HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-09 CPC Packet1 'water
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 9, 2004, at 7 p m in
the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street
Approval of Minutes of July 12, 2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AGENDA
Case No V/04-54 A variance to the street side yard setbacks, corner lot, (30
feet required, 5'6" and 2 feet requested) for the construction of a detached
garage on a irregular shaped lot located at 628 South Third Street in the RB,
Two Family Residential District Kenneth and Joan Fixmer, applicants
(Continued from July 12, 2004 Meeting )
Case No V/04-64 A variance to the natural area setback requirement (50 feet
required) for the construction of a pool located at 3521 Eben Way in the TR,
Traditional Residential District Shelly Tompkins, representing Jim and Sarah
Parks
Case No V/04-67 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25
feet requested) for the construction of a deck located at 1327 West Ramsey
Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District Cross River Builders,
applicant
Case No SV/04-68 A street vacation request to vacate the unopened portion of
Third Street North lying between Elm Street on the south (vacated) and Aspen
Street on the North and that portion of Third Street North abutting Blocks 4 and
5, of Carli & Schulenberg's Addition Jessica Lange and Josephine Kiel,
petitioners
Case No SUP/04-69 A special use permit for a Hot Dog Vending Cart located at
204 North Main Street (Let There Be Light) in the CBD, Central Business District
Todd Romocky and Bev Krieger, appliants
Case No V/04-70 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 27
feet requested) for replacement of roof changing the roof line encroachment
located at 123 Birchwood Drive in the RA, Single Family Residential District
Diannia and Gary Midbrod, applicant
Case No V/04-71 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet
requested) for the construction of an addition located at 1966 Tuenge Drive in
the RB, Two Family Residential District Michael Brabender, applicant
CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800
8
9
Case No V/04-72 A variance to uses allowed for a grocery store located at 901
3rd Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District Paul and Sara Zeuli,
applicants
Case No V/04-73 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 21
feet requested) to construct a upper level deck on existing residence located at
1521 West Olive Street in the RA, Two Family Residential District Kirk Roetman,
applicant
10 Case No V/04-74 A variance to uses allowed for office use located at 901 3rd
Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District Mark Weyer, applicant
11 Case No SUP/04-75 A revision to a previously approved special use permit
(SUP/89-22) to add a restroom facility for commercial use to an existing shed
located at 2103 Schulenberg Alley located in the RB, Two Family Residential
District Dan Challeen, applicant
Other Items
1 Review and approval of Rules and Requirements for Legends of Stillwater Development
2 Review of RB Duplex Residential Zoning Regulations, i e special uses, accessory uses
and buildings
3 Review final recommended South of Boutwell Area Plan
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
Present Robert Gag, Chairperson, Mike Dahlquist, Dave Middleton, David Peroceschi, Karl
Ranum, Paul Teske and Darwin Wald
Others Community Development Director Steve Russell
Absent David Junker and Jerry Turnquist
Mr Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p m
Approval of minutes Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval of the minutes of
June 14, 2004, motion passed unanimously
Case No ZAM/04-01 A Zoning Map Amendment changing the zoning of the area south of
North 62"d Street, bounded by North 62"d Street, Pans Avenue and Oxboro Avenue, from Single
Family Residential (RA) to Public Administrative Office (PA) Human Services Inc and the City
of Stillwater, applicants
Robert Butler, CEO of Human Services Inc , informed the Commission that Human Services has
withdrawn its request for a PUD and rezoning, and HSI is not the applicant
Mr Russell briefly reviewed the land use study of the area and the Commission and City
Council's earlier actions on the rezoning
Mr Ranum moved to approve the Zonmg Map Amendment, noting that Human Services Inc
had withdrawn its request and was not an applicant Mr Wald seconded the motion, motion
passed unanimously
Case No SUP/04-45 This case was withdrawn
Case No V/04-47 Modification to the master sign plan and variance to the sign regulations for
an electromc reader board sign at 1250 Frontage Road, Valley Ridge Commercial Center, in the
BP-C, Business Park Commercial District Steve Pajor, South Metro V, LLC, applicant
The applicant was not present Mr Middleton noted that there are several other reader board -type
signs in the area Mr Ranum noted that such signs are against the ordinance
Mr Peroceschi moved to deny the request Mr Ranum seconded the motion Motion passed 6-1,
with Mr Peroceschi voting no
Case No SUB/04-53 A resubdivision to combine Lots 17 and 20, County Auditor's Plat #3, into
one lot of 26,388 square feet at 711 and 713 N Third St in the RB, Two Family Residential
District Jon Ludwig, applicant
1
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
The applicant was present Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval Motion passed
unanimously
Case No ZAM/04-02 A Zoning Map Amendment changing the zoning of a 1 5 acre parcel at
7160 Mid Oaks Avenue from Agncultural Preservation (AP) to Lakeshore Residential (LR)
Richard and Leah Peterson, applicant
Richard Peterson addressed the Commission He noted that the rezomng from the holding pattern
it was zoned following annexation fits the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the existing
zoning of the properties directly across the street He spoke to several of the issues raised m a
letter from Liz Kramer, Leonard, Street and Deward, representing Wesley and Deidre Kramer,
7100 Mid Oaks Avenue Mr Peterson suggested that their request does not represent spot
zoning as the lots across the street already are zoned residential Regarding the private
covenants, those expired by the terms of the covenants in 2001 and would have expired in 2003
according to state statute He said he did not think the rezoning would result in a dramatic change
to the neighborhood and noted that city services are already in place Regarding the issue of
"public necessity," Mr Peterson said that doesn't mean a rezoning has to have a "huge public
purpose," but need only be
"substantially related to the general welfare of the community "
Deidre Kramer, 7100 Mid Oaks, spoke against the request She suggested if approved, owners of
the other parcels in the area still zoned AP might follow suit She said the proposal does not fit
the character of the existing neighborhood
Liz Kramer reiterated the points raised in her letter She said she sees nothing related to the
general welfare of the community in the rezoning She asked that if the Commission -believes that
the AP zoning is no longer appropnate for the area, a study be conducted to determine the
impact
Charlie King, 7030 Mid Oaks, spoke against the rezoning, as did the resident of 7190 Mid Oaks,
who stated the rezoning would take away from the character and appeal of the street and its
unique setting
Dave Jones, 7079 Mid Oaks, said rezoning will destroy the character of the property John
Braatz, 7070 Mid Oaks, asked whether the rezoning is for Just one parcel or all the parcels still m
AP Candace Braatz, noted there are no sidewalks and said it would not be safe for children to
add any more traffic to the area
Mr Russell reviewed the zoning process in the Orderly Annexation Agreement Mr Ranum
asked how long the AP designation lasts Mr Russell stated as long as the neighborhood wants it
to last Mr Russell noted that this request is similar to a situation on 62nd Street where one
2
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
property owner requested rezoning and the others did not want to be rezoned, in that instance the
single parcel was rezoned Mr Ranum asked about the size of the existing infrastructure _ Mr
Russell stated the existing infrastructure can accommodate any additional development that
might occur Mr Russell said the real issue is the "neighborhood character" issue
Mr Ranum noted that the east side of the street currently is zoned RA, single family residential,
yet the area has remained large lots While understanding residents' fears, Mr Ranum suggested
the rezoning would not result in a great change to the neighborhood Mr Teske agreed, saying he
did not think this request would have a huge impact on the neighborhood Regarding setting a
precedent, Mr Teske noted that future requests would be considered on a case -by -case basis
Mr Dahlquist suggested that it might be a good idea to look at another zoning designation for the
entire area in question Mr Ranum noted that would not preclude future requests for rezoning to
lakeshore residential Mr Ranum also noted that a number of the property owners still zoned AP
would be precluded from future subdivision due to the placement of their homes on the lots
Mr Peroceschi moved to recommend approval of the rezoning Mr Dahlquist seconded the
motion, asking that the motion include a condition that the city engineer confirm the utilities
capacity Mr Peroceschi agreed to make that a condition of the motion Motion passed 5-2, with
Mr Wald and Mr Gag voting no
Case No V/04-54 A variance to the street side yard setback on a corner lot (30 feet required,
5'6" and 2' requested) for construction of a detached garage at 628 S Third St in the RB, Two
Family Residential Distnct Kenneth and Joan Fixmer, applicants
The Fixmers were present, along with their son, Don Kenneth Fixmer noted their property is a
pie -shaped lot Photos of the property were shown
Much of the discussion centered on the fact that currently there is not enough dnveway space,
resulting in the Fixmer vehicle being parked on the sidewalk Mr Teske asked why the dnve
couldn't be off Locust Street rather than Willard Kenneth Fixmer said Locust is not a high
pnonty for snow removal Mr Fixmer also discussed a problem with sight lines at another
location Mr Ranum suggested that moving the new garage to the east would provide an
opportunity for a longer dnve
Mr Peroceschi moved to deny the request, Mr Ranum seconded the motion Mr Gag suggested
the applicant is in a tough spot — the garage needs to be replaced and the shape of the lot
presents problems Mr Dahlquist noted that members were not opposed to a vanance, the issue
is changing the proposed location in order to accommodate a longer dnve Mr Dahlquist asked if
there was an alternative to outnght denial
3
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
After discussion it was agreed to table the request in order to give the applicant time to come up
with another proposal Mr Peroceschi withdrew his motion to deny, Mr Ranum accepted the
withdrawal
Case No V/04-55 A vanance to the street side yard setback, corner lot, (30 feet required, 28 feet
requested) for placement of an egress window well at 822 S Second St in the RB, Two Family
Residential Distnct Paul Nord Construction, representing Dwayne Nelson, applicant
Mr Nord was present He explained that with the window well, the egress window extends two
feet into the required setback He said line of sight was not an issue
Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously
Case No V/04-56 A vanance to the sign regulations for the placement of a 4'x8' doubled faced,
lighted sign at 813 W Myrtle St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Gail Martell, First
United Methodist Church, applicant
Ms Martell was present Mr Teske noted that generally internally illuminated signage is not
allowed, he also noted that other churches have similar signage to what is being proposed Mr
Russell said the restriction regarding illuminated signage is for the downtown district This sign
is being requested in the RB Distnct, where no signage is allowed
Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Peroceschi, moved approval of the requested 4'x 8' sign as
conditioned Mr Ranum raised an issue regarding the height of the base of the sign The
applicant said the base is about 18 inches high Mr Teske amended his motion to approval of a
4' x 8' sign not to exceed 4' 1 5" in height Mr Peroceschi would not accept that amendment,
and Mr Teske withdrew his motion Mr Peroceschi moved to approve the proposed-4' x 8' sign
with an 18" base as conditioned Mr Wald seconded the motion Motion passed 6-1, with Mr
Dahlquist voting no
Case No V/04-57 A variance to the sign regulations for placement of an 8'x8' wood sign at the
northwest corner of Main and Mulberry Streets in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Joanna
Lyons, Four Star Land Development of Stillwater, LLC , applicant
Dave May was present representing the developers of Stillwater Mills on Main Mr May noted
that when the existing buildings are removed, the property will be excavated to the sidewalk and
a fence installed The sign would be located inside the fence Mr Ranum asked about a length of
time Mr May said the sign would be needed until occupancy commences Mr Russell noted
that with the base, the sign will be 12' x 8'
Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned, noting this is temporary
signage during construction only Motion passed 6-1, with Mr Middleton voting no
4
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
Case No V/04-59 A vanance to the rear yard setback (5 feet required, 2'6" requested) for
construction of a detached two -car garage at 814 S Third St in the RB, Two Family Residential
Distnct Kevin Memke, applicant
Mr Memke was present He noted the existing garage does not match the house, the new garage
will match He said the request is to construct the new garage in the same location on the
property as the existing garage
Mr Peroceschi moved approval as conditioned Mr Middleton seconded the motion, motion
passed unanimously
Case No V/04-60 A vanance to the rear yard setback (5 feet required, 2'6" requested) for
construction of a detached two -car garage at 822 S Second St in the RB, Two Family
Residential Distnct Dwayne Nelson, applicant
Mr Nelson was present He stated the garage is in bad shape and needs to be replaced The new
garage will maintain the same setback as the existing structure
Mr Middleton moved approval as conditioned Mr Wald seconded the motion, motion passed
unanimously
Case No SUP/04-61 A special use permit for a non-profit early childhood program at 1616 W
Olive St , Our Savior's Lutheran Church, in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Janet
Miller, applicant
Janet Miller of Lake Area Discovery Center, a non-profit Chnstian-based early childhood
program, briefly explained the request The program would run from 9 a m to 3 Oh Monday
through Friday There would be two sessions, with no more than 70 children on site at one tune
Sharon Stratmoen, Our Savior's youth ministry, said currently there are about 235 children
attending Sunday School and about 150 dunng Vacation Bible School
Mr Ranum asked about condition of approval No 2 that three church lots be combined into one
lot Mr Russell stated that was a housekeeping measure Dick Miller, another Our Savior's
representative, stated the church has registered warranty deeds conveying title to the properties
but does not have abstracts Combining the lots would represent an expense to the church, he
said Mr Miller also stated it was highly unlikely that the church would ever sell the properties
Mr Russell explained that property lines affect setbacks, thus the recommended condition
Mr Ranum expressed a concern about the amount of traffic that the use would generate,
especially given the upcoming changes in traffic patterns on Brick Street Mr Teske agreed with
that concern, but said he thought the use would be valuable to the community
5
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
Mr Teske moved approval as conditioned Mr Peroceschi seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist
said he was not sure he wanted to tie approval to the requirement to combine the lots Motion
passed 5-2, with Mr Dahlquist and Mr Ranum voting no
Case No SUP/04-62 A special use permit for a five -guest Bed and Breakfast at 416 S Fourth St
in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Dianne Hark, representing Andrew and Linda Sigl
Linda Sigl was present She briefly reviewed some of the initial improvements they planned to
make to the home She stated an existing wooden fence on the west and south of the property
would be extended to avoid any nuisance with car headlights if that is of concern to neighbors
Guest parking would be on site, she said
Richard Kilty, who fives at 118 W Oak and owns the property at 424 S Fourth Street, objected
to the request Mr Kilty's pnmary concern was with the "abuses" of the Special Use Permits
granted to other B&Bs in the neighborhood such as the Rivertown Inn, which started as a three
bedroom facility and now has nine units, and the Ann Bean Mansion, which now has a wine
license and a license to host special events He pointed out the property in question in 600 feet
from the Rivertown Inn and 500 feet from the Ann Bean Mansion, and the ordinance requires a
minimum of 900 feet distance
Howard Lieberman, chair of the Hentage Preservation Commission, spoke in favor of the
request He noted the HPC analyzes a house from an historical perspective to determine if it is
appropriate for a B&B use The home in question meets all cntena, he said Mr Lieberman
stated the city's B&B ordinance was enacted as a way of preserving the "grand old houses" of
Stillwater, and he said he would rather see this home used as a B&B than a boarding house or
falling into disrepair He also stated the HPC thought this site was uniquely appropnate to a
B&B as it is located in an area of pnnianly institutional use with few single-family residences
Mr Ranum asked why the 900 feet requirement was part of the ordinance Mr Lieberman stated
the intent was to prevent having a B&B "dstnct " It was not to protect existing B&Bs from
competition, he said And, he noted that there has not been a huge proliferation in the number of
B&Bs
Mr Russell noted that in addition to preserving histonc structures, the ordinance was intended to
maintain a balance of neighborhood character
The resident of 404 S Fourth St spoke against the proposal She noted there are a number of
B&Bs on the market now She expressed a concern about traffic and the impact on the value of
their home Michael Bowman, 210 W Oak, also cited a concern about potential parking
problems
6
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
Richard Huelsmann, a resident of 62"a Street North in Stillwater, representing St Mary's
Church, spoke against the proposal He suggested that changing single-family residence to a
B&B changes the character of the area He also noted that when the Ann Bean B&B hosts
special events, guests often use the church parking lot creating a problem
Mr Ranum and Mr Teske noted that the economics have changed and historic preservation in
not an issue any more The separation issue is important, Mr Ranum stated, and Mr Wald
agreed that was a strong enough reason for denial
Mr Teske moved to deny the special use permit Mr Wald seconded the motion Mr Peroceschi
said he thought the location was an ideal site for a B&B Mr Dahlquist suggested the ordinance
ought to be changed rather than granting vanances if the 900-foot requirement should be
eliminated Motion to deny passed 5-2, with Mr Middleton and Mr Peroceschi voting no
Case No SUP/04-63 A special use permit for an outside storage area at 1773 Industnal Blvd In
the BP -I, Business Park Industnal Distnct Joe Peltier, applicant
Mr Peltier was present He stated the Hentage Preservation Commission wants the property
fenced and that the fence be similar to the adjacent building He said at most the fence would be
in place for two years He also noted that outdoor storage is an approved use in the BP -I distnct
Mr Ranum said he was not in favor of outdoor storage Mr Teske noted that UBC and others in
the distnct have outdoor storage, but he agreed that a 6-foot fence is inadequate Mr Teske said
he would like to see what the fence would look like
Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Teske, moved to deny the special use permit Mr Middleton noted
that the site is located in an industrial area Mr Ranum then withdrew his motion Mr Teske,
seconded by Mr Wald, moved to continue the case until the August meeting to give the
applicant time to develop a more concrete proposal
Mr Peltier noted he is requesting a special use permit for an approved use He stated he would
rather have the Commission approve or deny the request Mr Teske then withdrew his motion to
continue the case Mr Ranum reintroduced his motion to deny Mr Teske seconded the motion
Motion to deny failed 2-5, with Mr Ranum and Mr Teske voting in favor
Mr Middleton moved to approve as conditioned, adding wording to condition No 5 that the
fence design match that of the fence to the south, with staff to review the proposed fence, and
also adding review by staff to condition No 6 regarding landscaping plan Motion passed 5-2,
with Mr Ranum and Mr Teske voting no
7
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
Case No VO4-64 This case was continued until the August meeting
Case No SUP/04-65 A special use permit for a temporary vegetable stand from July 5 to Aug 4
in the Valley Ridge parking lot in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial Distnct Lee Salzman,
Zephyr Farms, applicant
The applicant was not present Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to deny the request
Motion passed unanimously
Case No V/04-66 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 16 feet requested) and
side yard setback (10 feet required, 3 feet requested) for construction of a porch at 610 S
Broadway St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Summer Kuehn, applicant
Ms Kuehn was present She said the porch is a needed improvement, which will allow more use
of the front of the home Mr Dahlquist asked if the onginal home had a porch Ms Kuehn stated
it did not
Terry Zoller, a neighbonng property owner, said he had no objection to the plans
Mr Ranum pointed out that Ms Kuehn's property is one of the most forward projecting houses
in the area and a porch will further encroach on the setback Mr Teske suggested the benefit of a
porch overndes the setback concern
Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed
unanimously
Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to adjourn at 10 45 p m Motion passed
unanimously
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
8
•
r(
f
- -• :--• / _•- • 1• 11 I 1• • $ 1• • 1• I •1 f _- _ Tc _ o e DEN• • \ •
�/ • • 1 % 5iP
1 • • - STREET _ • i 1 •11 • •( • • 1 • • 1 T • • u • • • • • • • • • • ••tom 1 • wEs[ _ •• N. \ / • `• �\ • • TAo sEaav s • • -• — WEST -- --LINDEN _
• - - - w _ -� __ -� - - 'LINDEN- STREET w - , • \ • \ • \• \ • 5[ • l� i
•
• • • .� -. ‘,.._,,..,„•:.
