage, meetings, parking What evidence is there that there is more traffic on Fourth Street than on Third Streets Have parking density studies been done or has anyone looked into parking in the Trinity lot9 Jim Kent, 308 Third Street N, is generally against the expansion, not against the library itself It is not a necessity especially as a site for parties and public meetings He is interested in the management of the project Where will construction trailers be parked, how will storm runoff be handled? Will the parking structure actually be for public parking? Who will manage, police this space when the library is closed? Eugene Dickinson, 231 Third Street North, feels that Third street does not need, nor can it handle more traffic He also questioned who will police/manage the parking garage Dave Middleton asked the Miller Dunwiddie group to address the concerns of the bed & breakfast owners regarding the side wall and their loss of a nver view The north wall will be of the same bnck and stone appeanng veneer that is already on the library The height of the addition will tie in with the height of the 1973 addition Studies have not yet been done from the vanous elevations of the B&B property to see what the sight -lines would be Robert Gag closed the public hearing Mr Gag asked if a traffic study was done to venfy that there is more traffic on Fourth Street than Third Street Mr Hickey pointed out that the traffic concerns are related to the emergency vehicle traffic that Fourth Street is a distnbutor of As for the parking ramp, he stated that some years ago, the City did a distnct parking study that was the genesis for the Council requesting the Library to provide this parking He pointed out that although there are parking lots to the south, they are not City lots, but owned by Tnnity Lutheran Church They already expenence many conflicts as a result of the current lack of public parking Mr Ranum asked about the hours of operation of the parking ramp and the secunty and access to it Mr Hickey stated that two levels of secunty and control are planned on being provided The possibility of swiping your library card through a mechanism that will raise an arm allowing you access to the parking facility The other is some type of rolldown gate or fencing to entirely secure the facility when not in use An active secunty system, consisting of cameras and alarms, etc is in the design Mr Teske pointed out to Mr Ranum that the issue of the height of this structure, although a concern of the neighbors to the north, was not a vanance issue Mr Junker, seconded by Mr Wald, moved for approval with stated conditions and that the hours and type of usage of the parking ramp be worked out with City staff Vote all in favor Case No V/03-89 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 19 and 15 feet requested) for the construction of an 8' x 20' front porch located at 417 South Holcombe Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Paul Valenus, applicant Mr Valenus clarified his request for the Commission Mr Gag opened the the public hearing Mr Gag closed the public hearing Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Turnquist, moved approval of Case No V/03-89 Vote all in favor Mr Gag called a short recess Reconvene at 8 30 p m Case No SUP/V/03-83 A special use permit for a 112 unit condominium development with main level retail and underground parking and a vanance to the height regulations (4 stones and 50 feet allowed, 6 stones and 67 feet requested) located between North Main Street and North 2nd Street, north of Mulberry Street and south of Staples Mill, in the FP, Flood Plain and CBD, Central Business Distnct The Architectural Network, Inc , Michael Hoefler, applicant Mr Russell explained the project and indicated that four elements were involved in this request 1 In the Central Business Distnct, residential use needs a special use permit, 2 The variance request because of the 6 story height of the building, 3 Building in the flood plain, would require flood proofing or a vanance, 4 Design Review Mr Gag asked for clanfication on how the Commission members should vote on this issue i e , should they break it down into separate items? Mr Russell directed the Commission to vote on each item separately The first item would be the special use permit to put residential units in the CBD zone, the next would be the vanance request to the height restnctions and the third would cover the part of the development that is in the Flood Plain The Design Review portion was taken care of by the Hentage Preservation Commission Mr Hoefler presented an overall design review of the site The design process was very long and much consideration was given to adjacent neighbors of the project He stated that they could, while staying well within the ordinances, put up a row of 30 foot high townhomes facing Second Street They did not do this because they were aware that this would block many views of residents along Second Street and they would not be able to put in as nice of landscape buffers They determined that it would be more site - conducive to go with the plan they were submitting He also stated that they felt that they had followed the HPC recommendations by setting the uppermost floor back from the edges of the structure and using a mansard style roof Mr Gag asked if this amended proposal was still at the 6-story, 67' height Mr Hoefler stated that the structure was really only 5 stories, 58' if you were considering an average height of the project This takes into consideration that the penthouse does not cover the entire top floor and the mansard -style roof line pulls the top story away from view from the street Mr Junker asked about the retail portion of the project and how many retail spaces were the developers planning on The structural layout is based on 20' stalls that can be combined into any number of spaces Sue Fitzgerald, representing the Hentage Preservation Commission, asked to clanfy a couple of items before the public heanng was opened She stated that HPC approved the concept of the project but that this was not a final approval HPC wanted to see the entire fifth floor pulled back by 10 feet from each edge of the building She also stated that the HPC had very senous issues with this being a 5 story structure Mr Gag opened the public hearing Mr Pete Sampair, owner of Sammie's Dress Shop building expressed his concerns His business is located at the southeast corner of the project He feels that his business and others will be dwarfed by the height of this project in relation to existing buildings He fails to see where the hardship portion of this variance request is He has been through construction before and fears that his business will not survive the construction penod because of interrupted traffic and lack of parking Mr Hoefler responded that the hardship would be incurred by the neighbors on the Second Street side of this development if it were the 30 ft townhome row in place of the 5th and 6`h stories currently being requested Melanie Ebertz, 368 North Main, Art Andes displayed a picture tour of the building that would be torn down to make way for this project She gave a descnption of each of the businesses located in the current building She stated the type of business, it's location in the building and the number of employees in each She expressed the uniqueness of the businesses and their viability She stated that most of the owners had no interest in returning their business to the new space and that some owners were considenng leaving town altogether She requested that the commissioners take a closer look at what would be lost with the destruction of the building She asked if their vision for Stillwater was really in line with the vision of the community Ms Ebertz presented a petition of 400 signatures, collected in only ten days, all against this development Del Blocher of 308 2nd St North presented photos of the current view from his neighborhood and what would happen to the view if the structure, as submitted was approved He showed how the elevation requested would affect 10 residences on his block He also stated his concerns regarding increased traffic Mr Hoefler clanfied that the height of the proposal is 58 feet There is a 12' high penthouse on the building (30 feet in length from the north to the south facing Main Street) that would sit on top of the 58' roof Mr Middleton asked Mr Hoefler to explain to the Commission and the audience how the average height of a building is determined Mr Hoefler explained that the average height of the peak is measured to the center, between the base of the peak (the apex) and the ridge Mr Perocescki clarified that this would figure out to 52' plus the height of the penthouse (12') Martin Hansen of 402 N 2"a Street stated that as a formal civil engineer and Planning Commission member he had concerns regarding liability for any problems resulting from the altenng of underground water flow He feels that the owners and contractors should be liable Jeff Fenske, an attomey representing the current property owners, stated that he wanted to focus the attention of the commission members back on the legal requirements of the Commission and submit to the Commission that this application does indeed meet the legal requirements and as a result, the Commission must approve this application He defined "hardship" as it applies to a request like this This is a non-use vanance The only issue for the variance is the height of the project He doesn't feel that the character would be changed by this project because 50 feet is the given and a 2 foot vanance is all that is being requested This project would not adversely affect the City's Comprehensive plan He summed up by stating that the hardship standard has been met, the owners and developers are not requesting a special pnvilege with the variance and the project does not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan He stated that the Hentage Preservation has already given their approval dunng the design review process and the developers already have, or are willing to, follow all of the conditions set forth by the Hentage Preservation Commission Mr Fenske stated that the plan is consistent with the zoning regulations, meets the flood plain requirements, meets the Downtown Design guidelines, meets the Downtown Plan and all of the conditions for vanances in the ordinance and would indeed, in the opinion of the owner, provide a substantial benefit to downtown Stillwater in the long run As a result, the current owner of the property respectively requests that the Commission follow the recommendations of the HPC and City staff and approve this application Sue Fitzgerald commented that every member of the HPC was against more than four stones in the plan The only reason that they made any compromise was the developers said they would pull back the entire fifth story ten feet from all sides Nancy Pnnce, 416 2nd St North, asked what the current zoning is on the affected block She feels that because it is zoned CBD, the Commission should deny the special use permit and the vanance height request Rick Miller, 304 2nd St North, feels that the 5th floor is of value only to the developers and the property values of the residential neighbors will be adversely affected Rich Cummings, 1060 Amundson Dnve, brought up the fiscal issues involved in this practice He stated that the project would not only improve a blighted area but it would benefit the infrastructure of the city as well The developers could be required to fix Second Street The tax base for the area in question would increase 80 times, from approximately one half a million to $40 million This project would require very minimal city services such street maintenance and snow plowing and it would be spnnkled for fire protection Jill Greenhall, no address given, stated that Histonc Preservation and the need for economic development need not be a odds Stillwater is a city that owes its economic base to its histonc character She stated that its okay for the Commission to "flex" somewhat on issues but that there is a great deal of difference between a few feet and a few stones She would like to see more value put on the opinions of the citizens Bob Florence, 312 N 2nd Street, is concerned about the loss of his view but more so about the histonc character of Stillwater The top of the roof, no matter the average height, is what will block views He is against anything over 3 stones in height for the city Revenue is from the tounst industry, drawn here by the histonc nature of the city In his opinion, this project will do little to draw more visitors to Stillwater Thomas Loome, intended to just listen but felt he had to make some comments He felt that the developers were being disingenuous regarding the height of the structure Four stones The fifth story doesn't count because it is being pulled back from the street side, and the sixth story is only a penthouse so doesn't count either? He stated that since you can't see through a penthouse If the current owners truly had sympathy for the businesses being forced out then he thinks that they should have assisted the businesses in relocating or, at the very least, given them ample notice of the possibility If the landlords had stated their intentions in a timely manner then some of the tenants would not have just moved in there and invested a lot of money Charlotte Schuld, 1200 Creekside Crossing, feels that the issue is not the size nor the appearance of this building but does downtown really need more residential space What would be the increase of costs to the current tenants if they were to return to the planned retail space9 Ben Dickhausen, owner of Central Hub, also helped the landlords with some renovation of the current building — new windows, support columns, and numerous repairs He is torn because of the condition of the current building but does not want to see the successful businesses there lose their location This would be a major lifestyle change for himself and the other business owners but realizes that Carl 9owner of Gallery Prints, is fortunate because he can locate his business anywhere He feels that the city benefits from having low rental space available where unique, small businesses can flounsh It enhances the culture of the community and bnngs in a lot of revenue from the people who patronize the businesses There is a way to make this situation a win/win situation He asked if there was an environmental feasibility study that he could look at Mr Gag closed the public hearing Mr Turnquist sees no need for more residential buildings considering that the Lofts and Terra Springs are not full and he will vote against the special use permit portion of this proposal Mr Ranum also sees no need for more housing in the business distnct Mr Teske has concerns regarding the increased traffic and wonders just how much residential property is necessary for a vital downtown Mr Junker is in favor of residential properties downtown but wonders how much is too much, what is the limit Mr Ranum stated that residential property is not beneficial to the tounsm industry, business and culture Mr Glen Van Warum, consultant for S E H stated that the residential development would increase traffic by 800 tnps or more per day The retail space would generate some additional tnps (300 tnps/day), but the parking spaces will generate the most retail tnps Mr Middleton indicated that with Terra Springs, the Lofts and this project, this would bnng the increase in traffic counts to over 1200 tnps per day Mr Middleton is in favor of more business downtown but has a problem with the timing of this project He favors a wait and see attitude with the current developments Mr Wald feels that there is too much development going on at once He is in favor of this but not in favor of the timing Mr Peroceschi is in favor of the project He has safety concerns for the current building Mr Dahlquist is all in favor of mixed use properties but has a problem with the scale of this project Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved denial of the special use permit portion of SUPN/03-83 Mr Gag stated that he does not think this would be a smart move at this time Vote 7-2 in favor of denial Mr Junker and Mr Peroceschi voted against the denial of the special use permit Mr Russell pointed out that it was now unnecessary to continue Mr Turnquist, second Mr Teske, moved to deny the variance portion of SUPN/03-83 Vote 9-0 in favor of denial of the height variance Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to deny the conditional use permit portion of SUPN/03-83 Vote 5-4 in favor of the denial Middleton, Junker, Ranum and Peroceschi voted against the denial Mr Russell explained the appeal process Mr Gag called for a short recess at 10 25 p m Mr Gag reconvened the meeting at 10 30 pm Case No SUP/03-84 A special use permit for an outdoor patio for Freshfields Bakery located at 1250 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial Distnct Knss Novak, South Metro Centers V, LLC, applicant Bob Norton and Bnan Gregg represented the applicant and clanfied the plans, as submitted by the applicant Mr Gag opened the public hearing 117r Gag closed the public hearing Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval of Case No SUP/03-84 Vote all in favor Case No V/03-85 A variance to the side yard setback (5 feet required, 1 6 feet requested) and to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 20 feet requested) for the construction of a two -stall garage located at 1618 West Oak Street in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Niel and Jennifer Atkinson, applicants Mr Middleton asked the owners if they were aware of the fire resistant sheetrocking requirements and the restnctions on any openings (doors and/or windows) on the side of the structure that is within three feet of the property line Mr Gag opened the public hearing Mr Gag closed the public hearing Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Peroceschi, moved approval with conditions met Vote all in favor Case No SUP/03-86 A special use permit for an Internet coffee shop with outside seating located at 150 South Third Street in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Mike Rice, applicant Mr Middleton asked about parking requirements and how much outdoor seating that Mr Rice was planning on providing Mr Dahlquist asked if the parking shown would be customer parking only Mr Gag opened the public hearing Mr Gag closed the public hearing Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved approval with conditions of Case No SUP/03-86 Vote all in favor Case No V03-87 --WITHDRAWN-- A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet requested) and to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet requested) for the construction of a residence located between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Laura Borndale, applicant Case No SUP/03-88 A special use permit for the construction of a two -level parking structure accommodating 237 parking spaces located between Everett Street and Greeley Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District Lakeview Memorial Hospital Association, Inc , represented by Walker Parking Consultants, applicant Jeff Robertson, Administrator of Lakeview Hospital, gave a bnef overview of the project The hospital is seeking a 237 place, 2 level parking lot on the SE comer of the hospital property There are currently two homes located in the area that will be removed to make room for the requested construction Entrances and exits will be on both Everett and Greeley Streets The reason for this request is three -fold - Numerous complaints from residents on Churchill and Anderson Streets (east of the hospital, regarding the shuttling of 200 some employees from the Stillwater Junior High School parking lot No long term commitment from Stillwater Junior High School They have indicated that they have potential uses for their lot, other than a parking lot for hospital employees The ongoing expense of leasing the lot and transporting employees back and forth ($200,000/year) Mr Robertson indicated that they held a neighborhood meeting to receive input from the neighbors A traffic study was completed to look at the potential impact of this project This study indicated that there would be a 5% increase in traffic on Everett Street The hospital will use trees and other landscaping to heavily screen the parking structure from the neighbors The plan addresses the neighbors concerns regarding lighting and drainage The hospital's strategic plan intends to keep the in -patient services for the foreseeable future and move the ambulatory services out to the Curve Crest-20 acre site Terry Hakala, Vice President of Walker Parking Consultants stated they were retained by Lakeview Hospital to develop the parking facility He presented slides and maps illustrating the parking structure The parking structure will be an expansion of the current parking lot 60 feet long by 110 feet wide The pnmary entrance for employees will be from Greeley Street to the lower level of the ramp If that is full, vehicles will have to go out onto Everett to enter the upper level of the ramp There will also be an entrance and exit on Everett St A "left turn only" sign at the Everett exit will be installed and the nght turn will be pretty severe in an attempt to deter motorists from traveling south on Everett St Glen Van Warum of S E H did a traffic study on the impact of this parking structure Three points were taken into consideration -What is the impact of moving the traffic from the school parking lot to the hospital How will dnvers change their routes to get to the hospital grounds? -What will the parking access changes do to traffic on Everett, Greeley and Churchill Sts 9 -How will the intersections function with additional traffic? By using the home zip codes of the 200 employees involved, logical routes to the hospital were figured out The net change on the area streets was then determined Considenng that the shuttle bus tnps (approximately 225 tnps per day) would be eliminated, the net changes are not great A few streets will see slightly more traffic but most neighborhood streets will see less traffic Another consideration is that there are so many different shifts involved at the hospital that there won't be great numbers of vehicles arriving/departing at the same time Mr Middleton asked what the increase in total tnps on Greeley Street would be He was told it would amount to approximately 140 total trips more per day Mr Ranum asked Mr Robertson what would happen to the neighborhood if this structure remains and the hospital moves Mr Robertson indicated that Lakeview's intent is to stay for the foreseeable future The cost of moving the entire facility would be prohibitive ($100 million) Mr Gag opened the pubic heanng Mary & Rich Soderholm, 1128 Everett St S , will be directly south of the parking structure Mrs Soderholm asked what happened to the walking trail that was on the plans at the hospital/neighborhood meeting She stated that this project was portrayed as a parking lot, not a parking ramp They have concerns regarding noise pollution from the increased traffic, slamming car doors, etc They also indicated that they understood this to be for employee parking and now it is indicated that there will also be patient and visitor parking Their pnvacy will be lost and fight pollution concerns them The aesthetics of the parkland -like setting will be lost The feel that the structure will greatly reduce the value of their property The Soderholms are concerned -with snow removal from the open top floor of the parking structure and the lot and with the run-off going into the pond and their adjacent property Mr Soderholm stated that this project is objectionable to the neighborhood and they do not want it Mr Gag asked if there is or was a trail in the plans It was indicated that there is no trail but an easement, conditioned on approval Tom Sherber of 1121 S Everett is in favor of the hospital and feels that Stillwater is lucky to have such a fine facility He expressed his concerns regarding safety in the area There are no sidewalks on the nearby streets and the increased traffic will only make the situation worse He stated that the current volume of traffic is barely tolerable He feels that even if vehicles (patients and employees) are not supposed to make a nght turn out of the ramp onto Everett Street, they will because it is the most expedient way to get to the south and east sides of town He questioned where the growth of the hospital will end He feels that this expansion will be a detnment to the community Karen Hofstrand, MD, 1204 S Everett St feels that there are more creative solutions to the employee parking issues It is important to protect the nature area in the neighborhood After viewing the stakes marking the boundanes of the project, she stated that parking lot and ramp will really change the look and feel of the neighborhood Mr Teske asked if the hospital administrator would address the issue of the hospital moving Mr Robertson said that due to the rapidly changing medical profession, it is tough to predict beyond their 15 year plan He stated that there are no real plans to move and he feels that they would do best in the current structure and location Pat Poshek, 1302 Everett St S, questioned why only those residents within 350' of this project were notified when this is regional change He feels that this will have an impact on a much larger area He feels that property zoned Residential 1 should be protected He wonders what will happen to the neighborhood if/when the hospital moves because there would be all of this commercial property in a residential zone He feels that the hospital is