FT • • y
a • • • _• •.. .� / • 1 , m
° • • • • • 1 1 a • r• • 1a •• •• 1 _1 °-z _ z • 1 - z _ \ / • \ sta4El •- .\ •„ 1. • • •
g ° • • • 1 • : 1 1 u • • 1 • Z • • • • • • • o • • • • • • •
\ •/ SEaar / \ • • 1. / • P • p
-' •/ ° - tOq(pUT STREET • • • 1 • • • 2 - - _ `44E5T - \ / • Z • • • O r i?e2iY • ''
8 - / • / / /• WEST Mu9ERRY STREET
¢ --la I •
• • °q, • T'� 1 ( a -� , • 1 w 1 • • • - 1 • f r r f� I ! / \� / • \ / • m o • _ /
Q • { • i • • • • • •• • • • • gl T• • • / • _ • / •
• 2S • • • r • °°. • ( 1 -� i - . r ( • z • • •• a r ? I / • - o _ • g �� • • i
W • • • • •• • • r• •Iw 1 •- -� Is • • I. • •'w_: •1• l • : / / •J • o. • • •\ EET S,...1
• •
o • . rm.. w _• — • 1 •• I • E 1 Normi STREET.' _r • —• • 1 1 1 / \ / • \ •
f nE s'a • •
• • Nr0. a P
• -- r • r � I • _ ! • • • • • I • • a- • • a !! •,'7 1 \Eli/1/ \/ •� /• • / 1 t �1 1
\ • � LANE • - WEST- � - f710E STREET •° • � •I � _ ::z :.e\s, / E� • 1 ::-.1.
• 1 iWESRICE STRE STaE • /I = • jE
•
�,9Ay• •• ••
• •'N •'I• •Z WEST PUCEi=REET . .• Z •1•-_•l, -.•WM }t•\\•\•\: •�,sS ::\S1
.•If. ••
•
•
N.
••°-• •••1z1 r • I !�� ! ° 1 (�•1 • • •s�aEE[ •` -• • \\•' iE� \\;'••vv'Ie•
_ • • •• • i •• • • a ,rnt E - - . staE • c� • T • •
cx,
*01
r - WEST - MYRTIWu STREET- - C $ A H 12 -WE MYRTLE STREET --
•
/
•
•
-
u / • _ .r _ IE 1••• -- ! • i i l ! • ! I f 1 • 1• 1 N •• g •_ • T `.� •
- . '- 1 ` \� sT�- •✓
m • • • • • • • • • •u ! • • • •• I. _•- o • E rPi .- r • 1 1 i I •. ! •1 N 1 ••• • • z . /\ • Fy[ cos .1• j•� • • 1
° =- - •-1 •• •
•
' / • • • • 'r) l • ° i I •i • x I• _ r 5 I • • _• • 1 I • - 1 • 1 /• • • 3 . • \ g M"� i
• • • • • .l • 15 1 $ •• •
• 1 1 I P.wE" ••\ [ 1.01
• b \ /' • sTaE
el
WEST ._•
RAMSEY Tf�El _ � ( • 1 • • J S, _•1 • 1 w • • . • 1 •• •• 1 ! • _ 1 1 • k sTaEe • • : v • • NFysON • .
I WES7- - RAMSEY - STREET • _ I ___ _ _ • s S • • j i p,.�E • \ ° _ / • • • •' • ,
•
• • • • • • _ . •. . . • •
• • • • • • • • • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••` 1 / A 1 • \ • /\ \• Q • [ ° \ •
•
• • • • • • • ^ - • _ •• < - WEST- - - 0.NE - - _ - • 'F., • • ^ • \ • / '•os, S7K'E i `
•
OLNE STREET w5� - _ C $ A H S WEST OLIVE - --STREET • - - - { P w • • / .
• • • • • •• •••• w I. ,`r TIP 1 1 •i •1 • • •' ••
1.
- • { •{ : : • • VI • / •
_ l • • • • • • • • 1 r /
.-• ` �/ ..5- F - -_ -- - -- ¢ 1 r ,P ! J x VI • • • w • • • • • • • • { { • • / / [aE�
r - w - • q • , iF • _ _ (NEST —0AK-w -STREET -- - \ •� • • / / ENE • \
• f f -1 • r• • / -/ -F / I • • WEST- F OAK - STREW u - - • 7
�- WEST - MK STREE7 -- _ ° - l �- '° _ • • f 1 f 1 (• . __ • • • a .� w " • 1 . • .• �� \ • _
• 1 — WEST avc STREE� 1 -•-N 1 __ 1 N I 1 • • • • • • • e • • Q• • • • 1 ! { \ _
• ' • • _° ° l . 1 • - - _ .. • • I • • I • • � ----e- •-• - _a • • " • - w 1 • • l • •v1E oat' `� • •\ \ • •
•
—•
• "r 1 • - • I. 1 • g • • • • • • •' • • • • • • 1 • 1 • o. • t • \ • wEst ° . • T /_ • •
•
-d u • !•_!• i -• • • • •Io1e z• — l �w• _i•1• 1/• _ °• •°\° 1 I 1i•11•o i. /�•/!• i/ ••1 !:- •1•1 •1 '�• \ •`:ft::
• %m_WEST PINE S{REET�• 1_IJ-_ • \ • / \•, E/v' - ,'F WESTPINE STREET - x/ 1 1 /- • :•„:1, j•'• •• • •,1 1 1 • • • • 'f �••1I• •I -r IS •J •1 !� •V°� •/• y\j WEST .rsN :•• mei•
--!!11 -� ALLEYr.frl • ••• • •� ••i• z /
rEj
-•J•• ar 'i'^ WEST wao•.•_•!1•!•- • • s 1 • _, ,• 1 . m! '�••• { i /
f
STREET _ • - • • \ °! • • F 1 • • 1 1 • 1 °1 • . • - • • .- ° I I • ° 1 • • l PA • • / • ugt s[aEET \ . .
• -- • -- - / / / / • 1 --- WEST-WRLAR° STREET WEST WILLARO STREET - ---
.1. - • • •- wESY � /
•
•
• .- _ EAST-- WIUARC
•
•
o
- _ • �� • • w • • • • `� I "_. .•_ - • • I i 1 • • I 1 •___
• J 1 • - • ,•• 1 -�- • 1 g , ° °JfJ)
• -- -- LILY LAKE ; - WEST. - • ASSOTT •
STREET• -• • •,1 .�-�__•-'1 ! • =• • 1 • J 1•--°1•
• ••• •1WASHINCT°N SOINREa • F , • 1 • •! - 1
•PARK• • w _ .- • • • • • - •CAKE STREET¢-F•� -
1• wf_Ha..
m 1 • 1a 1 -1 _ 11v 1 i -it _ • •1 .--t x . •Tw
• - j • •Jw • • a • 1 •1 • �1¢
• J • • •••• • •_• I.
• • •• JL • 1f• tr• •
• - --- _- _ 1 U -- WEST - CIIUfiCNILL - H -STREET • 1 •1 •1 -WEST - NURCHU.L 11 -•STREET • 7 J•� •/ • 1
/ • 1
• / I - - i ' ' 1--1... '- - a I - W o f •(•1 • 1 1• •1 •, 1• •1!• •I 1 t -i •1 • 1
-- • • / 1'-- - '1i 1•• • • •w • • • •••I• e a •-....
••••u I• 1 �- • 1 11 s!I /i • J • • •
• • • / - / 11• x I I — �- r- -fu_- i !i 1• 1 • •
• _ ! --�J • I 1 11c
ENE [aEf / _ - 1, • e 1 •• 1 •.'.. •_ . .'. . , • , = . •-._� ; ; J -• J a -- • 14 . 1 • 1 g . . + • �!
•-DNESTJ 1 1 1 1 - --WEST
`--'ANOERSON STREET— 1 ' • • • • J 1 1 , } • •
o • • • ANOERs x x _ •- • 1 1 •- - • •1 • • 1 • 1
• -- -, — , —�" 1 -1 I! 1 5 5 - - - _ • - 1-• x .-•
, 1 1 -
• •• •, 1• •••$��- -- -r • • J5 J • 5 1• •J i • xl• -4 - � -_ • x
• •' • - . LILY LAKE -J•IJ • • •I• • • • • •I • •• •- •! f1�9 • 1$ • • -3 J •- J S 1 :•_11c.: _•---• 2
f t 11-t1 ! - r-- AI JJ — 11 1 1• • 1 •J 1� •! • 1� •J
• , , • ILY LAKE PARK • • I • • • • • • •- - -• - - --
• W / • J i 1C .CK�STREET - - • '-�NES7'^^-STREET--S'}REEi - EAST
w QW - • • 1
1 • • 1
1 • • fl
/• -EAST
WEST PINE STREET
•
f
- f WESg-4.(ARo -
Location Map
•'
• •
LILY LAKE PARK i; • • 1 I-Y 1 _ f • 1
f • • •. .
J • -• f Ti—' •,
• 1 J-11 iI- .- -, • • •
W
•
W �- • ' \
46'1
0
R2IW R2OW RI9W
4 4 32N
T3 I N
T3ON
T29N
T28N
T27N
R22W R2IW R2OW
Vicinity Map
V
a
5�
W
xa�i��d'
s
495 990
Scale I�F�t
vo4
I
This drawing is the result of a compilation
and reproduction of land records as they
appear in various Washington County offices
The drawing should be used for reference
purposes only Washington County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies
Source Washington County Surveyor's Office
Phone (651) 430-6875
Parcel data based on AS400 information
current through June 30 2004
Map pnnted August 4 2004
J
P
a -
P
a WAVES
GREE
6-
a
a
i
6-
1
i
6-
TENN.
GREEN
+ 1 LIBERTY ON THE LADE
4-
1
6
44RTY
I
0
i
O.
a-
045,11.
CRE
lflCSTEAD
GREE
a-
P
P P O. •
EBB COLA
r P
7
P f P
O - 2
P
r
EBE
GIBE
.p% ~✓
tj
g / a•
b
~ 4
a-4-
3
1-
. � ♦�
O a-4 a
G �
a -
ti 4,
d y — 0-\' P
r 9,A + p r C. , ``4
r
te 2 r4 2 "' i�
P
.i ▪ yQ r, o
r ltrt �CC2 a t
'°2 0-O I
6-_ -v
4-- °ti
6 a
a r \y >a 4-
} 2
4-
i
a•
i
2/
/
d �
y �9
�GF 4
4- a- Q / cv
iYP
a
• Tol
t ‘51" LI"
4-
_
- CITY OF STIILWATER
a
i
4-
4-
4-
a i
• P
3 1* 2J 1
' V µ�
P b
r
a
LIBERTY ON THE LAKE
F i
aypae_
a
a
1
- u+v" r
r. 0-
1 A
THE W OODLANDS
P L1BER'(4 ON,T,IIE LATHE
4- r
r
o\
a•
/
/1
LIBERTY O THE LAKE
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
P
Location Map
r
P
i a 5 0 a
G'Ao¢M W .41' "9
(Q� 6 .
a 4-
4.
1
SON
r9°
4-
LONG LAKE
- a• /
a- E
/ LONG LAKE
! asorecreettmrtaa.s. am
THE LEGENDS OF STI LWATER 3RD ADDMON
a a.
I a' V -
'\ fa, a \ ' 4-
• • 7
\ \ et` a ▪ —
W
2 -
a a•
d-
4-
a .
P
�4O 6
,.1, 6-
8-
6-
LONG LAKE
i
— i
E nABr I A✓C
8
i
0-=
i
i
i
i
3.
i
P
i
E0D
i
i
IS.NT. Of
i
1i
r
a i
2 i
d
1
i
i
i
d
d
E
S
2
r •
i
i
s d' 3
P
r
a - 1i
2
i
i
4
r r' %*LD4i NE�'fR�TOA1j1)
i
r 5
i
4 a-
i 4-
i
i
a
0-
P
i
0o1%1
i
i
d-
o pt
i
i
i
i
i
6
i
r
8
i -
i
G. 4
d 5
i
1-
r
aCROIXWOO D SECONI
i
3
a•
i
a-
i
1
r
4-
a
i
i
i
DD
i i
e-
R2I W R2OW RI9W
T32N
T3 I N
T3ON
T29N
T28N
T27N
R22W R21 W R2OW
Vicinity Map
w
0
N
I
E
373 746
Scale in Feet
This drawing is the result of a compilation
and reproduction of land records as they
appear in various Washington County offices
The drawing should be used for reference
purposes only Washington County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies
Source Washington County Surveyor's Office
Phone (651) 430 6875
Parcel data based on AS400 information
current through June 30 2004
Map pnnted August 4 2004
Q
0 a
Z
0
U
uW NE OEw vE LL AO
Aa TE SE W Pm
µ M OF THE 50u >2
ME Of µ vE LE AO
4900i
v AC E ROVE
035
4P8
036
3213
26 n
12
940,30 23 W R 4PT.
a1 esTM 0 a �"'° a 4P
a 8 4
1I +a
tlm. 3y S de am 2 IF. 9
12
n
Reo .5 w ^14
18 21
tl Z
°R O 4Pv,
24 C B C 13 $ ,q, _ m
5 FP 24
m $ 25 �!,1.3D 30 a 3 00 _ _ OS1
20 '°� _ NP
19
011.