a good neighbor and he does not want to come off at being against the hospital but he is concerned with what the building would become if/when the hospital left Mr Poshek stated that there should not be so many planning decisions made in one evening - it gets too late and everyone involved gets too tired Good planning is looking into the future so that years later, it looks like it was planned Stuart & Jill Glaser, 1103 S Everett St moved into a residential neighborhood, not a parking lot Will the razing of homes continue for the hospital to continue its expansion He feels that the parlung is really just a Monday thru Fnday issue so this parking ramp is not really necessary He pointed out that the upper and lower levels are not connected so, essentially, Everett will become a piece of the parking lot because vehicles will have to go onto Everett to access the other level of the lot This was confirmed by Walker Parking Consultants He felt that their suggestions to the hospital, at the September 11`h neighborhood meeting, were not seriously considered They also wonder where the expansion of the hospital will end Marty Rossini, 1224 S Everett, stated that no matter the design, a parking ramp is not nice to look at He loves the pond and loves Stillwater but does not want to continue living here Patrons, employees of the hospital and the majonty of other dnvers ignore the stop signs and speed limits already and he fears that this will escalate with the addition of 200 employees He talked to several realtors who agreed that property values will plummet if the parking ramp goes up Mr Rossini said he heard the property south of the hospital was given to the hospital with the understanding that it would not be touched It was there for recuperating patients to view and enjoy He wonders how the deed to the property reads Dugan Kern, 1216 Everett St , feels the consequences of this project would negatively impact the neighborhood Questioned if anyone has considered letting employees walk to work since it is only a couple of blocks He strongly encouraged the Commission to vote no on this special use permit Brad Glynn, 823 W Anderson Street, lives where Everett Street drastically narrows (from 34' to 20') and there is a cement retaining wall abutting the street He already has a view of the parking lot which is not a problem because it is usually empty in the evenings when he is home Is there really a need for such a big proJect9 He can't imagine increasing the traffic through this area where there are no sidewalks and minimal setbacks Mark Trumper, 1303 S Everett St is concerned that there are no sidewalks now and there is too much traffic already More traffic increases the chance for more accidents Dan Rydeen, 1111 S Everett wants to stay in the neighborhood but feels it will be too dangerous for his young children Mr Gag closed the public heanng Mr Junker asked if any easements were needed for the Greeley Street entrance/exit The hospital owns the property Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Teske, moved denial of SUP/03-88 Mr Junker feels that a compromise should be made but cannot support this request as presented at this time Mr Ranum compared the situation to the international airport Even though new building is planned in the future, current needs must be met Success means continued growth but there is a limit Maximum capacity will be reached making a move inevitable He does not want the neighborhood "stuck" with a massive structure that does not fit in with the residential property, when it is a short-term solution Mr Gag indicated that the situation is dangerous and will likely vote no Mr Middleton inquired about the possibility of no entrance/exit on Everett Based on the presentation and the neighborhood's opposition, he would have to vote against the special use permit Mr Dahlquist recognizes the needs of the hospital He feels that the solution is there just not acceptable on Everett Mr Teske is strugghng with the issue of balance Needs of hospital not in harmony/balance with the residents Vote 8 in favor of denial of SUP/03-88, 1 abstention, Mr Peroceschi Other Items -Discussion of Downtown Plan Update (tabled) -Discussion of TH 36 Partnership Study (tabled) (Monday, November 17th was tentatively set for the next expansion area traffic study Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Wald moved to adjourn the meeting at 12 25 p m , motion passed unanimously Respectfully Submitted Kathy Rogness Acting Recording Secretary PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/03-90 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 2440 Bayberry Avenue Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Residential District Zoning District RA Applicants Name Joe Fisher Type of Application Variance Project Description The request is to construct a second 508 square foot garage on a lot with an existing house and attached garage The request requires a variances to City Zoning Code for setback (30 feet required, 13 feet proposed) accessory building maximum size (120 square feet permitted, 508 square feet proposed) and for a second garage on a lot Discussion The request is for three variances to allow construction of a second detached garage on a lot developed with a single family residence with an attached garage No basis is provided in the application for the variances Bayberry Avenue is in the newer area of town where subdivisions were laid out with the existing zoning and subdivision requirements unsimilar to the older town area Detached second garages are not allowed because they detract from the residential quality of the neighborhood and provide a possible location for business activity Recommendation Denial Findings The request is not consistent with the zoning requiremens Required Findings for a Variance 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and 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 and site plan PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any application All supporting matenal e, photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with apphcatrons Any incomplete application o supporting matenal will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 'Z `t �` 4U 4 f - ,c $ d! 4 essor's Parcel No Zoning District Descnption of Project A ek -{—, o A j CO Av 12 par I-4g4T "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in al respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply wi the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner' t - c 56. ( .-Representative Mailing Address C44 14 CO.6p,�f iC.(. fAO Mailing Address City - State - Zip 5r i it w rtt e( Vf i N o, vl4ity - State - Zip Telephone No (aS/ -363 - 9 (0 9 CF // Telephone No sf- a g--bg - tin/ S►gnatur �,..�� ----P S►gnature (Signature Is required) (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) 2 x I" Land Area /c , SOO Height of Buildings Stories Principal 1 Accessory / (GEO Code) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area V 8 58 square feet Existing 1 7 . O square feet Feet Proposed R square feet 1. Paved Impervious Area cpoosquare feet No of off-street parking spaces q' H \mrnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 V It '/a'' z /cD ' e, U. R.17 / 2 • TOP VIEW 121 liPz Al* COL TOP PLATE BEYOND WAIL STIR BEYOND 224 VERTICAL 9PP00T 241 SELF 9PP0RT9 IS 1/2 LOW 3/4 PLYWOOD 901VES 16 DEEP BUTTON HATE F0010 C0f1D1ETE FLOOR SHELVING DETAILS SCALE lir 111 ✓0 CONSTRUCTION NOTES FCTOOATION PLAN 1 I1l- FiSE 6F 6 ca1E BLCOI OH rt.0/CJETE BLOOI B MUM MOM 011 16 VIDE BY / Ts.. 1DOO1Ere FOOTING REINFONQII VIIR TWO 11 CONTII/1011O REBUT 2 !FOIE FOR CONRETE SLAB a OW EPP COME OF CDR AT DIO OPOIINIS Fi001 PLAN 1 4 CONCRETE TL1B POACH ARUM 01 STEYR 2 151- SHELVES 2 6*0 CEDAR 060TI 1 2N1 SRO WAEL-NON-BFARINO1 WITH 9/8 WAFEPB0110 21 WE SIDE 5 PL_YVmO DOORS -IEEE WAD. FOR CONSTRICTION) 6 121-2412 AtAGIER-SEE EMAIL T 2e1 91ID 11A111FARI151 11I111 91FADWBiSFE MODS SECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION 9 LINE OF ROOF OV004116 9 4 C0N01E1E FL001 REIIFW0D W11H 6N6V11 6A 12100E WIFE IF91 L11 121-201 1EAOA 11R1 1/2 SPACER NOTE 11/0269 ARE IIANFACT0E0 BY CRESTLINE NAUMUR WI.00IN TYPE-CClTQ-O STILE AYND6 CASI 3B2411 ELECTRICAL KEY @ —110 CUTLET Q —220 OUTLET -0 CFI ®2WI0 FAULT INTIRRUP101 A9 ®—WEATHER P�IPROOF OUTLET UTO ATIC &HARE COON OPENER OUTLET — LIGHT FIXTURE — RECESSED FIXTURE —FAN .. .T.—SNITCH —THREE NW SWITCH —FWR MAY SWITCW r0—BUIIER U a —Dam PORN 49 1a2 3 X r!e ,O' TR0559 IT 2N O , GARAGES 7(1,5ot !I! /O p /T ' 22. 242 SERER TYPICAL ALL 110119 r( • I , I • • ' ANN • 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/1 1 -/' 16. arzr SLAB LAYOUT ANCHOR BOLT L CATICI III ' 121-64 491A319 l2 II ANC) IlfIvCNOR B0' T9 DOMED NOT F LEST T111A I/O C0 OIAPETO1 b ENID AT RE19T 7 1N11 + SPACED A ON RE HAIO CONCRETE 0 a001 1'O —11 SPICED A7 MORE TNl1 B B O C BY ABOVE PE 9125.E OF CONCRETE -1 LING OF THICKENED FLOOR BLAB FCOTINB FOUNDATION PLAN OCALE I/1 1 -/ UNEXCAVATED CP s PLANNING DESIGN DRAFTING OINEWNIONE To T 1 FNEFIABNCI 0v10 /CALI 1.8.110 OM own tOWVIPZ1 MP .1111.11. tr.) r1 design • PANG A DUEL S PURL B 1,1-11_, O J' L — ELOPE CONCRETE AT PORCH PAWL C PANEL D IEAEER I TIE PLATE PANEL FRAMING ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/1 1 -/ 188 LET IN DIAGONAL BRACING OVERHEAD DOOR DPENINE O DOR O PENING PURL E Pua F PA/E. J PANEL N 0 0 MEM FOUNDATION CO DITIDN WITH FLCATINB BLAB FOUNDATION IE- FOUNDATION CONDITION FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1/4 1 -S J NI1N FROST DEPTH FOUNDATION b REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION NETA POST BABE SUPPORT 'G?% LEFT ELEVATION J CONSTRUCTION NOTES ELEVATION? 1 NUDO011E W BIDING 1T W331T[1 i 1A FASCIA 3 NETAL ROOF EOM 1 CELR TRIM 3 MI MARL smug 6 IETAL FLATTING 7 BABE EIN FNI I SA TREATED 01 CEDAR POSTS 9 4 coma APRON t_ SA T EAIID 04 CEDAR SUEDE 1I IM IT CBBETF FOOTING 13 1 COOKIE EAB 13 8/4 CEDAR PLT1D00 DCVO WITH ®AR TRIO 806133y0Ft DETAIL) C s PU 11 MEN ORAFTWO 01 4 PK/OE6_ OM Ktl_ wry no ammo .1.1 Lry .61 design SHEET OF PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/BM/03-91 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location Between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street ( a newly created lot) Comprehensive Plan Distnct Single Family Residential Zoning District RA Applicants Name Larry Dauffenbach Type of Application Variance and a Building Moving Permit Project Description A building moving permit to move a house from 1104 South Everett to a lot between 1419 and 1323 West Ramsey Street (a newly created lot) and a Variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 24 feet requested) Discussion The applicant is requesting a Vanance and a permit to move a house The proposed lot the house would be located on is a newly created lot A Vanance was granted by the Planning Commission for the size of the lot at the June 3, 2003 meeting (see case SUB/03-36) The required lot size in the RA zoning distnct is 10,000 square feet This lot is nonconforming because it is only 7500 square feet It is also wider in length (100 feet) than in depth (75 feet), another contributing factor to its' nonconformity If a house were to be placed on the land and follow the required setbacks, it would have a depth of 20 feet The house that would be moved is located at 1104 S Everett Street, and is one of two houses that is scheduled to be demolished or moved due to a proposed expansion of Lakeview Hospital The 1092 square foot house was built in the 60's, and is architecturally compatible with the homes on Ramsey Street In making a building permit recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider the following items -Compliance of the building and use with zoning and land use regulations -Conformance of the moved building with the existing or future pattern of development in the neighborhood to which the building is being moved -Consistency of the moved building's age, bulk, architectural style and quality of construction with the buildings in the neighborhood The use proposed is single family residential consistent with zoning use requirements Included in the application are pictures of the residence being moved and adjacent structures The neighborhood structures and moved building look in good condition Most were built in the 60's and 70's Recommendation Approval with conditions Conditions of Approval 1 Approval of building moving subject to compatible design of residence addition, and approval of vanance 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 substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same distnct and 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 authonzing of the vanance will not be of substantial detnment 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/Site Plans/Photos PLANNING ADMINIE, RATION APPLICATION FORM` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant Is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting mater 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 Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material Is required If application Is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies supporting material is required A site plan Is required with apphcations Any Incomplete apphcai supporting material will delay the application process Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Per Vanance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amenc Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development Certificate of Compliance M.0L+1 pQ-a•, PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 1 3 X jC to Re"Soy Zoning Distnct 13 VC. CO kbeftSoy "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, Informat,on and evidence submitted herewiti respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify! will cony the permit If It Is granted and used " Description of Project /sou a Aovte Assessor's Parcel No a i � y j1 (GEO Code) 1- lrcJr►4- Property Owner Mailing Address City - State - Zip 3'e 4-R- Mel st),, - 1 i 0Y to 0iiue gt r'I1w 14— �ii ��,.• Telephone No i f�#"1`- ?Si' 7 3 7 3 Signature (Signature Is required) Lot Size (dimensions) ZS x /0 0 Land Area '7 ) 6o fly Height of Buildings Stories Principal 1 _ Accessory / Feet Proposed square feet -.« Paved Impervious Area square feet --L-a— No of off-street parking spaces Representative / ba AR.- salA Mailing Address 1 Y l6 ?o ser City - State - Zip /l.) ew •e�m..-� Telephone No - q7- Signature (Si nature Is req fired) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area /0 Q 2-- square fc Existing square feet H \nanamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 Dear Planning Commission Members I am requesting a permit to move a house, and a variance to place the house on a lot owned by Jeff Melstrom in the 1300 block of W Ramsey Street r Lakeview hospital is planning an expansion of their parkmg lot The expansion would require the removal of two houses One of the houses, 1104 S Everett, I would be interested m purchasing The house is a rambler style house, of mid 60's design It is 26 feet wide and 44 feet long It is currently red and has a hip- roof style The house is m need of some repairs, but I believe it is very reusable on a different site The style and nature of the house would fit the neighborhood, which has many of vintage era and style houses The house could be moved to Ramsey Street by a house mover and set on the lot according to the plan submitted This would require a house -moving permit The lot is 75' deep and 100' of fiontage on Ramsey St The lot is located on the south side of the street A large bank in front of the house would be excavated into a less steep pitch yard The lot currently only allows a house with the width of 20 feet to be placed on it (see current condition map) With the purposed variance a 24 foot set back would be sought from the Commission (required setback is 30') The house would be set on a new foundation and would meet cute ent codes I request approval of moving permit and variance Respectfully sub ffenbac / 1- 50 110 �1 110 eon 8 110 8 clam f a 50557 0 2 8 deem 110 4000 tt 0 80 10 0 510 7 -- e E 110 / 6 8 5 110 4 PLAYGROUND n 5 s 40m n as a 2 90 1 67 cc U_ li 7 1— O 1n ea 350 50 15 sP.) WEST MYRTLE 150 R 11 5 15005 8 12 6 15011 8 13 15010 5 10 5 9 5 6 5 so 5 isma1 so so 50 8 14 15021 R 010151 ▪ 15 15020 0 �4 16 50>e WbS a 17 7, 5 a 19 25 ✓� r 21 s 5 a 8 22 r. 24 25 a a a to v 26 5 80 W W CC CO tS tL CC 60 SIKtti 1s 100 ea 2 fp 01 92 00111 E 00e11 3 es A a �0 2. 00 1— D to REET CSAH 5 c 1 1 14 9 10 f 8 5 114P,431 0 R STREET Y 6.•5 104 5 4 3 AND osi so 9 1s 104 28 1 2 so 771 12 13 5 60 100 2 85 w1 100 sP 1 9 100 120 150 A Location Map - 150.0 2.0.1 149311 so er" 3 50 2 3 .201 5 .—► 4 SEEeLE so 7 150 8 12 ev011 11 101 • VACATED WEST OAK 0 150 12 4p301 R 11 0 8 10 8 R_1W RAR R19W R—W Riu RAW Vicinity Map 0 T 163 Scale in Feet il.i..sa eapd.e 1,11Mr. mad .1w in *gagOka. �.�00 �p ea.a 4114am.,1.1 a...1de 0e6. Me.Im 1001IIIT1 V.e1Amyl Am .1 a.1..5 . AS KO 209 1eq a..2 cam, a tom r I 1 C I i ( \ I i _ \ 1 i _ ) --- ZLY -11 hh +S \,-) -). _', L-i.- \-Dill.,__.) 40 5 Sf. o 1 w 20 90 oo 290302C PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/03-92 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 523 West Moore Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Erica Flutz Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the street setback (30 feet required, 17 feet requested) for the construction of an enclosed stairway to the basement Discussion The applicant is requesting a Variance to the street setback to construct an 4 foot by 8 foot addition to the house to enclose a proposed stairway to the basement The applicant has been renovating the house and built over an existing outside "trap door" Water apparently was leaking into the basement through this door creating a mold problem in the basement Recommendation Denial Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the request, staff recommends the following condition of approval 1 The architectural style, materials and color shall be the same as the main structure Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and 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/Site Plan/Photo PLANNING ADMINIS I RATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No VD3 Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Pern ✓Vanance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendr Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineenng fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting meter,. submitted in connection with any application All supporting matenal 0 e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete appbcati( supporting matenal will delay the applscation process I , /S5��PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 5ts Lti R2l1 Ca sit ' Assessor's Parcel No(04-- 9a2 lif / (GEO Code) Zoning District 14 / Description of Project Co/)s'iintc ail 0 H- 1 4nGfi y4 6 meivf "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comp) the permit if it is granted and used " r- Property Owner Representative Mailing Address Mailing Address c5 7 (1U, Uasja City - State - Zip zCh, l t' ,`k p1 kV) 5 /7 ' Telephone No LK (` Z75" 17(.-/ Signature �i,d i nature is required) 9 q red) Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area k. )35- -2,44/4_ City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature v (Si ' nature Is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION / Total Building floor area 3 ! i) square fee Existing Height of Buildings Principal Accessory Stories Feet Proposed Paved impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces square feet square feet H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 1 I2 s' Q. tio Witr 5V 1'1 14 or) me i opt► rr' 'J ppvnj )90'y 1,5 h 8 • -N-f,y $Pty,./ cfiax a rY8 h T106091 AVENUE Location Map MINN DNR DIV OF PROTECTED WETLANDS Al 10 FT WIDE ROAD EASEMENT PER = 241 DEEDS PG WEST MOORE SYCAMOF F. 15 14 12 124.5 1 10 9 I ✓ 22 e 13 22 anus 1 ea ✓4 24 ra 8 I 3 4 15 4.0 20� 26 21 27 ✓'� 28 gFo18 n ✓. R 16 V 15 IP ST CROIX R_IW R2W R19W R_W R_IW RpW Vicinity Map Scale in Feet nor al -- •rnpeacien al mein M M• om eft 1.0drgrai0 / b mom.. necessza - IY Mgen Coot, 14,..980. Mew IU I�>ml AinalMI*a M_.,., .,,,d >� a PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V03-93 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 107 North Owens Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Jeffery S Kartak Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 1 foot requested) for the construction of a 3-season porch, mud -room, tool shed, basement entry and replacement deck (partially completed) Discussion The applicant is requesting a variance to the side yard setback to construct a 3-season porch, mud- room, tool shed, basement entry and replacement deck one foot from the property line There are a number of issues involved with building a structure so close to a property line Attached is a memo from the building official addressing the regulations of the Uniform Building Code The budding roof would have an overhang of a foot or more creating drainage onto the adjoining property It is staffs recommendation that the addition be moved south 5 feet Recommendation Denial Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval 1 The addition shall be similar in style, materials and color as the main structure 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 substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors mi 4 `f 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/Site Plan/Elevation Drawings/Photos • T PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No V03 ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit X Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 107 Owens St N Assessors Parcel No 2803020320096 (GEO Code) Zoning Distnct RB Description of Project 3 season porch/mudroom/basement entry I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used Property Owner Jeffrey S Kartak Representative Mailing Address 107 Owens St N Mailing Address City State Zip Stillwater MN 55082 City - State - Zp Telephone No 651-351-9398 Signature Telephone No (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) 35 x 126 Land Area 4410 Sq 1— Height of Buildings Stories Principal 1 1/2 Accessory Feet 22 Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area 857 94 Existing 689 51 s Proposed 168 43 Paved Impervious Ar No of off stre 1LtI ttW'( 0 2 0 yr w w IT �a 01 200 75 CSAH r O ,z5 5 mil; 43 A 50 so saN % g 'dJ 50 m �A T 23 50 a' v., 55 50 SOUTH / OWENS STREET B , s.. SHERBURN= STREET a m It m f� CSAH 43 50 50 J I so so A 50 50 m 50 so J N 50 m u 50 50 ¢' 00 RTH OWENS STREET 50 so 50 60 IC 60 50 50 u sA I 5p 50 LT 50 50 �� g A as y MYRTLE STF 3 �. `yA - 8 15 / f� !!!�+ -�i _•+'� / DLL 4 of 8Zl 1 9 154 5 g .) g 15438 eon 154 25 O J 60 g O S 50 - r 50 a, IN 50 Tb 61f v ., I "''�''TTT�"'TTf c 43 m N w ^� �W m a m S: 66"" 60 N g O 999 so - a O� _ 55 g N $ yyJJ 55 W - 60 f$ oh 7 4 10128 841 14 m m N 50 W 15 e� - .9 ., 50 SOUTH 0 60 � GREELEY STREET m r4 NORTH GREELEY STREET ,0z j g . ., � 65 %N So O So %0 so o e0 So j s �A V , — N 4 00 55 W so m bo -- S N, bo _, r0 5S 55 `-`' 0D 6z ..--. Ca �, A Q B g m § N f )aaj ui aims MEMORANDUM TO Steve Russell, Community Development Director FROM Cinay Shifts, Building Official DATE April 1, 2002 SUBJECT Variances Involving Building Code Issues Recently, there have been numerous variance requests for setbacks to property lines for residential construction of garages and living space The building code regulates how a building is constructed when within the allowed area specified The building code sees these issues as a fire/life-safety issue for neighboring properties The attached table from the Uniform Building Code lists, by occupancy, the proximity to a property line with allowable openings and type of wall construction For example, if you look under the R-3 (residential living space) or the U-1 category (pnvate garages), openings are not permitted when the building is within three feet of the property line This means that these variance requests for one to three feet from the property lines cannot have any windows or doors in the affected wall and the walls must be constructed to the hourly rating as specified under the "bearing" and "nonbeanng" columns, which essentially increase the cost of construction Basically, a one -hour wall consists of 5/8 fire resistant sheetrock, taped, or other approved materials to be determined by the Building Official I believe the Planning Commission should have this basic knowledge of how the variances, if granted, are affected by the building code Property owners often assume that they can build a "typical" garage and are surpnsed by the increased costs involved when a variance is granted close to a property line I will be at the April 8th meeting to answer any questions the may arise 1 Dear Stillwater Planning Commission and Staff, This letter is in regard to my application for a variance to the side yard setback at 107 Owens St. N. Stillwater, 10 feet required 1 foot requested, for the construction of a 3 season porch/mudroom/tool shed/basement entry and replacement deck. First I need to apologize for my ignorance in this matter. I did not realize all that is required to repair and improve my home. I started this project early this last spring and have worked on it all summer doing all of the work myself. I bought this home "as is" in 1996 not knowing at all what I was getting into. It was in pretty rough shape. I have slowly worked at keeping it up and improving it's condition. This spring major problems remained that I felt I could not live with anymore and was determined to fix. I had no idea how non -conforming this house was before I started this project. In the drawing of