•n 8 i
d 10
R Y O d
4
S
(n da 15 Y. 30 30
B®
213
32 00°m 27
463 30
26
aoA
R
T
R
E b
8
(008) R R
Sao 43m so
17 ,Bq 16
4P�
43 30
G e
8 15
14
D
5
13
9
12
4311.
a m — -- 36 0520 5Etl
E%3 OUTLOT A
FF.
ORA NAGE AND PO D G EASEME
PER DOC 0 ®9a22
WaA 9 SHELTON DRIVE
a8 4w
cc
PUBLIC RAW EASEMENT DOC NO 2033
0 n
9T
j( 161
�n15 6
Sam ro CO
2.
H_ _ _ WO 30 9 OU7L07 B
af,,,,N R T 8 A S A RDRA ruE�4 EASE E R 3 R s R 1 R
p c ROAD EASEMENT PER DOC NO 609949 SHELTON DRIVE Sw R aed 0.* 9.n 4. 4Pm
9 'ik.,,, 5 au 4,1 01 40 m a as a2m
m a b
34
63
4j° U '� 'j 8 ' 35 02 30 30 ^ R _ 69 I 10 12 y'i '�5 ' I ' _ 19�„ sm
sia F.5 Vas
zm E z am as.
�1 8 S1d� 8 4PPr, 9 8 8 8 S R
61' i
A RR(7-iR O ii� A O A13m A R 9R40 NR A A 1�N1 A R 1� I AAl v20
1 B a a 4A, R CUJ � R n10— Q R Q �� R R tb m 4w� 8 9 R am CIC NO 81 em am R x, 4P�
6 4� & a 1 Q m 2 w O ,+s s R _ 7 R RTDRIA COURT 01 tl R s�
IF A s �% 9 xaa E" A Q a1I R xm R I 9 a --
aas B (n 1 Sx , mn fi ,— Y 78 �' A 8 �j 6 9 V 7{�' — _ --
R S. W 4 IF' i3a 9 R Q �— A Z — — �a as .am am rm .em .em q� a� 8
�T ro�� RIDGE
co 9 za pry �' aV �09a 0 _ P"' W 4s 'a 3 a p0 5 / CALIBRE it1LVi �� am Y3�4 9
g 23
co
d'o 1� LL1 ' — a �'' A I8 L. 8 E R R R 7 w
M R F1 3' b R 34
®a2 R 33 R R 31 R R 29 R R I A 0.4
B 9 : 8 1 %; g e d. K 4 1� A Q 3 0 a 4� �' 8
�O B g 8 9 '3 10,..8ja. 8 19 9 R 40 —a am am .Sm _ am ass_ p 9
Ft
Y ¢ $
oa _ n_ro n 2E a3>o 74 my 9 rT, 2162
8 DRAINAGE 4 UTILITY ESMT DOC 60E380 6043E 604709 F+-1 - 3 DRAINAGE 8 UT0. TY EASE E 1
30
O. p D POI w xn As 1r 1../26
b OEUOF RE LE �/ 8 .�I ma �� >a
A 24
5 it
$ :a o >m
`' Y 2'Ja OD
i 35 ACRE
nTL /Tl W 2
51
)I.�.•IL/.4 z S
PART OF90cm Up O t_�,„ I 1 O j 0 1 - 4
0 9
R 1-1-49 43 4Pm 40...333
55,
2F>: 0.. peel �^' R 4P5O g A
DOC9 7718 0 Iii0
WY PARCEL 32 O DOC 923325 c a
gHWYPARCEL31 A
/y 8➢am
�a Iala., m DOC 3000649 6`9
.4...--,4HWY PARCEL29 '`, co— �� CS 02u(3a-45)905 I
2ma 40 40
a 05
8
3211
JHWY ESMTS BK 261 DEEDS PG 373 a OK 286 DEEDS PG 435
coLu
I--
1j___ai Tw eTDCCT MADTu
Location Mapt
E,63 --
CAL WESTBOUND LANE
CA EASTBOUND LANE
9
R,2
CITY OF STILLWATER
PART OF0,S
co 50 33
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
$1 a 9 30 30 19 E0
60TH STREET NORTH
HWY EASEMENTS PER BOOK 261 DEEDS PAGE 373 8 BOCK 288 DEEDS PAGE 435
AREA. GEOCOGE
STATE HIGHWAY 36
30
ROAD EASEMENT PER BK 324 DEEDS PG 53
ROAD ESM1 BK 324 DEEDS PG 532
30
n MILLARD AT PI
21Y
8 tPUBUC F
BK229D
PART
t _
0 RE3EPueR4Eu0
30
Ur
uI yt
Q Y
Q J
YPART OF
Q
O�
O
O 3
200 a
233 206
R2I W R2OW R19W
T32N
T31N
T3ON
T29N
T28N
T27N
R22W R21 W R2OW
Vicinity Map
0
E
187 374
Scale in Feet
This drawing is the result of a compilation
and reproduction of land records as they
appear in various Washington County offices
The drawing should be used for reference
purposes only Washington County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies
Source Washington County Surveyor's Office
Phone (651) 430 6875
Parcel data based on AS400 information
current through June 30 2004
Map printed August 4 2004
t f 1
.-
r
r
wood
soAD
0
0
TILLWAT ER TOWNSH P
OITV OF STILLWATER
•
r
r
r
r
• \
44414
4
1 i.
Io
go
z •
Location Map
STATE
HGIW Y w
r
5
1 3
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
GTY OF STILLWATEIr. -
5
o i
Loso
.045
PENTHOUSE ACRES
~ a 4-
1i
ALOE sr
/ • • / - f / r / .r -F' •r • 1r /
i i r i i_ / r r 1I •/ •
ri
P 57 d i 56 r 7t `�` • y{ IIT • 53 CARLI & SCHULENBURG5
BROWNS' REEK HEIGHTS ▪ e / r 1 r / �‘ I / r / 5.2
s • t• �.
ei-
•
e ua wIa
i -- - - d • n Y^ LAKE ST CROI
4 �' r 4- . ; .50
n •
✓ f I I • r 6 / r GCp �... e....
r ,..--
1• -- / // S. / j . r ~ / i i gV �4 ` �_®de
^� !ORE I♦ 46 4- i / 47• 6- 48 i • 49 i m C �V
• / /k / - 2 •- 1 _ i
• • • r ~ / - / 9 h / r --i- g • 6- g - 4"
/ • --
/ -- ...... / u� - 3�•CARLI & SCHULE\BURG S ADI
I • / / / ! } • r r �p� "r 51
_ 1 •
r I r g I • I it ♦ r a-- • 1 1 .. 'Y
8 / / / �/ / -- - /-I r
•
45 -_I r� 1 ♦ 43 tr - 42 / 1 •
'� • ROEITGER DAUFFENBACH ADDITION r r r / • / / .--
1- - - - I r w \1 `- —r-
A ▪ i 1 j 9 CARLI & SCHULENB4-+RGS gAD6rr101V 1 �- ' r •
- / / I / o / dl —/� —S 1lds -
".".� - — -
�.� nOn.w m[ _gyp °" _ AYtN mE CAIW A SCHI'L \i3uRos DO
IV39 40 +. a 1; 1
I / r/ r /_ .
4o F /'"/ ? ///
' / / / • 1
e Wm ONE IOW IRLS NOY • 1 I
9 1 • 4./
1 F �. er a 33A / 'r • 1 1
I
I rc s r 1 e-
32
i o /
E ; ▪ 34 Q,s
.
I f IT
II
to j
It j
.
f
• •
r
•
•,
▪ J
•
T32N
T3IN
T3ON
T29N
T28N
27N
R21 W R2OW R19W
T32N
T3 1 N
Y
OUARE HERE
T3ON
T29N
,,1111 T28N
T27N
R22W R21 W R2OW
Vicinity Map
0
N
wy`-E
415 830
Scale in Feet
This drawing is the result of a compilation
and reproduction of land records as they
appear in various Washington County offices
The drawing should be used for reference
purposes only Washington County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies
Source Washington County Surveyor's Office
Phone (651) 430 6875
Parcel data based on AS400 information
current through June 30 2004
Map pnnted August 4 2004
Memo
To Planning Commission
From Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Date August 5, 2004
Subject Continued Hearing of Request for Variance for Construction of Garage
at 428 South 3rd St Case No V/04-54
This item as heard by the Commission July 12, 2004 and continued for redesign The
applicant has repositioned the located of the garage door to Locust Street This location
will not impact pedestrian traffic as the east wall location
Recommendation Decision on request
Findings The irregular lot size
Attachments Revised proposal, CPC staff report and minutes, July 12, 2004
July 22, 2004
FROM: Kenneth and Joan Fixmer
628 South 3rd Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
TO: Planning Commission
Community Development Dept.
City of Stillwater
RE: Re -submitted Side Yard Setback Variance (for a new two -
car garage) Original case #V/04-54
Dear Commissioners:
This is a request for a variance to the sideyard setback requirements We
plan to replace the existing deteriorated garage with a wider two -car
garage Due to the unique characteristics limiting our site, we are
proposing to locate the new garage utilizing the same setbacks of the
existing garage The north setback is 2 feet, and the south is 5 feet
Description of Project
The existing garage is a -one -car garage with a 16 foot width and a 22 foot
length It has recently started to leak very heavily, and the roof has
actually sunk in on two sides It needs new siding and a new door I don't
know the year it was built, but it was here when we bought the property in
1966
The new 2-car garage will be the same length, 22 feet, and the width will
increase 10 feet to 26 feet This 220 square feet is the only addition
requested The distance to the house will decrease to 70 feet It will be
styled to match the two-story traditional Victorian house built in 1890 The
only utility will be electricity
The original plan was submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on
July 12, 2004 We agreed to the Commissions' decision to table the first
proposal, which puts the driveway directly on the sidewalk that runs on the
southern Willard Street side We realize that this is deemed unacceptable
Therefore, we are re -submitting the plan The major change is that the
driveway will be on the north side of the garage, with entry off of Locust
Street We trust that this will resolve any driveway parking issues
New Alignment
Also, we are requesting a change of alignment to Willard Street instead of
the present Locust Street alignment to the north By doing this, the length
of the driveway increases, thereby reducing the current relatively steep
slope that accesses Locust Street (See revised site plan drawing)
If for some reason this proposed realignment is not acceptable to the
Commission, we are reluctantly willing to submit to the current northern
alignment
Summary
Replacing the old garage should be beneficial to the area Putting the
driveway on the north side will "free up" the city sidewalk along Willard
Street We request that you grant the requested variances since all non-
conformance is due to pre-existing conditions All adjacent property
owners have provided written approval of the project, as was submitted at
the July 12 meeting Thank you for your consideration in this matter
Sincerely,
C
Ken and Joan Fixmer
628 South 3rd Street
Stillwater, Mn 55082
439-7677
This
and
app
The
purj
resp
Sou
Pho
Part
curl*
Map
`i r• ,4 /v .4- iv L) /<' /= /V /- v /14 Ic"/.�
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/02-54
Planning Commission Date July 12, 2004
Project Location 628 South Third Street
Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential
Zoning District RB
Applicants Name Kenneth and Joan Fixmer
Type of Application Vanance
Project Description A variance to the street side yard setbacks, corner lot, (30 feet
required, 5'6" requested) for the construction of a detached garage
Discussion
The applicants are requesting a variance to the street side yard setbacks, corner lot to
construct a two car detached garage on an irregular shaped lot The lot is pie shaped
(see attached map) with streets on all sides of the property The existing one car
garage is deteriorating and needs to be replaced The street to the north of the
property is West Locust This street is not labeled at the corners nor does it look like a
public street, it resembles a driveway There is virtually no traffic on this street,
therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the request be granted A hardship exists in
this case
Recommendation Approval with conditions
Conditions of Approval
1 The architectural style, materials, and color match the main structure
2 All plans be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
3 All water runoff shall remain on the applicant's property
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
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
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
property owner requested rezoning and the others did not want to be rezoned, in that instance the
single parcel was rezoned Mr Ranum asked about the size of the existing infrastructure Mr
Russell stated the existing infrastructure can accommodate any additional development that
might occur Mr Russell said the real issue is the "neighborhood character" issue
Mr Ranum noted that the east side of the street currently is zoned RA, single family residential,
yet the area has remained large lots While understanding residents' fears, Mr Ranum suggested
the rezoning would not result in a great change to the neighborhood Mr Teske agreed, saying he
did not think this request would have a huge impact on the neighborhood Regarding setting a
precedent, Mr Teske noted that future requests would be considered on a case -by -case basis
Mr Dahlquist suggested that it might be a good idea to look at another zoning designation for the
entire area in question Mr Ranum noted that would not preclude future requests for rezoning to
lakeshore residential Mr Ranum also noted that a number of the property owners still zoned AP
would be precluded from future subdivision due to the placement of their homes on the lots
Mr Peroceschi moved to recommend approval of the rezoning Mr Dahlquist seconded the
motion, asking that the motion include a condition that the city engineer confirm the utilities
capacity Mr Peroceschi agreed to make that a condition of the motion Motion passed 5-2, with
Mr Wald and Mr Gag voting no
Case No V/04-54 A variance to the street side yard setback on a corner lot (30 feet required,
5'6" and 2' requested) for construction of a detached garage at 628 S Third St in the RB, Two
Family Residential District Kenneth and Joan Fixmer, applicants
The Fixmers were present, along with their son, Don Kenneth Fixmer noted their property is a
pie -shaped lot Photos of the property were shown
Much of the discussion centered on the fact that currently there is not enough dnveway space,
resulting in the Fixmer vehicle being parked on the sidewalk Mr Teske asked why the dnve
couldn't be off Locust Street rather than Willard Kenneth Fixmer said Locust is not a high
pnonty for snow removal Mr Fixmer also discussed a problem with sight lines at another
location Mr Ranum suggested that moving the new garage to the east would provide an
opportunity for a longer dnve
Mr Peroceschi moved to deny the request, Mr Ranum seconded the motion Mr Gag suggested
the applicant is in a tough spot — the garage needs to be replaced and the shape of the lot
presents problems Mr Dahlquist noted that members were not opposed to a vanance, the issue
is changing the proposed location in order to accommodate a longer dnve Mr Dahlquist asked if
there was an alternative to outnght denial
3
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
July 12, 2004
After discussion it was agreed to table the request in order to give the applicant time to come up
with another proposal Mr Peroceschi withdrew his motion to deny, Mr Ranum accepted the
withdrawal
Case No V/04-55 A vanance to the street side yard setback, corner lot, (30 feet required, 28 feet
requested) for placement of an egress window well at 822 S Second St in the RB, Two Family
Residential Distnct Paul Nord Construction, representing Dwayne Nelson, applicant
Mr Nord was present He explained that with the window well, the egress window extends two
feet into the required setback He said line of sight was not an issue
Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unammously
Case No V/04-56 A variance to the sign regulations for the placement of a 4'x8' doubled faced,
lighted sign at 813 W Myrtle St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Gail Martell, First
United Methodist Church, applicant
Ms Martell was present Mr Teske noted that generally internally illuminated signage is not
allowed, he also noted that other churches have similar signage to what is being proposed Mr
Russell said the restriction regarding illuminated signage is for the downtown distnct This sign
is being requested in the RB Distnct, where no signage is allowed
Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Peroceschi, moved approval of the requested 4'x 8' sign as
conditioned Mr Ranum raised an issue regarding the height of the base of the sign The
applicant said the base is about 18 inches high Mr Teske amended his motion to approval of a
4' x 8' sign not to exceed 4' 1 5" in height Mr Peroceschi would not accept that amendment,
and Mr Teske withdrew his motion Mr Peroceschi moved to approve the proposed 4' x 8' sign
with an 18" base as conditioned Mr Wald seconded the motion Motion passed 6-1, with Mr
Dahlquist voting no
Case No V/04-57 A vanance to the sign regulations for placement of an 8'x8' wood sign at the
northwest comer of Main and Mulberry Streets in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Joanna
Lyons, Four Star Land Development of Stillwater, LLC , applicant
Dave May was present representing the developers of Stillwater Mills on Main Mr May noted
that when the existing buildings are removed, the property will be excavated to the sidewalk and
a fence installed The sign would be located inside the fence Mr Ranum asked about a length of
time Mr May said the sign would be needed until occupancy commences Mr Russell noted
that with the base, the sign will be 12' x 8'
Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned, noting this is temporary
signage during construction only Motion passed 6-1, with Mr Middleton voting no
4
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/04-64
Planning Commission Date August 5, 2004
Project Location 3531 Eben Way
Comprehensive Plan District Single Family
Zoning District TR, Traditional Residential
Applicants Name Jim and Sarah Parks
Type of Application Variance
Project Description Request to wetland setback, 50 feet required, 10 feet proposed, to
construct a swimming pool within setback area (pool already exists)
Discussion The City's shoreland regulations require a 50 foot setback from wetlands for
construction of structures A building permit was issued for construction of the pool in part
based on Liberty on the Lake Architectural Committee Board of Directors Approval (see
attached letter, 4/14/04)
The responsibility of reviewing wetland setbacks, open space and conservation requirements
are a shared responsibility of the property owner, Liberty Architectural Committee and City
Planners Before the Liberty owners Arch Committee was established, the City had
representation on the developer Arch Committee and participated in project review
This was one of the first cases of the new Resident Arch Committee review As indicated in
the fax from Shelly Tompkins, the Arch Committee had the wetland, open space and
conservation information necessary to review setback/conservation/open space requirements
This is a difficult situation No site condition circumstances provides a basis for the variance
At a minimum, a revised wetland conservation review process for the Development Arch
Committee and planning staff should be established to make sure wetland and open space
setbacks are met
Recommendation Denial of variance
Attachments Application form and site maps
Conditions of Approval if Approved
1 The open space easement shall be amended to meet open space area requirements
2 The conservation easement shall be amended to reflect pool construction
3 The Liberty Arch Committee and City Planning shall be provided with maps showing open
space, conservation easements and 50 foot setback requirements
PLANNING ADMINISTRMI 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
Special/Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendmei
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
The fees for requested action are attached to this appl►cat►on
*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 apphcation All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc )
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting matenal is required If app/►cation is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with appl:cat►ons Any incomplete application
supporting matenal will delay the application process
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project g5 N I F,6 V v I Assessor's Parcel No 3/4039021(1 3')
(GEO Code
Zoning DistrictT ' D-scription of Project
,ct 4-RkLo
"I hey 4 state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence su . m► '- d h -rew► ►n
respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct1 further certify Iwill comply i
the permit if it is granted d and used "
Property OwneFJ I'rY . `Y SaA,cdt Paxks
Mailing Address sa3, L Poet) kkJi
yi
Representative
Mailing Address03O &XL
City - State - Zip -Nia, 11 teig 6-9:x- State - Zip,
Telephone No(O6 f `- 3 a 1
S►gnatyre
(Signature is required)
Lot Size (di ensionsPex
Land Area v11 7
Height of Buildings Stories Feet
Pnncipal
Accessory
Telephon
Signature
t6c, 2+511
(Signature is required)
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area square feet
Existing square feet
Proposed square feet
Paved Impervious Area square feet
r
No of off-street parking spaces
H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003
Vicinity Map
Scale in Feet
Tlww..ap o. rwa mm.+w.