these plans I have found many other issues that are somewhat scary as I'm sure you'll notice in the site plans. I live here by myself with my dog Moose and a friends cat Catty. This addition will be used primarily as a dry shelter/basement entrance but will also serve as a mudroom, tool shed and 3 season porch with small deck. On October 14th I opened a letter from Stillwater Building Official Cindy Shilts Informing me that I need a Building Permit and possibly a Variance before I will be allowed to continue work on this project. I called Cindy at her office. After I told her that my house was 1 foot from my property, she said I would need to obtain a variance before a permit could be issued. I have since been working on these plans to submit in time for the commission meeting. In this letter I will show you why I believe this is a necessary addition to this home and why it should not adversely affect the homes or businesses around it. Instead, I believe it will add property value to the home which in turn will raise more taxes for the city and will at least help sustain the value of neighboring homes and businesses. Most important of all though, I believe, is the value and safety that it will offer to whoever inhabits the home now and in the future. The northeast corner of the foundation was pretty much the lowest spot of the backyards on the block and in the spring thaw that is where the water would collect from the backyards and drain into my basement. In a hard rain, water would pour in here and also down the basement stairs to the extent that I would need to open the basement door to let it run in otherwise the stairs would start to fill up and it would ruin the door. Water would also pour out of the sandstone walls and block wall up to 4 feet up the wall at times. My washing machine is in the basement and dryer is upstairs so I cannot avoid using the basement and in the winter it was not safe to have to use the deck, steps and concrete slab many times a day to do laundry. This leaves me no safe place to go in a storm, I could not stand in a basement with a few inches of water so I would need to take my chances in an old house with no good storm shelter. This needed to be fixed and since the existing deck was old and unsafe in many ways, this was the time to fix it. I tore down the deck and started digging next to the northeast corner of the house and put in footings only thinking of building out enough to put the basement steps inside, so that's where the footings went. then came the landscaping block wall around the north to the east to the south side of the house to divert the heavy rainwater and spring thaw away from my foundation and stairs and into my backyard which will avoid major damage to the foundation and gave me at least a non -flooded place to go in a bad storm. This photo is about 3 years old and in it you can get an idea of the deck that was removed and the concrete stairs leading to the basement. With no garage and a flooding basement, there has never been any dry storage space, therefore this deck was usually cluttered with items with nowhere else to go. 2 This top photo was probably taken the same day as the first one with the dogs. It just shows a different angle of what this side of the house looked like before I built the addition. I had cut off a section of the bench that was on the fence side of the deck at some point and moved it to the other side by the stairs as a temporary barrier. Before that there was nothing there. This was another one of the safety issues I had with the house as it existed. The bottom photo is of the northeast corner of the foundation from inside the basement. The stairs going up to the addition are just to the right of the block wall shown in the photo. This block wall is under where the old deck attaches to the house and was put in before I bought the house and is the only wall in the basement that is not the old limestone/sandstone wall. The stains are visible mostly on the bottom half of the wall where the water would actually spurt out of the grouted joints. While digging outside for the footings and stairwell wall repair, it was obvious that whoever built this wall did not properly backfill and this contributed to why such a great amount of water would enter through this wall. It was basically like they had just thrown chunks of the old wall in the hole and put some dirt on top of it. This left large voids underground where water could leak right in and rodents and such could live. I dug this out and filled with black dirt tamping and filling as I went. With the roof over the whole section, the retaining wall around and the proper maintainance I don't foresee any more problems here. 3 This is a photo of the stairs leading to the basement as they exist now. Slabs were poured on top of the existing stairwell concrete walls after the north wall and been jacked back into it's original position and repaired. These slabs are to be used to build walls up to the bottom of the addition floor and seal off the area. The value of even such a small dry space in a home this small with no garage is immeasurable by me. The remaining photos on the following page show the addition as it exists now. The first photo (bottom left) shows the addition looking west straight on. The Second photo (top left) shows looking northwest. The third photo (top right) shows looking southeast from 115 Owens St. N. property. Before I started the retaining wall on this side of the house I went over and talked to my neighbor Dave to let him know what I planned on doing in regards to the wall. I knew I must be close to his property and noticed he had planted grass seed in the area where he had trees removed last year. I wanted to assure him that if I ruined areas of the grass installing the wall I would fix them. I agreed with him that in the future I should put up rain gutters along this side of the house and that will help in addition to the wall to keep the water away from the foundation and allow me to divert a great deal of it into the back yard. I do plan to do this soon after the rest of the outside of the addition has been completed The fourth photo (bottom right) shows the house looking northeast standing in my driveway. As you can see the addition is at least 90% complete on the outside with only the windows, door and, siding and stairway walls to be completed. This was my original goal for this season, thinking that I could finish the inside as money and time permits. The only materials I need to purchase to finish this outside work is the siding and some green treated lumber for the stairwell walls otherwise the rest of my money has been spent. I Have not added up all of my costs yet and do not know what my time is worth "at the standard rate" but I would estimate that I have spent around $8000.00 to date without my time included or the various fees or penalties I will incur for my ignorance. When I talked to Cindy at The Building Department she informed me that the windows on the north wall would need to be blocked up and the north wall would need to have 5/8 in sheetrock on the inside if the wall was within 3 feet of the property line. I will work with The Building Department to fix this and other problems that may arise if this variance is granted. I hope I have supplied you with just the right amount of information to grant this request. I know the great safety and value it will add to my home and I believe in the value it adds to the neighborhood just by fixing a problem. I've learned a lot about how things are supposed to be done and I will not forget these lessons in the future. I've enjoyed living in Stillwater over the years and I hope to continue to do so for years to come. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Jeff Kartak 107 Owens St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 651-351-9398 feel free to call with any questions . 4 106 Greeley St. N. Garage Property Boundery Existing house size 689.472 sq. ft. footprint N oo a) New Addition Area Lilac Bush, Ferns, lilies, Flowers White Spruce Mulberry Bush White Spruce Privacy/Dog Fence 6 ft Height 115 Owens St. N. Garage Plan Inches Actual Feet 6ft Sugar Maple Silver Maple Existing Brick Chimney 115 Owens St. N. Silver Maple Honey'Locust Raspberries Red Ceder White Pine White spruce — Privacy/Dog Fence 6 ft Height Red Ceder r rD o `^ O -a 3fD Lei T rNr O z O Cl Crimson Maple Curbing_ Owens St. Existing front Section 1 1 /2 Story This is just to show the height of the buildings in relation to each other. 12112.75m Existing front Section 1 1/2 Story Existing Rear Section 1 Story 721n. Floor made of all green treated lumber and galvanized or stainless steel connectors. Walls are made of 2x6 construction lumber and 2x10 header material and framed with framing nails. 1/2 in OSB sheathing. Footings are 8 and 12 in. diameter 48 in deep Menards form tubes filled with Quickrete 5000 and 1/2 in steel re -bar. Rafters are cut from 2x10 hemfir 16 in. on center. sheathing is 1/2 in.OSB.weather barrier ice and water on entire roof.25 year shingle. All concrete work used Quickrete 5000 and steel re -bar. Property Boundery Existing house size 689.472 sq. ft. footprint 60 Existing Concrete Lilac Bush, Ferns,- _-_ lilies, Flowers White Spruce Mulberry Bush White Spruce ---- __ Privacy/Dog Fence 6ftHeight --_-_-__ 115 Owens St. N. Garage Old Deck removed sr N o 16ft Sugar Maple Silver Maple U a U — is 2 N — 7,. • .. ,0 o .4 NI — o x .wO-I W v, N W tri Plan Inches o .125 z� Actual Feet o Existing Brick Chimney 115 Owens St. N. Silver Maple 106 Greeley St. N. Garage 18 ft Japanese Maple Old concrete sidewalk slabs found under old deck and dirt Owens St. N. Raspberries Red Ceder White Pine White spruce - - Privacy/Dog Fence 6 ft Height rD -n a1 3 T 0 0 a 1' Crimson Maple 'N'�S suam0 l01 t PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/03-94 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 713 Co Road 5 Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Residential Zoning District RA Applicants Name Nancy Kiolbasa, representing St Croix Valley Life Care Center Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A request for modification of a Special Use Permit for additional services at St Croix Valley Life Care Center Discussion The St Croix Valley Life Care Center received a Special Use Permit from the Commission on November 18, 1997 for office use to conduct counseling services The request is to amend the use permit to include the following services 1 Pregnancy testing and pregnancy confirmation by a licensed nurse 2 Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) testing 3 Limited OB ultrasound service The Center is open 24 — 30 hours a week four days and one evening per week plus an occasional Saturday Over the past year the Center has averaged forty five clients per month There will be no increase in on -site parking There have been no complaints from the public since the Center began its' services six years ago Recommendation Approval with conditions Conditions of Approval 1 No exterior fighting shall be allowed, with the exception of a light at the door 2 The Special Use Permit is not transferable to other organizations that may inhabit the house 3 The sign shall be no larger than two square feet 4 The use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission for revocation if the Community Development Director receives complaints regarding the use Findings The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance Attachments Application Form/Letter from Applicant la I PLANNING ADMINIS1 RATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No S, Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use P Vanance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Ame Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Developmer Certificate of Compliance x The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting mat submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (0 e , photos, sketches, etc submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) cope supporting material is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete appl►c supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 7/3 �D d�aao� Assessor's Parcel No ,? .2. 030• moo..2 (GEO Code) Zoning District RA Description of Project /V%o�i �y cuter en7� �ec.a/ ',sc /per�i/ 7/7 2o/ adoi7 0/7a./ Services /74 v- lw/re-,77 ege.,7745 "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herein respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will co the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner.S7' e six l%a//ey 2,71;, Care CQ4-0 n Representative rgeh7 o/IQJ Mailing Address 7/3 Gv ,ed . - Mailing � Address /9DQ/l We,, City - State - Zip .�7i /tva ,e") /%A% 3Saf . City - State - Zip-*%A.1.4-7-e› /',€/ Telephone No S/— 't3 9— . 3 / S►gnatur xe..zPJ (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Telephone No 5/— 4137—. ..