we npieme. awe era w
WNW Ha ww.aapi Casey tee.
na cimang ./ teual wnla.me
Suwon any wwaal mwr .a
lroawea aan w.m.s
Saw. Wallington Co., Stow,' are
Anna lv l nose
Awl ✓•and atA9.m Namnc
m�aa A.ppA. R am.
..o pMtl xan 3m4
JUN-25-2004 14 27 CPDC
651 P 01/04
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO
.t Ate_ Jar
COMPANY
BE
ONE 4 -3z 9z)-- I SEND On NUMBER?
SENDER S FAX NUMDER
❑ URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY
NOTES/COM NTS
5-f ,.eve
•—te-\ _,c S l S
sl<1.-at
I rvJA Cod-)
CVyt S.eA— k)
-0'-uL lot
,n,) (7-1/(-_-v (I -
4e,c
M --e
Ovy A & ne___Qvin (ciAz-Q-
J2-- - j , 2rrik, 40
A -12e___ ..)`c_j b2.,1 l,K4 c4- Ca.- OA(1_, . . (-1\at
D vu.i-L__ e i , TI 1 i 0 aLD
cm ciy1 1,,A,i, tick- i-Liu )A 7. f CA -,IL
(ji Lyu2 si--J-) vt. 11.JQe, e-,
9030 Centre Pointe Drn e
Suite 800
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
tele. ,ne 651 5
Atts
Ahvid 41 rtioam- w,4 eoviz,v-r-t_
50
56 4553
JUN-25-2004 14 27 CPDc 651 P 02/04
CER Tb_ !CA TE OF SL.,?VET'
r
I PIT
L V I
LEGAL DES $JPRON /
Lot 2 Block 1 UBERTY ON THE LAKE 2ND ADDITION
according to the recorded plot thereof Washington
County Minnesota
Scale. 1 J0 feet
• Denotes tron monument found
O Denotes ran monument set
Bearings based on assumed datum,
Denotes euitoce dronoge
Dena! s sanitary service evert
I hereby cerUfy that flea sanely as prepared
by mo or under my direct euperwpon and tho
I am a did Llo sed Land Sur.* under Ora
le of
ortsh d Web-/'" S "` rDafe/
License No, 12 r - 3
— EBEN WAY
I 1 r '1
•V I.VI 11
1
NOTE
AI me obi pale oee Maas a ',vend
aflewn Mem
seaebonataKorot NWwubdsroer.
sos MR0 ni WI=
Moab MR
Gasp SR
Corny
knob OM
WON Xtlt
694)S.[�Z ✓�Tjc9 �.
Ae A
(((10 StrApLftmteq,
- lift SPAii 10e5
NEOUES1ED Br
CPDC
Westwood Professlona! Servlccs Inc
7599 Anagram °rie
Eden Noble. Ain 55344
(612) 9J7-5150
Drawn by swK 'Dote 9/7/99 I ,rob No.98379
05/17/2004 10 46 65149A3119
PRESTIGE POOLS
9 2004 8 25AM RSM RETIREMENT RESOURCES
PAGE 02
NO 7576 P 2
Durand &Associates
Property Management, Inc
Apnl 14, 2004
Jun & Sarah Parks
3521 Bbcn Way
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr & Mrs Parks
1 am wrrtng to you at the direction of the Liberty on the Lake Architectural Committee
and the Board of Directors Upon receipt of your request copies were distnbuted to the -
atu?xa»ate retie,. _ ah� x re3t1e.__ - — -- 4—
The Architectural Committee has had an opportunity to review your request submitted fbr
the installation of a pool, fbneing and landscapmg Your request has been approved as
submitted The Committee is requesting that the installation of the pool, fence and
landscaping be completed as submitted pnor to September 6, 2004
The Architectural Committee did not see any plans submitted for additional yard lighting
nor did they see any plans for any storage buildings or structures for equipment m the
plans as they were submitted.
The Architectural Coramittce has requested that if you have future plans for additional
yard lighting (as we discussed m our conversation 4/14/04) or pool house buildings that
you submit the plans and specifications for approval pnor to installation
We would like to thank your for your patience during this approval process
If you have any questions regarding this communications please give me a call at 651-
450.2300
Y
S��
je d
Property Manager
PC BoardofThrectors
222 GrandTelm6Bt� West • South Salnt 0.2100 Fax. 051a55075ul, MN 2059
4450-4871
www durandandassvclates coin
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/04-67
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 1327 Ramsey Street
Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential
Zoning District RB-2
Applicants Name Cross River Builders
Type of Application Variance
Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet
requested) for the construction of a deck
Discussion The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a deck on the west side
of a house that is under construction There is a sliding door that has been installed
that would lead to the deck The deck could be moved the three or four feet to the
south creating a greater setback distance Instead of a 25 foot setback, staff suggests
the applicant could consider a 28 foot setback, which is closer to the required 30 foot
setback
Recommendation Denial of a 25 foot setback
Conditions of Approval
1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director
Findings
1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists
In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and
neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance
2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of 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/Site Drawings and Photos
PLANNING ADMINIS1 ir' ATION 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 appl►cation
*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 material
submitted in connection with any apphcat,on All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc )
submitted with apphcat►on 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 o
supporting material will delay the application process
Address of Project / 3Q ')
Zoning District RA
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Zo. inn SA,-- Assessor's Parcel NorlgOOo?0 0/0
(GEO Code
Description of Project A,J ��1. _k fit, Np 1.13 O
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in al
respects, to the best of my knowledge and bel,ef, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply w1i
the permit if it is granted and used "
Property Owner / o w s J i,o,rvo ,)
Mailing Address )5b Q c`) i v
City - State - Zip-S4 1',ak�r Mn SS --OS
Telephone No As--1- 3(fa —36 v 3
Signature /
(Signature is required)
Lot Size (dimenslons)2_< x hno
Land Area
Representative
Mailing Address
City - State - Zip
Telephone No
Signature
(Signature is required)
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area square feet
Existing square feet
Height of Buildings Stories
Pnncipal .2
Accessory
Feet
30
Proposed square feet
Paved Impervious Areaciy square feet
No of off-street parking spaces
H Vncnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003
June 28, 2004
Members of the Planning Commission
We are wntuig to request a vanance to the front yard set back (30 feet regtured) 25 feet requested at 1327
W Ramsey A newly created lot and newly constructed house to add a 10X12 deck to the west side of -the
house.
Thank you for your conside
Thomas J Larson
1
1
st..
/
14,
dot,W.M:R76•171.4......
bd
1
i
1
1
. - 52
1
I
1
1
1
Pro pos-kit
1 ,
4.4
ck
SHEET 8
Plan Prepared For
Mr Tom Larson
1502 West Olive Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR PARCEL "A"
(see parcel desc on Sheet 5 of 7 Sheets)
NOTES
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
NOTES
BARRETT M STACK Dashed contour lines shown
STILLWATER, MIST are scaled from Wash Co contour mapping
MINNATER REGISTERED 55082 and are approximate BENCHMARK Assume
LAND SURVEYOR R GISTE Elevation 81 12 feet on top of easterly rim
TAN No RV-s63o of manhole located as shown hereon Use this
Benchmark for vertical control of new const
Foundation dimensions and floor elevations are as provided by Mr Tom Larson Top of Basement Floor Elevation
(80 6 feet) to be 0 90 higher than Boxed 79 7 Control Elevation shown hereon
Spot Elevations followed by "T" indicate proposed Top Wall Elev Spot Elevations follwed by "P" indicate proposed
Top Pavement Elevation Spot Elevations marked "Prop Low El " indicate proposed drainage route grades
o Indicates 1/2" I D iron pipe in place marked with a plastic plug inscribed STACK RLS 13774 Approx spot Elev's
shown at iron pipes are top of plastic cap elevations
Gutter downspouts for roof drainage to be installed as to direct all roof drainage northerly to West Ramsey Street.
78.E
t2---:verizz o3'•g
3 sT,
wag ins paiptlem Ile w Plw mud
sAirkgroaqp se samseaw Io nuoo uoiscua
wilecisompnos 03
/OD OO
N L,NE A"_
p4
tJ
c _ LA(P
5I}f fey
2 `�
\eptce60,,It!' 5''
ti
r
Too /P
E? 8.8+
\\ ----J
Nit
.R-H89°Z2D3"!Y
At
-/SOO
S89'Zz 03
u
ud Iouuoo uotsO,1'v
890 ZZ 03
/S OO
/5i'e-6z 2pr-
h••ii- it v dowel,
81.0 r
7f 7P
Iao 0� /AO
/¢ —
O 2
Amer 4g4 gel 4;
4Faao64p fAry 88 O FL
TOP QLOL,e 88. 4f EL
/STFZ30 ? EL
o �,00F �9,e //6 S t EL .
so oo
Big
iPeLPIP
LOly
_ Et
82
NE
IMzetez %P'y
Top /P
E[ a¢ / ,`
,49%
Ater -
\
TOP / /\
Ee 87¢tat.
SE CO,
„�
1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or n port was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota
ale
(✓" rh I. d S o. e....t 0J- prJ-` iwr- di-. (e.wie-S-40
Date Dec 18, 2003
Reg No 13774
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO. SV/04-68
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 903 North 4th Street
Comprehensive Plan District Residential
Zoning District RB Duplex
Applicants Name J L Family Trust/Josephine Kiel
Type of Application Street Vacation
Project Description The request is to vacate a one block portion of North 3rd Street
from the north right of way boundary of East Elm to the south right of way boundary of
East Aspen ±300 feet (see attached maps)
Discussion The request is to vacate a block portion of North 3rd Street The applicant
owns most of the property on the east and west sides of the requested vacated street
A review of the request with the City Engineer indicates that no street improvement is
planned for this section of North Third due to lack of need, cost of improvement and
environmental condition However, retaining the right of way, for a drainage and utility
easement is prudent based on possible future need
When the City Trail Plan was prepared, this area was considered for future trails
improvements and decided against because of topography and lack of trail system
connection A reason for the applicant's request is ownership of the majority of the
land on both sides of the requested vacated roadway
The Planning Commission action is recommendation to the City Council
A letter of opposition to vacate has been received and attached for Commission
information
Recommendation Approval of street vacation subject to recording a drainage/utility
easement over the vacated road way
Attachments Petition for vacation, letter Robert Lockyear, 8-6-04
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Fee �2s50
Receipt No. fo,,ul,
City of Stillwater
PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC STREET
The Undersigned Hereby Petition That All That Portion of
3RD STREET NORTH LOCATED BETWEEN ELM STREET (VACATED) AND
ASPEN STREET ON THE NORTH
ABUTTINGLOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE OF BLOCK 4 AND LOTS FOUR,
FIVE & SIX, BLOCK 5 OF CARLI & SCHULENBERG'S ADDN
Addition, in the city of Stillwater, hereby be
vacated.
NAME
J L FAMILY TRUST
RONALD & JOSEPHINE KIEL
ADDRESS
903 4TH STREET NORTH
920 3RD STREET NORTH
*Attach a map showing the street to be vacated.
S \Planning\street vacation application petition wpd
CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800
JUNE 28, 2004
THE CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER, MN 55082
ATTENTION THE DEPT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
THIS LETTER IS BEING WRITTEN IN SUPPORT OF THE ACCOMPANYING
REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC STREET VACATION OF THE UNOPENED PORTION
OF THIRD STREET NORTH ORIGINALLY PLATTED LYING BETWEEN
ELM STREET ON THE SOUTH (VACATED) AND ASPEN STREET ON THE
NORTH AND THAT PORTION OF THIRD STREET NORTH ABUTTING
BLOCKS 4 AND 5 OF CARLI & SCHULENBERG'S ADDITION OF
STILLWATER
THE PETITIONER IS MAKING THIS REQUEST AS SHE IS THE
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST
BORDERS REFERENCED UNOPENED PORTION OF THIRD STREET
IT IS APPARENT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THIS "UNOPENED"
PORTION OF THIRD STREET BEING DEVELOPED AS A CITY STREET
DUE TO THE EXTREME TOPOGRAPHY AND THE DIFFICULTY OF
TRAVERSING THE EXISTING DEEP RAVINES
IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PETITIONER OWNS LOTS
1,2,3 & 4 OF BLOCK 4, AND LOTS 1,2,5 & 6 OF BLOCK 5
AT PRESENT THE PARCELS ARE CONTIGUOUS THERE ARE
TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, ONE LOCATED IN EACH BLOCK,
EACH WITH ITS OWN P I D NUMBER BOTH RESIDENCES HAVE
DIRECT ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET AND IN NO WAY WILL BE
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE VACATING OF THIRD STREET
MRS JOSEPHINE KIEL, 920 THIRD STREET NORTH IS ALSO
A CO -PETITIONER IN THE REQUEST FOR THE THIRD STREET
VACATION
THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS YOUR APPROVAL OF
THIS REQUEST FOR THE THIRD STREET NORTH VACATION
JESSICA LANAGE
903 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER, MN 55082
ivG I/4
6 I
�yQ Ty - ••�7 wyq..
noN
2 8 TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH
LL
WEST STILLWATER AVE
EAST STILLWATE
26 21
a
0m
30
50
m
A
CC
CC
0
Z
60
12
l r
4
m
2
3 8
1
0
Z
50
m
1W06)
13
4
m
A
CC
0
Z
60
a
1-4
CP.
000
so
WEST WILKINS STREET
EAST
WILKIN
so
2
8 3
aT�1
63
1 F
�P� W
Q W
LL
W
In
oo
2
apoo)
3
4
A
�vm
5 8
4f°4f
0
A
0
Z
3
5 I
S
�I
A 2 A
d0
216®-
m
1
Location Map
mn
7 8
at
um
51
•
2
0
LL
2
CL
CL
Z
60
11
i
a—
urWTY E.60(
DOC 3 6I206
•
4
m 'PM m
o WEST ASPEN STREET
•
1
so
m
R
EAST ASPEN STREE—
so
4
0268
( DEDICATED STREET F
your. •St
m m
4
6a
rm (0011)
511.
7
F►...
If
0
Z
0
0
W
a
SCHULE]
5
OUTLOs T8
6
im
8 2
1
S0
0
S
F-
4
ea
206 3
A
Iasi
( DEDICATED STREET PER PLAT ) $
-LE COLN SQU
R2IW ROW RI9W
R_ W R_1W R_OW
Vicinity Map
0 204
Scale in Feet
r726078 9 87J0
m
eW
M M.
npm �enmrualOmo mWrnCoon 0
-Wb� moms D.ry�
Immune
s��•
wCoM
Sans &,77 .os
(SS 1430®
PIr.OM Saud•44m4io
IAP.nnon. My 004
mtod My SON
Robert J Lockyear
1016 N Third. Street
Stillwater, Minnesota
August 6, 2004
Stillwater Planning Commission
City Hall
216 N Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re Vacation Petition for a Part of Third Street North in Stillwater
-cY
Dear Commissioners
As property owners living at 1016 N Third Street, we are objecting to the petition for vacation
of that portion of Third Street between Elm and Aspen This is public property and we believe
that you have a sacred trust given to the city by the electorate to protect and preserve that land
which is public This is public right of way that has been there for over 100 years and has been
used by all until the most recent adjacent property owners moved in and constructed a fence
This is the same property owner that received a vanance to build a high temporary fence around
their property to prevent celebnty seekers from harassing them We believe this fence is out of
keeping with this North Hill Neighborhood and it should be removed Dunng their occupation of
this property we have been very cooperative neighbors, even putting up with bnght lights from
the "pool house" shining up the Aspen Street Ravine into our home, but enough is enough
The petitioner has illegally erected a fence on public land and blocked this area from any use by
others It is our belief that the petitioners are seeking this vacation at this time in an attempt to
connect two properties in order to enhance their sale We see no public purpose to granting this
vacation of public property This area could be a cntical link in a trail system for this area of the
North Hill It is proven that trails increase value to adjacent properties With the recent
conversion of the Everett Street ravine area we are most hopeful that other assets like this will be
turned into trail areas We need to consider the enhancement to the City of Stillwater if we were
to develop a trail system to promote healthful exercise Vacating this property leaves no
connection between the ravines Please take the long view, which is in the interest of the
community at large, and deny this request Hold this public land in trust We may yet need to
have space like this as our community continues to expand
Sincerely Yours,
Robert
Patricia L B Lockyear
r
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO SUP/04-69
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 204 North Main Street
Comprehensive Plan Distnct Central Business Distnct
Zoning Distnct CBD
Applicants Name Todd Romocky and Bev Kneger
Type of Application Special Use Permit
Project Descnption A special use permit for a Hot Dog Vending Cart
Discussion
The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a hot dog vending cart that would be placed
within the wrought iron fence on the site of 'Let There Be Light' The cart would be seasonal
Hours would be 9 am to 9 pm — weekends The cart will have a blue and white umbrella over it
with the name of the business on one valance The menu would also be attached to it There will
be no additional lighting Some seating will be provided
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 No additional lighting
4 The applicant shall have at least one trash receptacle and daily trash pick up around the
area
Recommendation Approval as conditioned
Findings Special Use Permit
The proposed use will not be injunous to the neighborhood or otherwise detnmental to the public
welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance
Attachments Application Form/Letter from Applicants/Menu/Elevation Photo
HPC Action — August 2, 2004 +5-0
` PLANNING ADMINIS' , ,ATION APPLICATION FOR14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Case No
Date Filed
Fee Paid
Receipt No
ACTION REQUESTED
s
Special/Conditional Use Perm
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendrr
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 eng►neenng fees
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenar
submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (0 e , photos, sketches, etc )
submitted with applcaf,on 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 material is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete applicat►o
supporting material will delay the application process
Address of Project
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
04-1 N WI AEA T. Assessor's Parcel No.4039620' /0/c)-1
Zoning Distract el (E
Description of Project 14c71- ‘c c Ve-1 d I n ! #O 4Code)
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith ►i
respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply
the permit if it is granted and used "
C Lei- -TCi ere to L.15h+ „
Property Owner ` +eVP�. Gn i -n
Mailing Address aoJ iv. ,A4411\
City - State - Zip ST. 11u 4 rr �IV rjtjO
Telephone No % I - 15 g O
Representative Sim,V e rl7 k Ri cy
Mailing Address .4..1 4 )14,}-r Pine
City - State - Zip L i v o LkeS 1/14N
Telephone No i �, $t,iO -1
c95) 59a Coi (v )
Signature S►gnatibei y ittrt
(Signature Is required)
Lot Size (dimensions) x
Land Area
Height of Buildings Stories
Principal
Accessory
(Signature is reired)
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
Feet
H \mrnamara\shella\PLANAPP FRM
May 1, 2003
R_IW IOw R19W
Vicinity Map
Scale in Feet
ow - wrwpai wn
ircrderm.-nn. —
o iv. As ICI
Av�m Cr�lm I4102 �imlb�
ew p(n_y� t 3
Wo pry¢ MIas
r
City of Stillwater Board Members
Thank you for taking the time in looking at our portfolio I am wilting today to
ask for you to consider us in vending our sausage recipe on the property of Let Their Be
Light in the town of Stillwater Here is a little history about us We are based in Lino
Lakes I am Bev a school teacher and Todd is a meat cutter and works as a manager of a
major retailer of meat and seafood where he has the added benefit of being Haacp
ServSafe food trained Food safety and cleanliness are of the utmost of importance to us
For many years Todd has thought of getting together some of his favorite sausage
recipes and dreamed one day of being able to sell his product Well, that day is heie and
our mobile company is called Romocky Bratz, which features the Wiener Wagon Our
concept is to vend our cheddar brat recipe using our mobile vending unit that we call the
Wiener Wagon, Our wagon is a self contained custom made unit and is convenient
enough to fit almost anywhere We are ready to "wheel' in for most small events and
would greatly appreciate the opportunity to be a friendly asset to your community
Enclosed is our business card, a picture of our Wiener Wagon along with a menu
which provides a sample of the products we serve We are double licensed through the
Minnesota Public Health Department and the City of St Paul Thank you for your time,
we are looking forward to meeting you and discussing any further questions that you
may have
V l+ Oct CAC S f (i'Q css \)41gHct_ Since
A' VPAID 1'66\ Gv\d) viAv,vvy‘ S,,,�►Ne S, L1f):_k
G5 Sswlo le Ica c1 ()Se d - IN it -lick rs
ours — To -141e Ui omi ci vi9
C, I , s odd Romocky
0e S P Bev Krieger
Menu
Cheddar b ratz
Chili Dog5
hot Dog5
Potato CI'ip5
beverages
5ocla-Pop or Water
• fir C •'s • -r- •
• • u•ffir., r ,
• . • • '
, • • • -
. : .P7 .1.-.
n. .1
NA7 • •
I .
••• ilt..311.1-b:4:40c„r‘\ • ;.. • • ' 1!if.'re
..)..e,?, • co--.11i'ElY;%"A •.
k.b.4e7 4 lt.X47.:P41:
•S„, i • .1
•
'n -.•• 1 A. •*:
4.
•
•
; •
11114r
k‘.•4.‘ •
•
• •
.1 iy A 1,4iy.,•k‘ t•
V, !Y. ...Q.
.40
119-.7 0.
1 4
Jr
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/04-70
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 123 Birchwood Drive
Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Residential
Zoning District RA
Applicants Name Dianna and Gary Midbrod
Type of Application Variance
Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 27 feet
requested) for replacement of a roof
Discussion
The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirement to replace
their roof in order to create `cathedral' ceilings inside the home and to improve the
street appearance of the house
The replacement of the roof would result in the front of the house being 2 5' feet closer
to the front property line Currently the house is setback 30 feet from the front
property line, if the roof replacement and front renovation was constructed as
proposed, the setback would be 27 feet from the front line No special hardship unique
to the site has been presented
Recommendation Denial
Conditions of Approval
Should the Commission grant the variance, staff suggests the following conditions of
approval
1 The renovation be consistent with the majority of the existing structure
2 All revisions to the approved plan be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director
Findings
1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists
In this context, personnel financial difficulties, 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/Elevation Drawings
July 9, 2004
Community Development Department
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Attached to this letter of explanation is a Planning Administration Application for a
variance at 123 Birchwood Drive North, Stillwater, MN
The variance is requested as a result of the following
We have commissioned plans to remodel the mtenor of our home The plan mcludes
removing and replacing the roof to obtain cathedral ceilings, addmg on to our rear
upstairs 3-season porch, resultmg in a 4 season porch and other mtenor floor plan
changes
The replacement of the root according to our plans, will result m the front of the house
bemg 2 5' (two and one-half feet) closer to the street The reason for the change, other
than mtenor esthetics is to improve the street appearance of the house Currently the
eave of the house is 31 25' from the city easement lme On completion of construction
the eave would be 28 75' Please note the home on Lot #8, 119 Birchwood is 26' on each
end from the city easement, and the home at 124 Birchwood (Lot #12) is 19 5' from city
easement, so we feel this request is a minimal change and consistent with existmg
property
Attached is an aenal photo as well as existing and planned construction drawings We
appreciate your consideration and approval of this request
Thank you,
Mamma and Gary Midbrod
123 Birchwood Dnve N
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-1386
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
�Vanance
ResubdMsion
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment'
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
The fees for requested action are attached to this appllcatlon
*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 material
submitted in connection with any appllcatlon All supporting material (I e, photos, sketches, etc)
submitted with appllcatlon 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 appllcatlon process
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Pr o y .r. ►1-
a4 650 ao,<#.0/0.2
Address of Project / oZ3 /V SI re ix-ticoed ;Assessor's Parcel No Rom^ 4-4''64 E4dki
54)nn / e 4o CZ* (GEO Code) !3/oC,2.o4
Zoning Distnct Descnption of Project sL' / B/,C3 Q- 4-k_ h f y,& L .
CCI L C /2Q j0che
0t
"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 1 further certify I will comply wits
the permit ff it Is granted and used "
Property Owner c:2 I 'F (� ICLANO— ,1 ' M �c d b rocl Representative
Marling Address l a at hu Marling Address
City - State - Zi • .. .� �� N i gc\—City - State - Zip
Telephone No lz{j f 5130 / 3 2 Telephone No
Signature
Lot Size (dimensions) x
Land Area
Height of Buildings Stories
Pnncipal /
Accessory
_1
(Signature is required)
110,3%(10
7y 5 I SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area
Basting
Feet At'? Proposed
/ /A Paved Impervious Area
H \mrnamara\shefla\PLANApp FRM May 1, 2003
Signature
(Signature Is required)
a9 (t square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
No of off-street parking spaces 0
Top of Plt
Minh Shmgles
.411.u.1 1.i11111 ,...
fM�r
�1i; im "i���li
■' '!aw .��'�� � �� ■u.
PboltingSiding\
Bottom orPiro —
Top ofPleb, —+—
E
❑
;;;;
❑
1111
❑
ICI
I
I❑❑❑
❑❑❑❑❑
NEW FRONT ELEVATION-1 �
i
Top of Plate —
x
Bolton) of Plat —4 —
Tap ofPlatc , —
1
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION
olinci01;
mill NOMMIsTiollig i
For
ti
NEW REAR ELEVATION 1/4" =1'-0"
00
00
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
Top of Plate —
1.4
Bo
Bottom of Plate —'-
9
Top of Plate —e"—
I
:,ii I.Ilii:iilli■ I.uI ..
ASEMBEVEa
1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1
1 11111111 111111111
1 1 1
1 1-l 1
1
1
New Right Elevation
�AWN W U.
�il■uIl■nIP�al 1■I.I..
,il�rli■■I��rli■■I�rli■■■•
iIII1�IIIillOti■M■�1■r■1■r■11111■111.
op
New Left Elevation
Top of Plate
v— Bottom of Plate
Top of Plate
t
+L� .sti
{¢ /
a�
(006'4
nit
d 3 Q
r ' `�„ ;
4
ry
3 M 00- r a 3 '
C
a
3733.
66.
K
5.4 y ivsp. 'w34
iF.b`w' CR41. '� FCc rc
,.
t{ -
try
,.I'-31 1 III 1'0' 1 A111 1
^i CAR {I1111iT511i'y
DEPARTMENT OOFTRANSPORTATION AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENTDNISION
14949 6BIdStreet *I A PO: Barb
Semat Linassaa 550820008
(651) 4904975
surveyorfteashingaunnus
4-
0 4 3s'`h
t ys
l;
C'55,CC
a
a C:
0
c ♦�
f
f
{
� YR
LEGEND
rwz-r ram- +.,1
133
t�k
933.
DNA PROTECTED WATERS
LAIR PROTECTED WOUND
DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE
MlJNICFPAL BOUNDARY
PARK BOUNDARY
3
0
(R 69)
0
MOD
W
Y
406
F T f_ F 0
� � li La pk
( 9 1 .
0 r1 Bla
ps
f la"P, -\Th
F � C 4
r
NORTH
SCALE l lnth - 50 feet
t
�s';',
(01 Or24)
COUNTY
wary IMP
1 7
IFk-
R
,�+.4 5 Cr
5 �(
LCCATIall OF
THIS MAP
=5 r
SECTIONVICN0IY YAP
O
r
44
1 .Z If 4,3
00
y 9e P: t a
yo
P, � r'x y ce5..39
7
.33
es
P C cid `
yt7� r
6._,
aenaalayajzf
s
. r '
h a..505 33.
-'.-A16.
a'' t
PFCP6EY IDENTIFICA ICP Pt®A FOWl1T(8®000E)
eSAOU _ COMER ®®O
MCI PIMA PUMA WRIER rum
Of OH t• It I'�tYb�'
Pot) UUrRWROOWOEMVEPI'J
mmunCrPeMA
k
3 0
1
$1000
O
Th S DRAWPKI S THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION OF
LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR N VARIOUS WASHNGTO N COUNTY OFFK;ES
WASHI,NGT N COUNTY S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES
PROPERTY LINES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND MAY NOT
REPRESENT ACTUAL LOCATIONS
MAP LAST UPDATED• Apr690,2000
NOADDIRONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE
DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY Ap$2000
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/04-71
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 1966 Tuenge Drive
Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential
Zoning District RB
Applicants Name Michael Brabender
Type of Application Variance
Project Description A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 19 feet
requested) for the construction of an addition
Discussion
The request is for a variance to construct an 10 by 14 foot addition at the rear of the
house The proposed setback is 19 feet, the required setback is 25 feet There is a
prevailing 25 foot setback in the applicant's cluster of housing Granting a variance in
this particular group of housing in the complex would create a non -conforming lot
setback
Recommendation Denial
Conditions of Approval
Should the Commission approve the variance request, staff suggests the following
conditions of approval
1 The addition shall match the existing structure using the same exterior materials,
color and style
2 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development
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
3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public
interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan
Attachments Application Form/Letter from Applicant/Elevation Photos/A Petition/
An Aerial Photo
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
isolq
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 eng►neenng fees
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted
in connection with any appl►cation All supporting material (. e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with
application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting matenal ►s
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 or supporting matenal will delay the
application process
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
-� 33o3ode,3,14:915
Address of Project I q te6 R Assessofs alcel No
(GEO Code)
Zoning Distric Description of Project U1\-i AIUC e o C (QM \1;Q,d[ SP_� I�eK
Sec or'dase� ,+ufeom4-4-ioiiA)
' 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 1 further certify l will comply with the
permit if it is granted and used " II
Property Owner Pi .Q l Rt'J11�De1Jctf r Representative
Mailing Address r‘ eo I I t e&5e DR Mailing Address
((
City - State - Zip �'t1 iii, /A-ler tir, SS?) $a City - State - Zip
Telephone No S I - LBO - 3W 7g Telephone No
S►gna to,r f l.(c.erSD VA, 4Ql'/V
(Signature is required)
Lot Size (dimensions) 37 x /GC
Land Area
Height of Buildings Stories
Principal 1
Accessory N4
Feet
Signature
(Signature is required)
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area //O O square feet
Existing square feet
Proposed square feet
square feet
aces
roan
ng
IJUL 2 3 2004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
July 23, 2004
Planning Commission;
I am requesting a variance of six feet to the rear yard set back requirement of 25 feet.