-� v, Signature__(,l JBto' ,ere 40ii-Pe717i' s Leh (Signaturis required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area squall Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces R H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 9 b b RIDGE ROAD 13 41 R eP Oo CONDO NO 6 CONDO \O 61 FIRST SUPL SECOND SUPL tiff 2 1 Fifffs 1 ice7) I r..-aw°8I 1 `11.011ACE SECOND IDD V 0 o ,ffra as 1D99e•1Dq CONDONO8 tffr 122 FOURTH sup'09 -465) CONDO NO 6 THIRD SUP P°" 2M9. P ad MI 1.1.21 2 Ott a 6tJP\CO3 9\, 3y R m .00700 co O 42 f 21 f 1 1 I' n • WEST PINE STF s I 12 IR..igi somo. 2 a ;26 f rn 1— In w SY 1 CO OD so pal E to co mai s 97." aI met PTERS64 P R Cam RI e. a W WILLARD STREET a STREET EB1 ,f • a • atCE R m xeoa MCA DOB 2.� tnc 6111210 202, r Pi B.%an PGIw 4110 CO coma ante THE COTTAGES OF STILLWVATER 1ST ADDITION R Location Map 2 10721 10912 10 R_IW P 0W R19W R_W R_IW R_0W Vicinity Map 0 207 Scale in Feet 08. t/ -- :w=°�- ". TMdw,Y.,._ /Mscow ..Nam Canty . ..re.er smy.md Ilene W. - Cary au,. C Nw IV 1 30.7 .r. w m.f.m ..m.a e.sa, ,.....en ar x 2® .N. Otr[ Gusa2Dm The St Croix Valley Life Care Center has been operating at its present location since 1997 under a special use permit "for office use to conduct counseling services " The Life Care Center requests an amendment to the special use permit to add additional services for current clients The additional services are 1 Pregnancy testmg and pregnancy confirmation by a hcensed nurse 2 Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) testing 3 Limited OB ultrasound service As required by law, a local physician will serve as the Life Care Center's Medical Director, who will be legally responsible for the services rendered It is planned that the ultrasound testing will be performed one or two Saturdays per month The additional services will enhance the effectiveness of the Life Care Centers mission of protecting the lives of the unborn, protecting the health of young women and assisting women who are faced with a crisis pregnancy The Center is currently open 24-30 hours a week four days and one evening per week plus an occasional Saturday Over the past year the Center has averaged forty five clients per month It is important to note that the additional services are for the benefit of current chents The Life Care Center does not anticipate an increase m the number of clients presently being seen Rather, the Center will be able to offer the present clients better care when they seek help There will be no mcrease in on -site parking as it is adequate for current and any future need The Life Care Center is pleased to report that there have been no complaints or problems with its neighbors m the six years it has been in operation at its present location The Center is confident that this will remam the case m the future PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUB/V/03-96 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 921 North Second Street Comprehensive Plan District Duplex Residential District Zoning District RB Applicants Name James Russell Type of Application Subdivision and Variance Project Description The request is to resubdivide two lots of 22,500 square feet and 15,000 square feet into two lots of 30,000 square feet and 7,500 square feet A variance to the subdivision lot size standards is required because the new 7,500 square foot lot does not meet the minimum lot size standards Discussion The applicant currently has two separate lots of record Lot "A" of 22,500 square feet and Lot "B" of 15,000 square feet The lots are treed and steeply sloped The lot size requirement for new lots is 7,500 square feet flat developable land (less the 25% slope) Approximately 1/3 of the new proposed 7,500 square foot lot is over 24% In addition, the proposed lot depth is 70-80 feet, 100 feet minimal is required It would be impossible to build on the new lot and meet setback requirements (30 feet from 24% slope and 30 feet from street) without a variance The existing 15,000 square foot lot has a flat area on the rear portion of the lot Recommendation Denial Findings The request is does meet the lot size and dimension requirements of the RB District Attachments Application and plans r PLANNING ADMINIS i .CATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No 5 Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Perm' Vanance // Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendm Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this appl:catron *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material 0 e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen 16 c s of �upportmm g aterial 1s required If appI:cat,on is submitted to the City Counci , twelve 12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete applicatio supporting material will delay the application process P OPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project c2/ 1 V d At - Assessor's Parcel Nopea3ro wa7o Zoning District S Description of Project (GEO Code) "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith u respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify 1 will comply the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner LIcj0. 1 6-, Ru g e, (' Representative Mailing Address 9 Z. ( 1s(. 21_ ct- — -t, Mailing Address City - State - Zip -itf u/A.-( ( /(/W 55-O `d — Telephone No 14- 3 q S356.-- Signature •014 (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) M0x / 6-0 Land Area /-D OO �, F: Height of Buildings Stories Feet Pnncipal /- % Accessory Hen City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area vw square feet Existing © square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervi us Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces H \mrnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 5-7_,/ O =./4 -0-q 5 / 2->,,/ 2,d(, 7L --,,) m ..if 2, 47 L p7 F. 51 ilo�07 )2a 4 o i �s7 ly lid �-j--C7 O% 6 �,�p�� 1-0 / -t.)-' 0 �� 9-- t7_ q` 147- 47 of sl / / / off- a m01-y7-c44 9 ) /Q /±69/ }¢ nor sl :o/---73 -z/Q/ 91 5U,b/03.- 4' X azzw R2LW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 Scale in Feet 70 tns awe mu* of a...lcm .e rwmesnon of w rrom awS, Wan washromca.n cn *n e..w tow. e.,.I.r..om a.00.....v Ol.tl. bWry usam.. Rei IOf I. S.. rrnImnCarry S...1.� OleOOEO P.oi Oe Moe (0AS400 Ismam anYf O.alOe /vp.. 3 200 .bp pu[.a 0me.00 2202 r+ I_ WI.. 8 1- 0 Z 50 n4 8 6 �n ) 5 glom 13 8 4 50 8 1— Ce 0 z. 60 6 6s 4051 1 8 •Ow 5 1 •5w 2 cp.1 400 4 psno 4. 8 cc 0 Z 60 15 domo 15120 2 3 4112120 50 EAST WILKINS STREET N 0 23223420, 6 n 3 4P"' m EAST ASPEN STREE w 1- u) 8 r Al so 4P. 2 so 150 5 3 10 ( DEDICATED STREET PER PLAT ) w 8 60 w A 6 8 A 5 8 5 2 ®9 4 �n 3 41 0cP 8( c 4Y ( DEDICATED STREET PER PLAT ) 4 a 4Pm 150 2 40 a 60 0 Z 0 w 07 1— D' 0 t 0 1— a cc 0 92 M 10°n a OF 0 BIM Th x Location Map o 1M. \ 10544 } 4Pa 1 19 g3 20 sow05 14995 OUTLOT8 -- \ "3 D '1 4 7)60 241113231 93 0 D: LL 1— D: 0 Z (210 50 4P. 4 2,120 3 50 4PSm1 so VACATED ASPEN ST PER DOC 555459 ADDITION 2E720 TERRA SP 2 em1 CITY 0 55 OUTLOT A P.4 1 ILLVA R_IW R20W R19W R_W R_IW R_0W Vicinity Map 0 175 Scale in Feet T. Oman, a. *...4 �a.d 01 .a.sea S.. Todn..YWOd bwim n42214144 b ono* 22212 w.Mryb.muy 9.5*01124 Moolm 1*1041515 1142. 42•11411.a EXISTING PROPOSED 1 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUB/V/03-97 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 1002 6th Avenue South Comprehensive Plan District Duplex Residential District Zoning District RB Applicants Name Tony Lodge Type of Application Subdivision and Variance Project Description The request is to subdivide a 10,800 square foot into two lots of 5,400 square feet each Variances are required for the lot size, lot width and the subdivision would cause the existing duplex to be nonconforming Discussion The site is in the RB Duplex Residential District Single family lots are required to have 7,500 square feet and a minimum lot dimension of 50 foot in width and 100 foot in depth The proposed Tots do not meet the lot size requirement (5,400 square feet proposed versus 7,500 square feet required) or the lot width requirement of 40 feet versus 50 feet The proposal does not meet subdivision or zoning requirements The existing duplex on a 10,800 square foot lot is consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations Recommendation Denial Findings The request is does meet the lot size and dimension requirements of the RB District Attachments Application and plans PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No W Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED 03 Special/Conditional Use Permit X Vanance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any application All supporting matenal e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting matenal is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application o supporting matenal will delay the application process Address of Project / O o 2- Zoning Distnct PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION T So , Assessor's Parcel No 35 , 030 , zo // 0/ 54- Description of Project Lo i Sf Li- S• 6 s r 2,..6 CO. (GEO Code) "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in al respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify I will comply wr, the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature TNy Lob6 0 c3cx off-I6'A' s/ - — 3 3 s) g_ Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) $o x 13- Total Building floor area square feet Land Area I o goo Existing square feet Height of Buildings Stories Feet Proposed N/A- square feet Principal a? Paved Impervious Area N/A- square feet Accessory ,#v/4. iv/ + No of off-street parking spaces H \mcnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 e October 24, 2003 Cninnssion Members, I am requesting a subdivision of an existing property in the RB distract This lot is a "double" lot m an area of substandard lot sizes from previous years guidelines While the sizes of the split lot would indeed be smaller than today's standard of 7,500 sq feet, they would fit the sizing of many of the adjacent lots in the area (5,400 sq fl) A variance for the lot size is also being requested for that reason There is an existing duplex on the property currently Originally it was built on a single lot, identical to the northern neighbor One reason for these requests is the simple fact that this home was not, and is not, meant to be a duplex type dwelling I feel that by tummg the home back to a moderate priced single family home, and building another similar size home adjacent would be a good solution This would potentially put 2 new homeowners in the area as opposed to the tenants that currently lease space m the building The duplex being 1 bedroom up and 1 bedroom down doesn't lend itself real well to longer term or higher quality tenants I appreciate your time and effort m these requests Hopefully, the fear of precedent won't impact this particular request as much as others you likely have received Thankfully, odge i i ich:Ryrr•j r re r i r, CA ;"( + + a VZ .k �� rY ,r + f 1 +J n r Ira ) i T I. 1 7 7 d T , � i 2 i ' %� ,1 icy i J W 9 ` I 0 • r , ._.�.r. Se, ti 9ef ,-,. ca6Z. L/V/ O. ;, S 0 E 6r.. O F1 098E f QE6 91 0 --alai tr tr -1--. -o 6 006 L L, �'/0/ soc'6 4 ` A° o ° z, AJ 4 Q 8 L �'6L 8, 600/ S'0i6 0'76Z 6, ZOO/ soca- tzpa oz a26L 1 o b m —161] OZ8L s 0E5 Fa SoF6 w --- -0C'6 9 .1 L t 000g-, _ 0c5 zz 6/6 e 9 08LL o2Og >:z L�/6 50 6 '!6 _c0c6- 0-08 if o -� $ OF S16 sz 0e2GL 016Et/ pi 00,8 s,,Fb N 0908 _ .,.,,,Q v: J . / t y 1 ti 47 ••Y Jr i'`441 ^ -ie r 7 d �1 ) 1 9 7 r two/ -9c/ r y� L. ski +, 9, s 2f 1' 01 6 S 11; o? .Z--s9 ry 006 ktdS c 9 s 2 F PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/03-95 Planning Commission Date November 10, 2003 Project Location 601 North Main Street Comprehensive Plan Distract Central Business Distract Zoning District CBD Applicants Name Todd Weiss, representing the Stillwater Depot Grill Type of Application Variance Project Descnption A Variance for additional extenor signage for the Stillwater Depot Grill Discussion The applicant is applying for a Variance to the number of signs and a Variance to an interior lit canopy The sign ordinance for the Central Business District permits one wall, monument, awning and canopy or three-dimensional sign per business When a budding or business abuts two or more public streets, an additional sign located on each street budding face is allowed There is an existing freestanding monument sign for the Stillwater Depot Grill (Attachment A) The applicant has installed a red canopy over the front entrance of the GnII The canopy is lit from the interior The words "The Stillwater Depot Grill" are printed in white on all three sides of the canopy creating an additional three signs for the business HPC conducted design review of the canopy at the 11/03/03 meeting and offered suggestions listed at the bottom of this page under HPC Action Recommendation Denial Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the request, staff suggests the following conditions of approval 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 No additional signage 3 The canopy shall not be internally lit 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 vanance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special pnvilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the 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/Elevation Drawings HPC Action: 11/03/03 Approval of one freestanding sign for the Stillwater Depot and one sign on the canopy for the Stillwater Depot Grill — illuminated from the outside of the canopy with gooseneck Tight fixture, not internally lit Directional signs to the dinner train and to the grill shall be 2 feet by 2 feet and shall not have the name of the business on it. +5-0 PLANNING ADMINISTR ION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED rs la 2- Special/Conditional Use Permit Vanance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendme s. Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this applicaton *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any appbcation All supporting material (0 e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with applications Any Incomplete application supporting matenal will delay the applcat,on process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION f Address of Project (Qo t h1,, At Al S'T, Assessor's Parcel No 2 ?S , // t90v.5 Zoning District e4eo Description of Project St 6 m / 459 COP 5-1/116tha%r arZ (�' ' 6K (if "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, informat,on and evidence submitted herewith in respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply i the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner DuA Or r4c.R.—. Representative —'ropy t4., Mailing Address Coo ( t`lo `►tom s-r. Mailing Address City - State - Zip S ij)ofYcr' flN S 5bYZ- Telephone No es/ya ; 96GL Signature (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area C 0/ // /`%rW City - State - Zip Telephone No G SA y�o ?lk Signature (Sign ure is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory H \mcnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003 • On.. ; ��iso maw vale.,. .o. T.a�yYeYbum, Wrote/was wpm.= Wvehlrgem Cowry mil Sava N.M.O. Wiry Mp.0.. .•.e MS roam r.aMIA re a 11e.00 M.rd my. gnu* roar mm �ra...a ed./ 316. ZO:1 r-- 11 1 DEMARS SIGNS INC 7865520 10/28 '03 11 53 NO 797 02/02 AJIA JOTS Co Ps P O h\\fIA 1Na.l& N .Q Received Time Oct [8 11 59AM 1s 5 ll fit^ ; 416 v5 t iil. �♦_�' Y� N ..� ; r 4 is ♦^ .' Y °7`y- 1 ,s ti l �� L ♦ 3} rl S5h4^rl ,$7{i,. \4! tgbs 6( Lr s l♦ J scjA�� i ri sr1 11i .$l t�taf <k1,-0' f t '"A.9eId� 1 .,, Iz'� S 1 x'ls 1 „gt 1, i ... b ssd t{ S N �t ,sip ti�i li'.` ♦.tt� r,. Sj . •: lSja(rs1s .iy�}crjY�Jt ¢ttJ 4s t4n.5 1) Id}a V4,sl 1:. sI1f�l'I'.V�tli'u�:y 4'tssC7)'I�t'n{'.+0 t`iixl!11jt,�. i e sf3b7� ,,iil�'srye?r l0)41 to Yr _ .i. +N li, hi i r„ t tf it . "� :, Aj i• 5 J X i�ylf c s* z1 C a NV )l.. 1%. 1.j i { r I d SA �g� ]fie�y�~ ;rii � s3Ft�1 tf i Y Is ti},yr�yn rl}tt1 7; 7 (.," i3•'1,, a...0* x1 ,1:`w 1k_1. y r=� F l} r Y r�• Il x s „'�: ~' 4 r 1S l fs � i( f �L i y�,l.+,i+�, i iz' 1 f s .Ivi- ♦ �� 11 I THA4EL '.'U t" ^ 1. �t —t is 3�s 4�i"A� � �, i-`r (rtl� t 1�iM11 r AACR�FT(dCO r �.• L ♦7 i.4 a .,, ♦ }lr-s< shti �s 1,9 i } '' �"'.� - J sltx�IJ1r��'(j`s��1.^. i �+r 1 i -:� f �""'—'I��A�^ •F 'v ✓'� tc Y }�- a5'�'r s4„u-`�.�11i' ft f''i. Y� 4 r'j� It a A.144). .. 1.6 y< Ji ` 11i1 � i t3 �i V,- ,1s E z£� A N T p i ll''l 's5r.l l( 31 , .rc:rG�) �� t r# 1 ; ��itig 9r ri i� ii slS 1 o,Y��1! `� s L y 5 i se s ,-, } r R r ly r . t s<1•i SVjf i � `.5.,}i s4 -Vann To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date November 6, 2003 Subject Downtown Area Plan Update (CPA/03-01) Background In July, the Downtown Plan Update process began with a kickoff meeting of design processionals to brainstorm opportunities for use of the heart of the Downtown (The area bounded by Myrtle, Main, Mulberry and the St Croix River) It became apparent from the discussion that this area was a valuable piece of ground and could become a major contributor to the visual attractiveness and public enjoyment of the Downtown The initial design meeting resulted in many initial concepts, comments and some sketches of what the area could look like in the future That initial meeting was followed up with meetings with City Committees and Commissions (Planning, Heritage Preservation, Parks and Downtown Parking) and the Downtown businesses and property owners At those meetings Downtown planning issues and objectives were discussed (D-1 attached) Comments were received about the significance of the area and its importance located between Main Street and the river Concern was expressed for flood protection, parking structure and the current lack of attractiveness of the area From the Committee meeting and Downtown Business interests meeting, a Coordinating Committee was established to work with the consultants and staff to develop a draft plan (see Coordinating Committee members list and Plan Alterntatives A-1, 2 and 3) The Coordinating Committee meet in September and October to discuss a future vision for this Center Downtown location and to address concerns and priority use of the area After much discussion, concerns and information exchange a consensus plan was recommended for future consideration The consensus plan is Plan "D" attached Plan D Summary Plan D expands the Lowell Park area by 76 acres and extends the park to Water Street Plan D organizes and consolidates parking into three public areas that accommodates 154 public parking spaces and 110 private parking spaces (currently 440 parking spaces) • Plan D provides the opportunity for a visitor center/restroom/hospitality center for Downtown visitors • Plan D locates a liner landscaped trail connects the area to the north and south Main Street areas • Plan D locates an invisible flood wall along Myrtle and Water Streets • Plan D provides for a strong pedestrian connection between Main Street and the river • Plan D is designed to accommodate community festivals, farmers market, and special arts and crafts events • Plan D provides a plan for the expansion of Lowell Park so park improvements can be made in 2004 Attached to this report are the alternative plans that were not selected A, B and C along with a brief description of key components of the alternatives (B-1 attached) Parking has long been a priority need for the Downtown Plan D reduces the supply of parking by 176 spaces The idea is to replace the lost spaces with a parking structure west of Main Street possibly and 2nd and Mulberry or between the Lowell Inn and Rivertown Commons at the end of Commercial Street It may make sense to phase improvements to minimize the Toss of parking (see E-1 attached) Planning Commission Action As an element of the Downtown Plan, the action before the Planning Commission is review, comment and recommendation to the City Council Attachments Downtown Plan Alternatives A-1,2,3 Overview of Plan Alternatives B-1 Flood Protection Location C-1,2,3 Downtown Plan Concerns/Objectives D-1 Downtown Parking Demand/Supply E-1 Chamber Survey Results F-1 Coordinating Committee G-1 Record of Meeting H-1, 2 Itki �?r ' '. rcktJ evict 1 ri 1dOO11® 1K, d,��me� "ter 1 I IV S lRr,r 4 A IY1t a� 1 T ii >'i` y u 5F-k.� '1'-I�'" �" f �7 wt �ti: },S'�,� hid;• 3 f COMMERCIAL AVENLIE PCAZA, PARKING '&RIVER L1U11L SI UDY •Rl' �" g'"`•�+'�7STILLIVATLR 111NNLSOTA OLTOBLR2003 y '�f 'xra'.!. y am' %w ! .r}4S..e4'.1% ..�„ �', .r.:�. 5� K1 `S .."1 -4/'!� * . b ?�:'C.+K, WA 41! KEY A B C D E F G H I< L M N PEDESTRIAN PLAZA PUBLIC PARKING 26 STALLS PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARKNG 41/50 STALLS PRIVATE PARKING 60 STALLS POTENTIAL AMPHITHEATER POTENTIAL FLOATING BANDSHELL LOWELL PARK ENLARGED MLR BERRY PARKING ACCESS PICNIC I'AVILLION PUBLIC PARKING 87 STALLS RIVER TRAIL I LOOD I RO I EC I ION MARINA ACCESS IDEAL ALIGNMENT (ACQUISITION REQUIRED) PARKING SUMMARY PUBLIC PARKING 154 STALLS PRIVATE PARKING 110 STALLS 264 STALLS 414 4- OM CM PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AUTO CIRCULATION RIVER TRAIL FLOOD PROTECTION PARKING 0 1 % 5 51 yP;' U41CIUL14171CPLAND:1'" Kat ' 00 ®e®m0 L` Afi 1• , t/V arur,r { 11— -• -g ` pi, "UK s . ,.F/ 4-}r r #f ,,y �a r r z , .,<' w 77 pfro-7.,}.9,1, a,0,,6i 'qW A'.t� 'Y ,ti S r'. 4, S r:9 h }4� �sT�rS`'J'h'L C��451�J �7*t�, �if�?'�.t1s Sy Y.,�/bj 2s �rqt �,}��{��ty�� a C 3 41:y,;YiL , tl ',.. 1 w td i j 'r4; lw Jy✓ 1,1' , 1, red T r�.x� - }R4,74 i "� dPo.vz,�W. r.,1' ''' .1 'rf e + tµ5t ti, +' r , n'�"+l'rr 1;It i`ria0^ rrr i`,c rr �.7'ft.1'i ''"1 '��4�{ { ,�' c "y}1X 1'-'r `- is tR� ''� o -tic. n'��4,--tr rjr",- Y-.i[Nf ;p s.5'• � , c4+^.:'Su 15 XVOI IS_ KEY A PEDESTRIAN PLAZA B PUBLIC PARKING 26 STALLS C SURFACE PUBLIC/PRIVATE 50/96 STAI I S DICK 1 UBLIC/l RIVA1 L 50/212 S IAI LS D SURFACE PRIVATE 60 STALLS DECK PUBLIC/PRIVATE 60/60 STALLS E POTENTIAL AMI'HITHEArER f POTENTIAL FI OATINC BANDS!' n 1 G MULBERRY PARKING ACCESS H MYRTLE STREET PARKING ACCESS I PICNIC PAVILLION J PUBLIC PARKING 87 STALLS K RIVER TRAIL L FLOOD PROTECTION M MARINA ACCESS PLAN A PARKING SUMMARY IAr� L PUBLIC PARKING 209 STALLS K PRIVATE PARKING 110 STALLS 319 STALLS PLAN B PARKING SUMMARY PUBLIC DECK PUBLIC SURFACE PRIVATE PARKING 302 STALLS 113 STALLS 110 STALLS 525 STALLS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AUTO CIRCULATION RIVER TRAIL FLOOD PROTECTION PARKING n w ' �CF r ra <1S(7LLWATERMINYE'SOTAt. OCTOIIEK2003 �. Y`aY o: Mr'r'At'S s4,( ' F r,A ,-..�CO1tiMMERC1AGfVENUE"LtL'�•ClIA1KIVU'etC £.+R'�I'�VE�-LR-:rTRAIL 0'1`"1y..SC•:7,�Ma'?'rk••�^z,r• ,r q,.=SEI Imo° Y p�. 1 N� . �F'-4. ✓T(, _ ,.i,^ �^ J�4i (Vj C (.'i / f 4j�M1�y �. 9.. ..a� �;ULIGRAMATIGPLANS !n�'i�YaT'^�1�SR��r;,�.�b4�€.•'i�`��S'f:"�;. �i: t � r dti��a . �i� YlL .,, S`!i!•1Nr- '.sp. � .+r�f Mr----- K ©®z ALL asp • ��4 g 421 I If\ IRLI1 KEY A B C D E F G H K L M PEDESTRIAN PLAZA PUBLIC PARKING 26 STALLS PUBLIC/PRIVATE 18/50 STALLS PRIVATE PARKING 60 STALLS POTENTIAL AMPHITHEATER POTENTIAL FLOATING BANDSI IELL MULBERRY PARKING ACCESS MYRTLE PARKING ACCESS PICNIC PAVILLION PUBLIC PARKING 87 STALLS RIVER TRAIL FLOOD PROTECTION MARINA ACCESS PARKING SUMMARY PUBLIC PARKING PRIVATE PARKING 4+ 4- 464.0 .� 131 STALLS 110 STALLS 241 STALLS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AUTO CIRCULATION RIVER TRAIL FLOOD PROTECTION PARKING 0 v w 75 -a .1 fi 1 o y 'w ,:Ns.,•.•�r1u� `. _ % �•�, s.}1. �?�ti6. �++,i-?�'•f��"•�'gf"J'�y'1'�� 'i.F'. - .. 'S-� [ • 4 * x�.':COMMERCIALAVENUEPLAZA;I'PARK .� `• �y,.•'��tls � ��,--.•.:.._y _.. %._,..LNGa�'IZIVFIZ7IZAILS1l1llY�Il`j•-N',:., • �trtPi.. <:� 4i571LLFbATE1 .'.UN SOTA ' O n + "mac '' Msy S�I .e r'� r'NI+' .. IiFa7FHilryPd sa+=CJo+ . '•tea ,F F � y 4atF ;kg 1 u+ctirr�.Sjv+j';=G�sc,Fdr `" i1DI2iGlLLILtliIT/C PLAN C �'��'�M 1 rJ4 w..,..: 1 13- I MEMORANDUM Butler Square Building Suite 710C 100 North 6th Street Minneapolis MN 55403 1515 612 758 6700 612 758 6701 FAX TO Design Review Committee FROM Mark Salzman DATE October 20, 2003 RE Overview of Plan Alternatives SEH No ASTILL0301 00 St Paul Parking Summary- Existing a) Public b) Private c) Total Diagrammatic Alternate A a) Parking Summary i) Public ii) Private iii) Total 330 Stalls 110 Stalls 440 Stalls (public/pnvate) 209 Stalls 110 Stalls 319 Stalls (public/private) b) Features i) Increased Lowell Park (least of alternatives- 44acres) ii) Surface parking maximized ni) Parking consolidated iv) Potential for Farmers Market Structure- doesn't obstruct river views v) Flood protection alternatives- wall, invisible wall vi) Loose 121 public parking spaces Diagrammatic Alternate B (includes parking deck) a) Parking Summary i) Public deck 302 Stalls ii) Public 113 Stalls in) Private 110 Stalls iv) Total 525 Stalls (public/pnvate) b) Features i) Increased Lowell Park (least of alternatives- 44acres) ii) Parking maximized in) Potential to integrate flood protection into parking structure wall iv) Potential for Farmers Market Structure- doesn't obstruct river views v) Flood protection alternatives- wall, invisible wall Short Elliott Hendnckson Inc Your Trusted Resource Equal Opportunity Employer Overview of Plan Alternatives October 30, 2003 Page 2 vi) Cost of parking deck vii)Gain 85 public parking spaces Diagrammatic Alternate C a) Parking Summary i) Public it) Private iii) Total 131 Stalls 110 Stalls 241 Stalls (public/pnvate) b) Features i) Increased Lowell Park (1 acre) ii) Parking reduced in) Alternate flood protection alignment iv) Flood protection alternates- wall, invisible wall v) Loose 199 public parking spaces Diagrammatic Alternate D b) Parking Summary i) Public ii) Pnvate iii) Total 154 Stalls 110 Stalls 264 Stalls (public/pnvate) b) Features i) Increased Lowell Park ( 76 acres) ii) Parking consolidated in) Alternate flood protection alignment iv) Potential for Farmers Market Structure- doesn't obstruct nver views v) Flood protection alternatives- wall, invisible wall vi) Loose 176 public parking spaces mis n \cl ents\sttll\0301\oct 22 mtg\plan summary doc + � 'tszi V 1. 