My residence at 1966 Tuenge Drive is a twin home built in 1992. I would to replace the
present deck with a 10' x 14' (approx.) addition. It would resemble the general shape of
the other twin homes in the area, see Exhibit A. These homes were built by the same
developer and have the same shape and look as my except the newer versions have an
enclosed area where my deck is located. The proposed addition would be sided to match
the residence and the neighbor's homes.
I have met with each of the neighbors that border my property to explain my plans. They
have indicated no objections, see Exhibit B
Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Brabender
Enclosed: Exhibit A picture of proposed addition
Exhibit B form signed by neighbors
Exhibit C site map
11 2 3 2004
cOMMUNIT. DEVELOPMENT
�EP'i M N
I (we) support Mike Brabender of 1966 Tuenge Dr with the proposed addition on the
west side of his residence I (we) understand there may be a vanance to the rear yard
setback ordinance of approximately six feet
- re;-,e/y79 -7te (9-41
60-ef 1-
0--627dteAdti-e,
/ ? 1/45-6. e
�xha+ C
$10 00
hington
Was County
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
14949 62nd Street North PO Bar 6
SDIAYater Mumesata 55082-0006
(651) 430-6875
surveyor@co washugton mn us
wwW CO washugton mn usrmgmtsrvy/mgmtsr y Min
LEGEND
DNR PROTECTED WATERS
DNR PROTECTED WETLAND
DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
PARK BOUNDARY
NORTH
SCALE 1 inch — 50 feet
SECTION -TOWNSHIP -RANGE INDEX
7 -1
2903020 2803020 2703020
320302013303020134030201
0502920 tk02920 0302920
COUNTY
VICINITY MAP
LOCATION OF
THLS MAP
SECTION VICINITY MAP
PROP60Y IDENT1FICATION M BER FORMAT (GEOCODE)
2213.1 TOM. PP. WATER
NWWER LAYER MAAHI OWTER PPfl�
tt CUA t/ II ttS$
T
(0001) UST fun COTS OF POPETY
oEMlwT MPAGER
THIS DRAWING IS THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION OF
LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES.
WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES
PROPERTY LINES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND MAY NOT
REPRESENT ACTUAL LOCATIONS
MAP LAST UPDATED February28 2004
NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE
DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY Apnl 2000
raSV 1 VI. 1
Sue Fitzgerald
From Sara Zeuli [z sara@comcast net]
Sent Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12 54 PM
To Sue Fitzgerald
Subject 3rd st property
Hi Sue,
Pertaining to the property for sale on 3rd st so
I would like to table it until the september 13th, meeting
Sara & Paul Zeuli
7/27/2004
I
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/04-73
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 1521 Olive Street
Comprehensive Plan District Single Family
Zoning District RA
Applicants Name Kirk Roetman
Type of Application Variance
Project Description Variance to side street setback for second level deck
Discussion The request is to construct a rear second level deck on an existing residence A
variance was previously granted for the remodel/addition of the residence The current
request is to construct a deck off the back of that addition The current deck proposed is 21
feet from the side street property line
The second level deck is setback further than the house
Recommendation Approval
Attachments Application and plans
PLANNING ADMINIS 1 RATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STR
STILLWATER MN 55082
Case No
Date Filed
Fee Paid
Receipt No
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Perm!
XC _ Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendm
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development *
Certificate of Compliance
The fees for requested action are attached to this apphcat,on
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees
The apphcant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application All supporting matenal (i e , photos, sketches, etc)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting matenal is required If apphcat►on is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of
supporting material is required A site plan is required with apphcations Any incomplete apphcat►or
supporting matenal will delay she apphcat►on process
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project /s.), w U/ ✓e-- S4
Zoning DistrictIA______ Description of Project tfrye e"
4,14
Assessor's Parcel No O29D&2o?D WOOZZ
(GEO Code)
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information 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
the permit if it is granted and used "
Property Owner
Mailing Address / ' -, L✓ 2/,.e- Mailing Address ifs' 4-a /A•e. �f
City - State - Zip
Telephone No
Signature
ve
�.ci .5"5'e}Er.City - State - Zip 5/% —,(e. / .575-dr-
lest-'/3T-8'Gsd
Representative
/K-d e..9%-<dotel
Telephone No Cc7S/- e/3 S -,((f e'
Signature
(Signature is required)
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lot Size (dimensions) U`/x /t ' Total Building floor area /' sa square feet
Land Area •i s �,f Existing /a- ? > square feet
Height of Buildings Stories Feet Proposed i_3-4, s- square feet
Principal / iz Paved Impervious Area /.)6tosquare feet
Accessory � No of off-street parking spaces 3
(Signature is required)
H \mcnamara\shelia\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003
WEST
492.
50 0
V'I
50 3
15
R
S
50
}
W
J
W
w
to
STREET
3
IYIcKINST
8
14
9 10
S
11
to
W
H
0
m
2
0
to
60
50
so
50
50
50
so
50
so so
R
11
S
so
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 3
R
12
S
S S
A
R
A
R
R 6
50
V=
0909„
cP.n
'
R
13
R
50 6
50
50
00
50
50
50
50 50
\I
S
14
✓•
..--
_
.---
_
11111111 `!
15021
ems,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 24
.,
75
150 fi
a
fi
A
R
R
S
5
5
a
9
3
(4.-sr
Ow
9
J..+, �.-
16
S
593 9
1d1F CT
So
50
�n9Ac2v
50
50
50
50 50
75
50
s9
so
90
4p
42 09
RY
R
1,
OAk STREET
a
3
18
9996
50
4
so
w
6)
9995 9994
ry
WEST PINE STREET
0995 8
111
H 3
0
9995
2m
Location Map --T1 2 50
99 94
99 �
co
R
W
W
H
0_
r
s
x
H
0
VAC DOC 3417804
6193r
t
a
4
40
10
R_
65
9
3
50
11
2
90
gym+
12
so
13
so
a
50 0
0®9
1996
3
50
3
50 .4111144
0.
2
50
1
A
4
2
ip®1
999
-
N.
10
9
�0q
11
3
4V .)
9 94
a
10
I A'
,i;
V )
982
;
STREET BY
104
104 05
50
R
ARE.
3
119
11 B9,
OT OE OMO
2 1
7984
oo o
1
OP A
79 s58
o
60
W
H
0
0
2
CSA
50
SELF
so
7
4�
7
50
0 VAC D WEST OAK'
so
12
)
11
10
150
BOCK BONDS RAGE 133
2
7500
F
O R
co
0
9
R_IW 6_OW RI9W
P N
11 IN
P \
r9N
rs\
r7N
R_ w R_IW ILOW
Vicinity Map
0 168
Scale in Feet
ma. a. re.a mm4 a
▪ norarn w�.01 2( 0.1
aa..
▪ ate..°. w e�.w a�
Ma. pop
5(#. r
• 95 1400®
Pia
oar ovano
Oao pN.a July R AW
Vf2/G! _ r-Vg E n9,0111
41)(4,-� oN
`'x`/z`'
TvAE fa77#g
/ji
*.fi.eoJ'/G
ppe 4-1-44
we-- 5 7- ei-1,e. s�0eez
1
Ir
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO V/04-74
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 901 South 3rd Street
Comprehensive Plan District Residential
Zoning District RB Duplex
Applicants Name Mark Weyer
Type of Application Variance
Project Description Variance request for office use in existing building (church use) at 901 S 3rd
Street
Discussion The request is to reuse an existing commercial building that is currently occupied as a
church for an office use The RB zoning district regulations do not allow office uses in the RB District
Use variances are typically not allowed because they impact the underlying purpose of zoning
(consistency of land use/stability of neighborhoods) This circumstance is different in that the structure
has been there for many years and it has previously used as a grocery store, labor hall and most recently
a church
The existing RB zoning would allow a residential use with a possible home occupation permit (live- work
use) The building is a unique condition to the residential neighborhood Other neighborhood stores in
historic Stillwater have been removed or converted to residential or school uses
Neighborhood compatibility and impact is the major concern for any use of the existing building A 9-5
weekday professional office use would have minimum impact on the neighborhood The applicant shows
six off street parking spaces to the east of the building The six spaces should provide for most of the
office parking demand
The proposal appears to have minimal neighborhood impact but is not consistent with zoning
Recommendation Denial
Conditions of Approval if Approved
1 Any building appearance changes i e , windows, signage, color, lighting, landscaping, parking
improvements, shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission
2 The approval is conditioned upon the use of the building being a professional use with a 9-5, Monday
through Friday work schedule
3 No retail sales shall be allowed
4 The building shall be sprinkled as required by the Building Official
5 The parking area shall be paved, striped and signed for office business use
6 Landscaping or some other side yard buffer shall be provided along the east (parking) property
boundary
Attachments Application
1
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
Case No
4
Date Filed
Fee Paid
Receipt No
ACTION REQUESTED
Special/Conditional Use Permit
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 1Iso required to offset the costs of attorney and eng►neenng fees
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connelction 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 maten41 is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete apphcation or
supporting material will delay the apphcation process
Address of Project
Zoning District
eres, a�n� a.\ as � c e_
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
o l 3C-21. 51 S
Assessor's Parcel No /f O/D
(GEO Code
Descnption of Project reel ve5f- f o u, L r"/op?//sy
'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 1 will comply with
the permit if it is g nted and used "
Property Owner
9lrut2 T:e Te✓i P(I bRepresentative
Mailing Address (� i
City - State - Zip i �i '1\\ 1AJc.t� J "/V 5
Telephone No COS( -a G-Byv-)
Signature
(SigZure required)
Lot Size (dimension
Land Area '/9 yO
Height of Buildings
Principal
Accessory
)3 X /3o
S-
fYlark weye2—
Mailin 3 Address 599 S Oren AVE, N
City - State - Zip Dct Park Me. TES 010 S SC
Telephone No (G s 1) Lj jq -gD�s
Signature
(
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Building floor area / SOO
Existing sat, e_
PrDposed 60.Mt—
Pavec Impervious Area square feet
No of off-street parking spaces c, 7
Stories Feet
Is required)
square feet
square feet
square feet
H \mcnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 1, 2003
a d
E28B 6617 TSB
S?I3WdF.d Z13J13f9 >12IbW
dSS TO b0 Ez inr
City of Stillwater
Concerned neighbors
216 N 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
July 23, 2004
This letter is meant to accompany the Planning Administration Application Form
requesting a special use permit or variance for the property address 901 3rd St S in
Stillwater Currently this property is zoned as a residential building and has in recent
years been used as a church for the True Life Tabernacle Parish Pnor to use as a church
the building was a labor temple or union hall As the Parish is looking to move to a more
suitable location the property is for sale To this point realtors have struggled with
presenting this property as a residence and have had no such offers It is clear from the
appearance of the property that it was not built for and would not be normally considered
to be a home In addition to the aesthetic contradiction to the zoning the lot is of
insufficient size for a residence where the building to be removed
I am interested in putting three office suites m the building which would be low traffic
service onented professions to serve the community My own insurance agency would be
the first tenant with two additional tenants having similar usage My operation consists of
myself and an assistant with an average of one client visit per day (much of my one on
one contact is at the homes of my clients) Hours of operation would consist of
approximately mne to five with little to no weekend or evening operation
With openness to suggestions from neighbors I would add at least four windows to the
side of the building to improve upon the appearance I would also like to add a small
parking area on the east side of the building with preferably six parkmg spots Any
signage considerations would consist of window or wall displays keeping m step with the
city and neighborhood historic themes
I am hopeful that my request is met with approval and would welcome any questions or
suggestions in this matter in the interest of satisfying any concerns
Thank you,
M eyer
5995 Oren Ave N Suite 202
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
(651)439-8825
Residence 3668 Webster Ct Stillwater, MN 55082 (life long Stillwater area resident)
1
Strt)Ly11^('"�V 6 p g \�N�.iy- Sl L lv ,b r V 1
s 15 ]J3 1 ,
49 (0087, 50 4 JJJ
EAST BOVILL7 STREE-STREET
6
S
R
60
30
35
6 0
1
3s
28
as
2foie7
as
26
35
25
35
as
3
8
5 JQ
as ;^'
PirA
35
9
6
Tam
ss
2
35
9 22
35
4 7 49 (n
w �
8
35
20
86m
u t
9
R
11
ss
9
7
15
14 OS
ss
15
u_
0
LL
60
1-
W
111
28
27
1�
35
26
ss
as
2
ss
25
4
9
9
min
23
35
ss1
55
135
13
1s
20
9 R
19
toSHr4
135
30
ss
stem
35
9
2
004
2
u
9 28
35
as
9
27
4
n
35 266 �{J 135
as
v
265'4
3s
24
3
23
6 0
2
20
15
n
18
35
35
35
8
13
135
1uA
15
EAST CH
A
101631 9
135
2 " 9
3s
26rm
35
25
13s
24
Foam
135
35
35V
mom V-
as
23
as
35
72
3s
21
r"
as
20
15g55
.14
1 4
551
18
us
4RM
15
35
17
ns
12
16
Hs
13 9 �Jf
35
35
135
EAST
014.
as
25
34 12
1
345
23
035
55
2
per
134 5
22
st osier
Location Map
7 3s
3
345
4
066.
34
6 0
7
35
V
9
9 9
as
10
9
3s
all
35
11
135
17
aealm'
3s
as
13
gar
as
as
15
ss
14
135
HANCOCKEAST
1'
345
23
2
345
345
21
345
4
134
G ACT
4
1
1
29
3s
28
3
ss
ss
27
35
4 1
2626
35
35
5
as
25
8
a
35
24
23
22
ss
2
17
�6m
as
16
3s
CHIL RC S
0
Z
0
0
W
co
2
60
35
7
3s
9
u
10
jai
11
35
12 1
ss
13
ss
14
saraim
35
15
115
35
9 o26'1a
35
2
u
26
25
35
135
4
9
24
A
r �
as
2.
21
ss
Z_� Y
35
8
35
20
13)
19
ss
18
ss
Pala
6611
9
3s
11
3s
(0119) 17
35
9
0
16
Dail
a
a
a
75 0
CONDO NO
ALSO 1
(0146-0161)
75 0
NELSON SCHOOL(
144]4
HANgfREEf
345
es,16
34,5
23
1596n
345
2
22
34
3
1345
21
N 2
34
3"
n n r srr1r ['TO
R_IW FLOW R19W
R_ W R_IW 1111W
Vicinity Map
0 174
Scale in Feet
nalq uurmJ carpal
n obi al W�ba Pry
al ua
1tiera.4y aye, 33 &5dI mane
_15___ WaNingtel Canty
vmaCY b wry w4minde
swe Wn'agb^Couty SuvoyersO55
Reno L 14>D57
PM 1„5 e4G.Ytlmn.kw
earml3�t
4YapHa1 AO" SO4
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM
CASE NO SUP/04-75
Planning Commission Date August 9, 2004
Project Location 2103 Schulenberg Alley
Comprehensive Plan District Residential
Zoning District RB, Bluffland/Shoreland
Applicants Name Dan Challeen
Type of Application Special Use Permit
Project Description Modification to special use permit to extend water and sewer service
to accessory structure for business use
Discussion The North Hill Improvement project is underway and sewer and water services
are being extended to residence in the area
The applicant received a special use permit in 1989 to operate a business out of his residence
at 2103 Schulenberg Alley (see attached)
With extension of utilities to the area, the applicant has requested extension of services to an
accessory building
The toilet and sink would be used to "clean up after work" This is an expansion of the
commercial use into the accessory building The City Zoning Ordinance states, "an accessory
building shall not be designed or used for business or individual accessory use "
When the use was originally approved, the ordinance allowed home business with a special
use permit
Recommendation Approval
Conditions of Approval if Approved
1 The accessory structure shall not be used for expansion of existing business activity but
only as a cleanup area
2 The conditions from the previously approved special use, SUP/89-22, shall remain in effect
Attachments Application
I/00
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
ACTION REQUESTED
X 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 appl►cat►on
*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 material (0 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 material is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application o
supporting matenal will delay the application process
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project Z 10,3 SC hu/.6-rj Assessor's Parcel No 'Z /03 d 2.0 / L/005 t
Zoning District R1 Description of Project q,ct4 tt i /&1 S i (GEO Code)rs
oprksh-ce ?'aY p&VSdal iA-3ei
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in a
respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify 1 will comply w►
the permit if it is granted and used "
Property Owner Van c lia.11 6 YV-
Mailing Address 2 / d 3 SG/it,-/&46LL✓q
City - State - Zip 5// J` jL / /4 / 55. d `6/ -2—
Telephone No 61 303 .19 2
Signature
Lot Size (dimensions) _ x
Land Area
Height of Buildings Stories Feet
Principal
Accessory
(Signature is required)
Representative 5-e7
Mailing Address
City - State - Zip
Telephone No
Signature
(Signature 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
H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM
May 1, 2003
July 19-2004
To The City of Stillwater
From Dan Challeen, 2103 Schulenberg Alley, Stillwater MN, 55082
This letter is to state my intentions regarding my home, home busmess, and proposed
sewer and water improvements connected with the North Hill Project
I wish to have my contractor run sewer and water to my shed workspace at the same time
they are hooking the rest of my home to the new North Hill City water and sewer project
I would mstall a toilet and sink for my own use to clean up with after work
I feel this would not violate zoning restrictions because I would contmue to have only a
single family residence unit, and would not try to create another residence
Sixteen years ago I received a conditional use permit to operate a business out of my
home, Mantronics LTD Over the years I have operated the busmess causing very httle
drive up or walk up traffic because nearly all of my customers telephone and have me
work on their boats at the vanous area marinas When I am workmg at home it is on
equipment I have brought m for bench work
I will continue to make and receive phone calls and do paperwork m the house, as well as
meeting with the occasional customer The porch serves as a place for UPS to pick up and
drop off packages
The new garage is for parking my Business vehicle and park my wife's car also for
storage of tools, equipment, and supphes on the second floor
I have no plans to erect a electnc sign or open a storefront that would create a
neighborhood nuisance
My proposal is to allow me to operate as I have been, but in a more efficient manner
Thank you for your attention in this matter
Dan Challeen
FIP
O
03
0
n)
-v
100 33
5
100 33
STATE HWY 95 N BR
HEASEMENT
169 DEEDS
PAGE 536
DWAY ST
HWY EASEM
BK 205 DEEDS a
PAGE m3 4
90 00
90 00
90 00
3213
90 00
90 00
r
cn
9oi
70 00
KESI
60
10
'G 529
BK122D
IS
PG572 S
SC ULE
i1 �OC�
BURG ALLEY
e\ 100 )4
a 494 '77
t 101
33 9
LAKE STREET
768
-
s
89 /
21
9Z
87 66
60
100 33 44 2/3
55 2/3
a
57
30
30
2i341V ez4LS`d33
70
17
602
150 07
FORMER CENTERLINE OF VACATED BOOM ROAC...?
3001 u
Q
S
n
1
07 ?
LINE FOR GEOCODE REFERENCE
Qp
ST N
%-gT
Q2p4, yh
aaej w epos
~Z 2 i L 2 1L
r
r•
61541'1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF STILLWATER
In the matter of the Planning Case
No SUP/89-22
Request By
DANIEL CHALLEEN
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL USE PROCEEDINGS
ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL
USE PERMIT
The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City Council on the
4th day of April , 19 89, on a request for a
Special Use Permit pursuant to the City Code for thi following described
property -- -- ---- ----- — - -- --- -- — ------
9021-1050
Purpose
SECT- 2 1 TW{' —030 RANG-20
.JSA FT GOV LOT
DEG 50 FT N OF
ALDER ST ON TILE EXTENDED W LTNE OF
LAZE ET THENCE N ON EXTENDED W
LINE OF LAKE ST 40 FT THENCE W FAR
TO ALDER ST 160 FT THENCE S F AR
WITH SD EXTENDED W LINE OF LAKE ST
40 FT THENCE E FAR WITH ALIDER ST
160 FT TO BEG. 3RD WARD
Electronic repair use in an existing residence
Upon motion made and duly approved by the requisite majority of the City
Council, it is ordered that a Special Use Permit be granted upon the following
conditions (If no conditions, state "None" )
1 A non -illuminated two square foot sign may be installed on the property
as shown on the site plan
2 No employees other than the resident shall work in the business
3 This use permit shall be reviewed for revocation by the Planning
Commission if complaints regarding the use are received by the
Community Development Director
t�
Dated this / 3 day of
Wi-Pe471.h./ , 19 19
49c4 ahe.le4764l.4_,
Mayor
o1/ a 2
J
MEMORANDUM
To Planning Commission
From Sue Fitzgerald
Date August 9, 2004
Re The Legends of Stillwater Rules and Requirements
The Legends guidelines for extenor modifications has been revised by the architectural
committee and approved by the Board of Directors The Association when reviewing extenor
modification requests from the homeowner uses the guidelines
The principal revision is to the fence requirements The Association has expanded the onginal
two styles to included Iron or iron looking maintenance free and stained wood Previously the
two fences permitted were wooden fencing painted white
HUG-05-2004(THU) 04 42 LEG
BB/B5/2e04 14 14 ss1430881e
CITY OF STILLWATER
P 002/006
PAGE 01/01
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
case No
Date Fited
Fee Paid
Receipt No
ACTION REQUESTED
SpeaallConditional Use Permit
Variance
ResLibdivision
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 foes
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted In connection with any application All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (18) 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 o
supporting material will delay the application process.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project kCK5 OueSieclalcAssesscnis Parcel No
Zoning Distnct Descnptton of Project
(GEO Code)
1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in a
respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify ► will comply wi
the permit if it is granted and used "
Property Owner evil J d0. PRepresentative (56f j re��SYMT,42
Mailing Address SCLIY1 a Mailing Address
City - State - Zip
Telephone No _
City -State -Zip -�- 'tee �Q 1‘111..Sb7,`•
401 l Telephone No _ 6SIZ-�,�f
Signature Z5 vki
(Signature is required)
Lot Size (dimensions) x
Land Area
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Budding floor area _ square feet
Existing square feet
Height of Buildings Stones
Pnndpal
Accessory
Feet
Proposed _ _ square feet
Paved Impervious Area square feet
No of off -strict parking spaces
H Mclarnaral7heila\PIANApp FRrh may 1, 2003
RUG-05-2004(THU) 04 42 LEG P 003/006
Durand & Associates
Properly Management, Inc
August 5, 2004
City of Std lwater
C/O Suc Fitzgerald
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater,lblN 55082
Re Legends of Stillwater Association
Fence Guidelines
Dear Sue
1 would like to present the Legends of Stillwater guidehne5 for extenor modifications as
drafted by the architectural committee and approved by the Hoard orDircctors
These arc the guidelines that the Association uses when reviewing exterior modification
requests from the membership
I believe the item in question is regarding the fencing guidelines The Association would
like the ongmal two styles to be expanded. Each request for fencing is reviewed
individually Some of the homes within the Association with an established need for
fencing would not be aesthetically complimented with the tnstallabaon of fencing if
restricted to only the two styles originally approved
The Association would like to present the guidelines to the City for approval
Sincerely,
Stacey Bjelland
Property Manager
PC Board ofDirectors
«! Gr and Avw nut Wier • ,nuth',ilnt I- nil MN'15n7 211iq
III L51-1 51 23nn • 1 ix fi51-15n-1/171
mw% rinnnd,ndisvnrI,u s rnm
•
RUG-05-2004(THU) 04 42 LEG P 004/006
The Legends of Stillwater
Rules and Requirements
Dated June 22, 2003
Play structures
• Only wood play tics ,illotvcd
• MIX 3 swings
• Max. 16 feet at the tallest point
PLEASE REl'ER 10 SECT ION 101 1•OR ,k1M IONAI. TNrORMATION
LandsLaping
• Itiiu,tl imi ill must be completed ,s follows
• Yard nccds to be completed maim 6 mouths of t(u, issuing a certificate of occupancy by the rity of Stillwater,
according to ongurtl Lindtictpc pl ui, unless an extension is granted.
■ addtuow or moclif it ition to the original landscmpe plan after the min tl romplcuon of homes hwdsctptug, do not
uccd to bc reviewed by ARC
• Boulevard trees, if they die after the nuu il lira. yc,.tr builder' warranty the homeowner Is rcpouslblc for
replacement. Thc replacement tree should be the same type, and the trunk should bc tt least 2.5 niches in
diameter "Tic tree needs to be replaced %whin 6 months one.; dicing or the Association will In. forced to replace it
for you and assess your home for the cost.
Sheds or out buildings (including custom playhouses)
• Max 90 Square Feet for Cottage homes (i.a Ryl aid Built) Anyt/urrnlargcr rrt11 regrurr ail?CAlgoma
• M.ax.120 squ irc feu for Lakeshore, or Traditional homes ilnythurg/.0 per will rcgmrrARCapproval
■ Slnnblch iced Io be the exact s�lunc type, brand and color as Born(..
■ Sicking needs to bc diet mattaril, color, utd cks gat as home
• 13ody color and tom color ticcdti to tii ads IJic, home
• Outbuildings cannot be ur,,d to house. ,uumik
• Needs to be lour sided (i i. all lour Kicles need to be the sane)
PLEASE REkk,1t 10 SLCTON 101 FOR ADDmONAL 1N1'oRMA rIoN
Dog Kennels
• No tree 'Lutchu1, uiimal containment systems are allowed
■ Any attached to the home, need reviewed by &ItC out a rase -by -case basis
• All approved systems should not be seen !rota IJu street
Pools
Only In•Cround prof siou.tlly installed Pooly mccung all aty requirements will be allowed
■ All pools have to bc entirely enclosed by fenaug (per city orSulhvnicr requirements) and all #cueing trust be of tltt„
,tpprotcd type, or approved by the ARC corm -name
RUG-05-2004(THU) 04 42 LEG P 005/006
Flags
• Flags can be matched to homes with i 10 rt. Max Pole in length
• 1.1 ii, poles perm a wilily.drmed in rills will have to be ipproved by the ARC comtruw,,,
Fences
• q.tty twice over 4 It. muvt. bc approved by ARC
• No privacy rcnctng is allowed
• Chain link. Fences Ire not aimed
• Alcccpclbk. Iciictiig matcn.rlk arc as follows
1 Maintenance rrcc
1 Wood (panted white or wood ,t:uncd)
1 Iron, or iron looking maintenance Free
PLEASE REFER TO SECRTION 101 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additions to home
(11. decks, porches, gunrooms, pergolas, Gazebo's & extulseons of hying since)
• Must meet city rcyuurcmenGb uicl .ill city permits must bc received
• Must bc in similarity to the same styling and architecture al home
• ARC must approve all unprovetnteuh belorc ‘vork miy slarl.
PLEASE REFER TO SECTION 101 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
SECTION 101
Legends setbricks requirements
Any additions to lot (such as play structures, sheds, gazebo., etc) must bc setback 5 feta Irom the property lilies
with thc exception of an open space, easement. or a fence
Legends punting/st-ltninetrcatillg,r_4(tlnMm‘ntti
0 All fences, additions, play 5tructures, gazebos, e.tc, (.A.nythtngwith wood) needs to EN. uther painted or
stained/treated within 1 yea] from initial mutilations, and every el year' thereafter
0 If thcy arc painted a solid color, it has to be white, black, or approved by thc &RC committee, Aud it can
only be, one unnlorm color
0 kny chmngcs to homes cxte.rior color(s) need pnoi appi oval by the ARC committee
0 ll non-compliance, the Board has the right to rune $300 a year until the work is conipkt4d
AUG-05-2004(THU) 04 43 LEG P 006/006
Reminder Rules and Regulations
* No noxious or offensive activity shall be allowed on anyone's private residence, or on any common grounds
Including but riot limited to loud behavior, barking dogs, or unnecessary vehicle noise
* No signs of any land shall be chsplaycd to public view on any property With the exception of for sale or rent
signs of no more than five sq ft.
* No boats, snowmobiles, trailers, campers, buses, tractor -trailers, trucks m excess of 9000 pounds, or any
unlicensed, or moperable vehicles shall be stored or parked on any lot outside ofa garage Temporary parking
on driveway is allowed but cannot exceed 72 hours
* Please refer to your Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for more information
On existing NON -APPROVED structures
Homeowners have 60 days from the date of these guidelines to apply for a "Grand fathered approval" Tf ARC
does not grant approval, the homeowner has 60 days to remove or make changes to meet current guidelines or a
$300 a year fine will be assessed until compliance is achieved, and will also be subject to collection policy
Presidency clause
All improvements (including but not limited to any improvements listed in these regulations and guidelines)
made before these rules were implemented will be subject to all of the above rules As such the Architectural
review committee and the board of directors may at their discretion apply these rules to improvements made
before the rules were implemented, including requiring that the improvements be taking down or corrected
Furthermore, while the board and committee may choose at their discretion not to enforce these rules on
improvements made prior to the implementation of these rules, the decision not to enforce these rules with
respect to past improvements will in no way constitute a waiver of the committee and the boards ability to
enforce these rules on future proposed unprovcmcnts
Non -Compliance of the Legend's of Stillwater Rules and Guidelines
The Legends Board of Directors has the right to fine the homeowner $300 a year until the regulations have been
complied with. The fine will take affect 60 days after the date of written notification to the Homeowner These
will also be subject to the collection policy
The ARC Committee and The Legends Homeowners Board of Directors has the right to
rescind, modify, amend, or add to these Rules and Gutdeluzes as it sees fit, as the community
grows and it's needs change.