1^ "`�` , + a `'' � / �'�. tea U. ram. �f V!! 'i la L -1 `'S N J s t l w �'� 'v t. D 700 t NNS y, A L L `�.� 9 �fi \i1 { ,� l'��lt t 'bd 04 409 � Vi t s� $ jtfi-. fir. ` 1^ 9 �\ a1 ' ,Ti il�r y .�i7 ; . ,L 5 W S ? Y ▪ t r _ m��qq -^ram ab-r� S"' e i r r} {i3 t 1 s, 1 . d r • 3 }, C In s 1 r rr.Y,ti, 4, 4 !' ,nk a _ b '* -; rr na '&�•�i! ▪ . pR / i ,, t 7f , :J a >, Y / C,`` "1+'y ! jq 1 !-^'�'1° ,r�,?d{ �.� S d 1 a s at ' t \ i \ t , �d s Y 1 k ,.' r .4 Ys�t' �' z''` `/�'1 @ e $� + � ' �`r� r,_i / F!r 1 �F 1 41 '4 1, r W '4�` a -`r d f r 'r,t t t- a t �1 Ott, '1 t1 ��j'1K- 1 P #N f f ) ▪ �� r ill" ! ' "'^� ..-�,.e161m10mpoe�,., _` C Ti. i� Ij > r W / Cep _��vv d �� t ti R y O®p000000.4000-41., lI1L� �(p 7u \ t t" is ,,OG Ao 1= Cl t 1►' t T e6 5 f S 00004wwww000000r — A 1� i 1\ Jr 7 s. t 1 to otaol ,ei •r♦ i '%%L 9' fA:rn•4 '�I� 7.,. mA'IZytl'S}tr_ ,t tr4#a4 r { :(1!1'.1( ! `41r R w Si1y tti\l'A1 °.CXUx .4 ''c ..'4 ;', ry;� ,Y' ir rh,,- ''u * ^' ti d 411 It IS9Y t.t " .'"Yi','iw 1 a 4 "'1r Idll itra 4'''. r✓ t rli NvFyaik" S h ,islaolF4) 4 Sou,ro Washingl n Lou ty 2000 Arn I ['hot d Clly or S011xa Flood Elevations to 1 50 Year Flood t•1 I00YearFlood tin Top Flood Protecuon Flood Protection Options OOOo Raised Ground/Berm 0000 Floodwall 0000 Invisible Floodwall v; 4f`::M�r.1kUl? '; ' ��,r,�� "`� Y i�:): !`•!aS �`I`:'{y`r 2...{K ; •y'.�. •v is1�7`� . •--N ♦ 'k.i.,Af. y:n u'5ti'k�t ...4.1.t filr sti;1='.Iiito .4.4,F 1, 4i . r,'_-,Wut,. 0. :a.i,.t, - r iwi tfi r ...r 1 >:,t •' r' ` ) k " 14 \ .11!_f P`4 i, f,} `) 'r. . ,..;;P �rrw.e d: -e ',.r +i'' , . ;/r =- t . f `ni'yy' rar1sN. ,,; 'r1., rr;CUM/NEI2CIALPf�V.EN1.1E"lAl2'KIN6''/iCALM?`[2I,VtR:4:1; A.IL.S.-I.UU.Y3,. , ,.,. ,,;'4-:ti.:w'- . L-t-�,,:...� -';, �,,1L� I,x:t ^�..- ...4`. e ''j':., ■ "`^t^.•t!f•lI1 N%''fat: sa! VLi'e7 •1 55'<)C'!'Ullllt 2UU.i , "•}. ,� r y'� ,s+ r - a. ''`j' !i }` I i�,,. '. !'l.Ud17 !'1207'LC'1'f 7N 't'5"� �FK• i.-:+`Sa .r:r.-..-..1-'thy .- 'Xil.r?1vS.1w�."R �4--wnr:'.s...an3..'i3"'iL±.-a+s�.-•r..!,s�c, w.xM.'s .: ��'; '1�..t::XR4.....d`. y4v ' 1�.' e ��'"]"R`1F.,'. ,1`j 4V 41:'. uf- 7.."- •K— '],n'E .. ...v. y.,hC (7l 17Nr Earth and Sandbag Dike Emergency Dike Total Relative Cost 1 0 City Portion Relative Cost 1 0 Raised Ground/Berm Total Relative Cost 3 4 City Portion Relative Cost 0 8 v� fit.. L VL It L I{Al ti I' - I L UUY � E "� t;! '�::f 1 I �.•} lip �il-.}r-�. �... 4 1 -be. r ..y . .l t♦ . Nl:.'U'! 1. r.�)C"fY)l31:ltf20(I-S �" �! A r `.. :,. •s'v . -• yap*•` !dz.y� .'�•.` "�'-'C ;, �ti.. ....:�-:.gib ._I -r.�J '{1i: f'f�"k .a•_ �.-:s..:=rr,a.i. Fv -:". •c ,{,".'� ' �,aa.. y�y,�J ".0 . S - t'i,.� F .� + i•r:;..,�d� 1, 1.U(7U !'!t • C)!'ttC'11 C)1''I 1C)Nti . i 1 a �P Ra.. :..: ,.w vKii— z'�`�':-�?" s. �1....J�3%"Y �1..� ,�I.•r.`• v.- ,-.h _r ,�``��, �• "'*)::,. •.. n '�.�•,.i,,�i�,.,.•h. .tY•. �rt+•7;:iclE.cx'SM >;"% �r1 CC7MM(L! C/AZVLI �I' 1'RK[NG)'lS+A ?�, Cs i?.'. a ,+ ` i.u'u6,St/� �v it a�'ield 0`�.t ."av ' Existing Ground + k S r Concrete Stem and Footing ®O Floodwall Total Relative Cost 4 2 City Portion Relative Cost 1 1 Invisible Floodwall Total Relative Cost 6 7 City Portion Relative Cost 1 7 s; ?iY''T'T icc 1F� rr-- .J"L..i:"rh +� ii'.":'Sy1e(r•. r.: (i M4r'rk`: st t.,^-: (9�.. 2't i7 '� fi''.'i`;r lF `c��l'e:_ "s' •_';., `, Ry�}�^f�t=r :'v :04*.. �',.'_ '`i'`�''`,i+. CONIMEItC.IALr`4VF_1VtlL-`J.-'Al2KING,I'L7i1LA`e-rtRIV/�'I„'!I ..4IL. ti'7.Ui_ Y.- ` `' ,s.' +'.• r�'�L�" 11��^: ^'�i:..'_• -f$! r- a"' ' /it tv111it Alf NN1 t)!_ti/,QM,CC)0,1T.)1i11i 200.17 1 -'� y�r } � y�}v,-y�.,,, x•-*(5',E�" _+L; f4 �.j'ry" - n',A.1'LUOlTI'12U 1, LC'1'10N(.1P PIONS ,�' {..;,... , . , .eM"'"' .i.� a .*Z .,'t^' F �iF k. 4,e; �5��...Y y. �.�.+hy`• .e: �k_ 4.uSL-a�,. ! .. }�`S.y-i- i- i �4.. `:. (,r r .r'.7._,.- -a . Yyi�pp'�'' 6 /Lei r Ce,eF--?s Over the years, the following observations have been expre about the Downtown and the study area and may be useful in considering the future of the area 1 How can we better connect Main Street with its cultural, historic and commercial activities with the river and its recreational and scenic beauty 2 Provide parking and reduce the visual impact of parking 3 Lack of pedestrian amenities, trails, restrooms, information 4 Lack of landscaping between Main Street and the river 5 Minimize separation between park and downtown created by new flood wall 6 Create framework for special events regional, community and neighborhood 7 Need restroom and visitor information 8 Public/private partnerships 9 Maintain historic context and fit into physical environment 10 Preserve river views 11 Connect study area to surrounding downtown areas and neighborhoods 12 Protect rail corridor for future possible people mover use 13 Accommodate auto circulation and access 14 Create pedestrian landmark and meeting place 15 Others Plan Objective ► Visually and physically connect Main Street with the St Croix River and Lowell Park • Reduce the visual impact of parking while providing parking opportunities • Provide pedestrian amenities such as landscaping, restrooms, trials and sidewalks and small and large scale meeting and event areas ► Improve area appearance ► Provide 100 years flood protection • Provide setting location and design for special Downtown festivals and events • Fit into and complement the natural and historic/cultural setting of the study site ► Meet city parking obligations to Valley Co-op and Lumber Baron's ► Link study are to surrounding downtown areas with pedestrian improvements • Secure city owned planing area lands for public use • Preserve railroad corridor as pedestrian corridor and long term possible transit corridor • Coordinate planned area improvements and activities with surrounding businesses • Develop logical implementation strategy and phasing as an element of the plan C�1 The Irdormabon used in ties map Is based upon a downtown parking survey competed In August, 1996 wine pairing lot Informabon was updated In November 1996 Parcel basemap data was updated m Feb- ruary 1998 City of Downtown Parking Survey Legend Lij Parking Commission Distract NParking Distnct Boundary 0 Public Parking Lots ® Leased Public Parking Lots 80 Parking SpaceslLot ® 500 599 ® 400 - 499 Additional 300 - 399 Parking 200 299 Spaces 0 100 -199 Needed 0 0 99 1-1 Parking Space Surplus Parking Survey Results 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total I umber ofB In- 50 75 57 1 20 0 53 14 270 164 225 145 64 48 0 135 355 1136 246 209 0 75 77 0 46 165 838 77 160 59 17 21 0 112 60 506 CD a m w To 0 487 594 204 156 145 0 293 580 i%Q 1015 1111 703 163 282 0 691 270 2459,4235 Available vs Required Parking 1-ark ngDeffieen /Su •lu -528 -517 -499 7 137 0 -398 332 1776 N'- ®Rewired Pedang I Itl��71 Li' rII'S...!.`: IL1 1 2 3 4 s 0 7 $ Pahang rime Map Area mn+ae. eli De.pe/ ...me ere WIU Je!'Y71• 10/02/t003 08 49 6514394035 GSCC PAGE 01 S 6xo.nia/t- Sir i'✓.( 7 At SwaS par kln�.L.r�®/Downtown Need, i m rvey conducted between August 18 and September 15, 2003 Total Number of Surveys Returned = 200 Yes No Number Percent Number Percent 1 Tro ble finding 128 6496 68 3496 pa ing place? Yes No Molar percent Number r n 2 Are = ddtional spaces n- =:•ed? No of bridge 63 32% 80 4096 So of bndge 118 5996 55 28% Yes No NumDE Percent Number Percent 3 Ra p OK if blocks 34 17% 154 7796 riv Yu No Number Percent Number Ement 4a Ne d for add'I 163 82% 25 /396 res ooms? 4b N - d a freestanding 94 4796 88 4496 vis ors' center? 4c De icated marlceting 79 40% 94 47% to and convention an visitors bureau? Yes No Ilurnber percent Numtert 5 WI Ing to have 89 4596 89 4596 in eased sales tax to and these? Yes Number Percent 6 Ar you a Resident 95 4896 Non resident 61 3196 Business Owner 63 3296 Property Owner 40 2096 Downtown Plan Coordinating Committee Dawn Flinn 1601 S Greeley Street Stillwater MN 55082 Paul Donna 3370 Pioneer Place Stillwater MN 55082 Robert Gag 1340 S 1st Street Stillwater MN 55082 Paul Teske 1812 N Broadway Stillwater MN 55082 Roger Tomten 718 S 5th Street Stillwater MN 55082 Phil Eastwood 301 W Myrtle Street Stillwater MN 55082 Bill Buth 565 Mariner Way Woodbury MN 55125 291-2521 Loann Stokes 202 South Main Street Stillwater MN 55082 439-0921 Gail Pundsaek 5901 Omaha Ave #110 Stillwater MN 55082 430-1415 Chuck Dougherty 15330 58th Street N Stillwater MN 55082 430-9292 Norm Steer 17060 116th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 430-9591 r Dave Eckberg P O Box 311 Stillwater MN 55082 430-2306 Diane Rollie 106 South Main Street Stillwater MN 55082 Wally Milbrandt 172 Mallard Court Stillwater MN 55082 Dave Junker 615 St Louis Street Stillwater MN 55082 Steve Russell 216 N 4th Street Stillwater MN 55082 430-8821 cr- August 2003 H \mcnamara\sheila\2003\dtwn plan coor com 1st wpd 1 agarsel )J- I MEMORANDUM Butler Square Building Suite 710C 100 North 6th Street Minneapolis MN 55403 1515 612 758 6700 612 758 6701 FAX TO Steve Russell, Clayton Eckles, Jeff Johnson, Scott Wende, Greg Finstad, Glenn Van Wormer, Design Review Committee FROM Mark Salzman DATE September 29, 2003 RE Commercial Avenue Parking Plaza & River Trail Study Summary of Three Previous Meetings SEH No ASTILL0301 00 Meeting 1 Design Workshop, July 22, 2003 Participants Invited Design Professionals A Opportunities/ Concerns a Connect Main Street to River b Creative Alignment/ Treatment of 100-Year Floodwall c Reduce Negative Visual Impact of Parking d Preserve River Views e Maintain Historic Context f Consider Potential use of Acquired Rail Corridor g Consider Public/ Pnvate Partnerships h Consider a Winter Garden Between Main & Water on Commercial i Preserve East- West Street Lines to River j Integrate Plaza w/ Lowell Park Meeting 2 Meeting with Commissions- City Hall Stillwater, August 27 2003 Meeting 3 A Opportunities/ Concerns a Study Area to be considered in Larger City Context b Strategic Parking Approach c Edge Treatment of Large Parking Structure- Reduce Scale, Articulate and Soften Edges d Concerned About Visual Impact of Upper Level Deck Parking e Develop Well -conceived Phasing Plan for Implementation f Reduce Parking (Like Lake Calhoun) g Met Council Funding Potential Meeting with Business Representatives - City Hall Stillwater, September 17, 2003 A Opportunities/ Concerns a Establish Comprehensive Vision for Study Area Short Elliott Hendnckson Inc Your Trusted Resource Equal Opportunity Employer 4 Meeting Summanes September 29, 2003 Page 2 b River is Jewel of Stillwater c Maintain Views from Main Street to River d Resolve approach to 100 Year Flood Wall i Consider Invisible Floodwall South of Myrtle ii Loft's to have 100-year floodwall in Impact of Floodwall on Manna e Complete North End of Lowell Park ASAP- Resolve Floodwall Issues and Move Forward f Parking Ramp Concept Seems Excessive w Cost/ Benefit Analysis g Account for City Parking Commitments h Proposed Improvements- Minimize Economic Impact to Businesses i Maintenance of New Improvements' J Consider With Other Parking Ramp Sites, i e 2"d and Mulberry, Shorty's, UBC and South Lot/ Aiple Sites Current Parking Surnmary A Lot 1 — Main (east side) & Commercial Ave 84 Stalls B Lot 2 — Lumber Baron's- (NE) Myrtle and Water 63 Stalls C Lot 3 — Maple Island- (SE) Mulberry and Water 125 Stalls D Lot 4 — (SW) Mulberry & Water 40 Stalls E Lot 5 — Lowell Park- North of Myrtle 40 Stalls F Lot 6 — Lowell Park- South of Myrtle 81 Stalls Total 433 Stalls Potential Plaza Parking A Public Ramp (Study) a Upper Deck 162 Stalls b Lower Deck 162 Stalls B Lumber Baron's Ramp (Study) a Upper Deck 66 Stalls b Lower Deck 66 Stalls Total 456 Stalls Ramp Potential -(SE) Mulberry & 2"d — 3 Story Tuck -in Ramp 334 Stalls c file n khentslstill 103011sept 17mtg\meeltng summary memorandumdoc BOUTWELL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA Monday November 17, 2003 at 7 00 PM - Stillwater City Offices Planning Commission Comes to Order / Opens the Public Heanng Introduction of the Planning Commission and Project Staff PowerPoint presentation on the Boutwell Area Transportation Study (30 min ) (a) Background and Public Heanng Purpose (b) Study Purpose and Goals (c) Study Area Issues and Concerns (d) Approach and Action Plan (e) Study Area Traffic Forecasts (f) Boutwell Area Transportation System Plan (g) Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives (h) Study Area Recommendations (i) Next Steps (SRF to include Public Heanng comments and finalize the Study Report and take to City Council/County Board) (4) Planning Commission takes Public Comments and Questions (5) Planning Commission Closes the Public Heanng (6) Planning Commission Discussion of the Boutwell Area Transportation Study (7) Planning Commission Action — Forward Recommendation to the City Council (8) Break/Adjourn