t
Memo
To Planning Commission
From Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Date August 5, 2004
Subject Initial Review of Duplex Residential Zoning Regulations
Background The City Council recently reviewed a variance request for an accessory
dwelling unit in the RB District In the review of the request, there was some confusion
regarding the size of the accessory garage (1,000 square feet) as it related to the
accessory dwelling unit (800 square feet) Commissioners are asked to review that
provision of the zoning regulations
Also the special use permit provision appears to be missing a section (see attached)
The Commission may also want to tackle the bed and board and infill development
issue that has been previously discussed at commission meetings
Attachment RB Zoning Regulations
3
ZONING § 31
Subd 12 RB two family district RB-two fam
ily distncts shall be regulated as follows
(1) Permitted buildings and uses In the RB-
two-family district the following buildings
and uses and their accessory buildings
and uses are permitted
a All buildings and uses permitted in
the RA one family district as set forth
in subdivision 11(1) of this section
b Dwelling houses, each occupied by
not more than two families
c Type I home occupation use permits
(2) Permitted uses with special use permits
In the RB two family district, the follow
ing buildings and uses and their acces
sory buildings and uses may be permitted
by special use permit from the city coun-
cil
a Type II, home occupation permits
b Multi family dwellings
c Reserved
(3) Accessory uses In the RB district uses and
buildings incidental to permitted or spe-
cial permitted uses shall be subject to the
following regulations
a The maximum lot coverage of all
accessory buildings including at-
tached and detached pnvate garages
and other accessory buildings shall
be 1,000 square feet or ten percent of
the lot area, whichever is less
b The total ground coverage of the
accessory buildings shall not exceed
the ground coverage of the pnncipal
building
c No more than two accessory build-
ings, one private garage and one
other accessory building, 120 square
feet maximum, shall be located on a
residential premises
d An accessory building shall not bE
designed or used for human habita
tion, business or industnal acces
sory use
(4) Accessory dwelling unit An accessor3
dwelling unit is defined as a second dwell
ing unit on one lot, detached from a pn
mary single-family residence and clearh
secondary to a primary residence Acces
sory dwelling units are permitted specia
uses in the RB district subject to the
following regulations
a Lot size must be at least 10,00(
square feet,
b The accessory dwelling unit may bE
located on second floor above the
garage,
c The accessory dwelling unit muse
abide by the primary structure set
backs for side and rear setbacks,
d The accessory dwelling unit must bE
located in the rear yard of the pn
mary residence or be set back from
the front of the lot beyond the mid
point of the primary residence,
e Off-street parking requirements foi
an apartment and single family res
idence (four spaces) must be pro
vided,
f Maximum size of the accessory dwell
ing unit is 800 square feet,
g The application requires design re
view for consistency with the pn
mary unit in design, detailing anc
materials,
h The height may not exceed that o'
the primary residence, and
1 Both the primary and accessory dwell
ing unit must be connected to munic
ipal sewer and water services and bE
located on an improved public street
Supp No 13 CD31 16 5
1
§ 31 1 STILLWATER CODE
(5) Development regulations Development regulations in the RB district are as follows
a Area, setbacks and height regulations
1 Maximum building height
Mam building
Accessory building
2 Minimum lot area
Single family
Minimum lot area per dwelling
3 Minimum lot width
4 Minimum lot depth
5 Maximum lot coverage
6 Minimum yard requirements
Front yard
Side yard
Corner lot street
Side yard
Rear yard
7 Frontage requirements
Single family
21/2 stories and
35 feet
One story/
20 feet
7,500 square
feet
7,500 square
feet
50 feet
100 feet
30 percent
30 feet
10 feet or 10
percent of lot
width
30 feet
25 feet
Duplex
21/2 stories and
35 feet
One story/
20 feet
10,000 square
feet
5 000 square
feet
75 feet
100 feet
40 percent
30 feet
10 feet
30 feet
25 feet
Multifamily
21/2 stories and
35 feet
One story/
20 feet
15,000
square feet
5,000 square
feet
75 feet
100 feet
40 percent
30 feet
10 feet
30 feet
25 feet
For all buildings at least 35 feet of frontage on an
improved public street
b Exceptions
1 Front yard Where a uniform
yard setback exists which is
less than 30 feet, any building
or structure erected, structur-
ally altered or enlarged may
conform to the established set
back but in no case shall a
setback less than 20 feet be
allowed Where a uniform front
yard setback does not exist, then
the mmimum required setback
shall be the average of the set
back of the two adjacent main
buildings, or if there is only one
adjacent main building, the set-
back of the main building shall
govern, but in no case shall a
setback less than 20 feet or
greater than 30 feet be re
quired
2 Corner yard For corner lots
where the corner side yard set-
back or front yard setback for
the main building on the adja
cent lot on the same street is
less than the required setbacks,
then the corner lot side yard
setback for the proposed struc
ture may conform to the set
back for the adjacent main build
mg but m no case shall a setback
less than 20 feet be allowed
Supp No 13 CD31 16 6
i
ZONING
3 Side yard When there is an
attached garage on one side of
the dwelling, the garage set-
back is five feet, provided that
no habitable floor area is closer
than ten feet from the property
line and provided that the ga-
rage is a minimum of 15 feet
from the nearest structure on
the adjacent lot
4 Side and rear yard An acces-
sory structure located entirely
in the rear yard or located in
the side yard at least six feet
from the main building shall
have a minimum side and rear
yard setback of five feet
(Ord No 653, 10 21-86, Ord No 669, 9-15 87,
Ord No 850, § 1, 10 7 97, Ord No 860, § 1,
5 19 98, Ord No 860A, § 2, 5 21-02)
Subd 13 RCL low density multiple family res
idential district RCL-low density multiple -family
residential distncts shall be regulated as follows
(1) Permitted uses Uses permitted by a spe
cial use permit in the RCL distnct are as
follows
a Townhouses, group or row houses
b Public education, religious and insti-
tutional buildings
c Bed and breakfast estabhshments, if
at least 900 feet from another bed
and breakfast use
(2) Accessory uses Accessory uses m the RCL
district are as follows
a Customary home occupations
b Off-street parking and loading facil-
ities
c Pnvate recreation facilities
(3) Area requirements Area requirements m
the RCL district are as follows
a Minimum lot area shall be 20,000
square feet
b Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
shall be 7,000 square feet
§31
c Maximum building height shall bE
35 feet
d Minimum open space per dwelling
unit shall be 1,500 square feet
(4) Recreation facilities Recreational facih
ties in the RCL district are the same a
subdivision 15(4) of this section
(5) Yard and setback requirements Yard an(
setback requirements in the RCL district
are as follows
a Front yard 35 feet
b Side yard 50 feet
c Rear yard 50 feet
d Accessory buildings shall conform tc
the above requirements for principa
buildings
e No principal building may be con
structed within 50 feet of another
(6) Landscaping and screening Landscaping
and screening m the RCL district shall bE
as follows
a All sites when fully developed shal
be completely graded so as to ade
quately drain and dispose of all sur
face water, stormwater and ground
water in such a manner as to precludE
large scale erosion and unwantec
ponding
b All sites when fully developed shal
be landscaped according to a plar
approved by the city council ThE
landscaping plan shall specify the
size, type and location of all tree
and shrubbery and the location of al
sodded areas
c Parking areas containing four or more
spaces which are adjacent to or acros
the street from a residential distnc
shall be screened to a height of a
least four feet by shrubbery, wood o
masonry materials
Supp No 13 CD31 16 7
/1/'
ZONING
Subd 11 RA one family district RA one fam
ily distracts shall be regulated as follows
(1) Permitted buildings and uses In the RA
one family district the following build
ings and uses and their accessory build
ings and uses are permitted
a Dwelling houses each occupied by
not more than one family
b Parks and playgrounds
Type I home occupa • _ e .ermits
(2) Permitted uses with special use permits
from the city council In the RA one
family distnct the following buildings
and uses and their accessory buildings
and uses may be permitted by special use
permit from the city council
a Hospitals nursing homes and rest
homes
b Public and private primary and sec
ondary schools including accessor
buildings and uses located upon pro
erty contiguous to that occupied ty
the main building
c Cemeteries
d Churches and other places of wor
ship
e Reserved
(3) Acwcennr ni PQ I is nit uses and
buildings incidental to permitted or spe
cial permitted uses shall be subject to the
following regulations
a The maximum lot coverage of all
accessory buildings including at
tached and detached private garages
and other accessory buildings shall
be 1 000 square feet or ten percent of
the lot area, whichever is less
b The total ground coverage of the
accessory buildings shall not exceed
the ground coverage of the principal
building
c No more than two accessory build
ings, one private garage and one
other accessory building 120 square
feet maximum, shall be located on a
residential premises
d An accessory building shall not be
designed or used for human habita
ton business or industrial acces
sory use
(4)
Development regulations Developmental regulations in the RA distnct are as follows
a Area setbacks and height regulations
Provision
1 Maximum building height
Main building
Accessory building
2 Minimum lot area
3 Minimum lot width
4 Minimum lot depth
5 Maximum lot coverage
6 Minimum yard requirements
Front yard
Side yard
Corner lot street side yard
Rear yard
Supp No 13 CD31 11
Single family
21/2 stones and 35 feet
1 story 20 feet
10,000 square feet
75 feet
100 feet
30 percent
30 feet
10 feet
30 feet
25 feet
Memo
To Planning Commission
From Steve Russell, Community Development Director /../
Date July 30, 2004
Subject Boutwell South Area Plan
Attached is the Boutwell South Area Plan The Joint Township/City Planning Board is
scheduled to review the Plan August 25, 2004 The Plan has been revised based on
Planning Commission's direction at your last meeting
Of particular note, are the land use and roadway recommendations and the
implementation sections Please review for final confirmation at meeting time
Attachment Revised Boutwell South Area Plan
RN',VISED BOUTWELL
SOUTH ARKA PLAN
June 2004
Table of Contents
❑ Executive Summary 2
❑ I Project Summary 3
❑ II Existing Conditions and Issues 4
O III Planning Process 8
O IV Recommendations 9
Land Use 9
Roadways 10
Stormwater Management 13
Integration of Stormwater and Circulation 17
Sewer and Water Services 17
❑ V Implementation 19
O Attachments 21
City ofStillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
1
Executive Summary
This plan provides recommendations for the Boutwell South
Planning Area, a neighborhood within the Stillwater Expansion
Area The area is part of the Phase IV annexation area
scheduled for annexation after 2015 Areas within the
planning area can be annexed earlier if petitioned by property
owner(s) and determined to be of benefit by the City The
Boutwell South Planning Area contains approximately 350
acres The current land use is large lot rural residential and
vacant land
The plan proposes that as the area becomes part of the City of
Stillwater, approximately 120 acres a third of the area be
developed as urban low -density single-family residential The
proposed development areas are mostly in the eastern portion
of the Planning Area The western portion of the area is
recommended to remain rural residential at this time with two
areas of exception located at the corner of CR 15 and CR 12
and CR 15 and Boutwell Road The plan recommends that
road improvements (Neal, Boutwell CR 15) be considered
before any Phase IV expansion development occur
In addition to land use recommendations, the plan includes
recommendations for circulation, parks, trails and open space,
public utilities and storm water management The plan
recommends that Neal Avenue be extended as a collector
parkway through the planning area and connect to CR 12 at
Northland Avenue and that trails be completed along creeks
and roadways to implement trail connections identified in the
City's Comprehensive Trail Plan The plan calls for the City to
work with Washington County and the Croixwood
neighborhood in developing a specific design for the extension
of Neal Avenue The County controls access to County Road
12, and has expressed concerns related to access
management and safety
The plan analyzes development, traffic and stormwater
impacts from the South Boutwell Area, and updates the
Stillwater Alternative Urban Areawide Review AUAR, (1997)
for these issues
The residents of the area, the Stillwater Planning Commission,
Washington County, and others participated actively in
developing this plan during the 2002 plan preparation process
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
2
Boutwell South Planning
Study
I Project Summary
This plan provides a comprehensive planning framework that
will guide land use, development circulation, storm water
management, parks, trails, greenways and other development
decisions in the Boutwell South Planning Area Plan
preparation began in January 2002 In 2003, a
comprehensive traffic study for the city expansion area
provided additional information that is incorporated into this
final plan and used as a basis for land use recommendations
The area contains slightly more than 350 acres in size and is
bounded by Boutwell Avenue, County Road 15 (Manning
Avenue), and County Road 12 Most of the area is currently
located within Stillwater Township, and scheduled for
annexation to the City of Stillwater after 2015 Figure 1
identifies the boundaries of the planning area and shows
existing conditions
The City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan (1995) identified
the majority of land use in the Boutwell South Planning Area
as "rural residential through 2015 The Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) for the annexation area assumed
rural residential land use in the Boutwell South area when it
analyzed the environmental impacts of proposed development
in the Annexation Area, and developed the mitigation plan to
address these impacts Both the 1995 Comprehensive Plan
and AUAR assumed that no urban services would be provided
in the area before 2015
However, since 1995 several property owners in the Boutwell
South area expressed interest in annexing to the City and
developing their land at urban densities before 2015 City
orderly annexation policies allow landowners in areas adjacent
to the existing city limits to petition for early annexation One
landowner interested in annexation is located at the corner of
Manning Avenue and County Road 12, another is located
south of Newberry Court (see Figure 1) Other landowners in
the Boutwell South area expressed interest in annexation
during this planning study
The Boutwell South Area Plan is prepared to coordinate and
guide land use, zoning, parks, trails, circulation systems,
public utilities and storm water management in the area when
development occurs Once adopted, the City will consider
Czty ofStillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
3
individual property owner requests for annexation and change
in land use based on this overall plan The plan also reviews
the environmental impacts identified in the AUAR, analyzes
the potential impacts of the proposed land use and utility plans
for the area and discusses possible mitigation strategies
II Existing Conditions and Issues
Initially, the City's Planning Staff, consultants and Planning
Commission met with plan area residents and Washington
County Public Works to review existing conditions and identify
issues to be considered in developing the area plan Issues
identified are listed below
Roadways, Streets, and Trails
• Mannino Avenue (County Road 15) Washington
County's current Capital Improvement Plan identifies
reconstruction of Manning Avenue from Trunk Highway
36 to CSAH 12 in 2007 This project will include a four -
lane roadway, traffic signals a bike/pedestrian trail on
the Stillwater side of the road The County controls
access to CR 15, including driveways and new streets
There is no timeframe for upgrading Manning Avenue
to a 4-lane roadway north of County 12 to TH 96
County staff indicated that the earliest time for this
upgrade is 2008
• Neal Avenue The City is considering options to
connect Neal Avenue with County Road 12 Issues
related to this proposal include the following
o Improvement of the existing Boutwell
Road/County Road 12 intersection
o Access to Boutwell Avenue homes east of Neal
o The existing steep grade on County Road 12 at
Maryknoll makes sight lines difficult for locating
a new intersection east of Northland Avenue
o The County has purchased the access rights of
CSAH 12 right of way between Boutwell Road
and Manning Avenue (Openings exist to
accommodate existing private driveways and
streets) Access spacing standards and need
for turn lanes will be considered in the design of
any proposed Neal Avenue connection
o A variety of options for the new Neal Avenue
route were studied Each has potential traffic
and land use impacts as described in attached
Expansion Area Traffic Study
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
4
v.
3
11111110 MEW 11111111 MIMI -31E1 MOIL
- • 'v."' •
3LdVUjj
37tuoall iRtientio7r
77 '1 •
0 0 ‘.
cp I
1 4
250 500
Solo In loot
Art-
,*
A-)
- .v .
LAI:ensm 0Y Neceilgivsroluk?.‘
2
Request for PCCTOS.Elg Development 9.'
C- . :.i.
i
- -.• .
In4 -,
.7:,-.1z-fir-1,4;:;----------,----,-. -7---.----:=--. .--r, --,tz
i...-')
.. t . •-•-41.,ZZ-:.-t.,,-,dvi.
ktisi.treg S:trigik .J-iarriqyC
) ---r0 •••:,.
,
i4.. -, eCept Gr wl.a....'
- Pr021;,:nn Llfzirsectio-1
d 2.;
71t1 _
•
0 e5L
L
4, WO
(11 C
Qi (LI W
C
0 C
'NI11110
• •
g A:
0 00
Cul Itlitiuti•
'*c
100
_
41.
o Residents in the area are concerned about
potential traffic impacts of connecting Neal
Avenue to residential streets in Croixwood to
the south of County Road 12
o Residents expressed concerns about increased
traffic on Boutwell, Minar and other local streets
due to the Settler's Glen Development north of
the Boutwell South planning area
o Residents expressed concern for speeds on
County Road 12, and would like the State
Commissioner of Transportation to reduce the
speed limit on this road
o Boutwell Road residents expressed concerns
for condition, pedestrian conflict and speeds of
travel on Boutwell Road since Settlers Glen
Development
o The Boutwell Road CR 12 intersection is
difficult and access from Boutwell Road to
Manning Avenue experience delays
o Concern was expressed for the traffic impact on
Neal Avenue of Phase III (Palmer Development
Property)
• Existing Traffic Many residents expressed frustration
concerning existing poor circulation in the area and the
potential for these problems to worsen with additional
development They also expressed concerns that a
Neal connection near Maryknoll Road or Northland
Avenue would route unacceptable volumes of traffic
onto residential streets in the Croixwood area
• Trails The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies
a number of existing and proposed trails within and
around the study area Issues for the planning study
include
o Creating good pedestrian connections through
the study area linking the proposed trails
o Provide trail access to natural areas for
enjoyment of natural areas while connecting to
existing trails in the area
o Residents on the west side of the planning area
expressed concern for trails along their property
lines
Stormwater Management and Wetlands
• Stormwater management The AUAR proposed that
stormwater in the Annexation Area (including the
Boutwell South area) be diverted away from Brown s
Creek to protect the designated trout stream and
associated resources The City is currently
constructing this diversion system Land use changes
Czty of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
5
proposed for the Boutwell South Area could increase
the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from this area
beyond the level identified in the AUAR Related
issues include the following
o The AUAR proposed storm water ponding in
several existing basins in the South Boutwell
Area to manage runoff The size of these
ponds may need to be increased, or other
storm water management strategies required if
land use changes in the area
o An impact fee is being assessed to new
development in the Annexation Area to pay for
the cost of the stormwater diversion would be
assessed to new development in the Boutwell
South area
o Storm water facilities in the area could be
designed to serve as amenities for development
in the area, and provide multiple benefits such
as open space buffers among land uses and
trail corridors
o Ponds to manage runoff will be required for all
new development
• Wetland Buffers The Brown s Creek Watershed
District requires that 150' undisturbed vegetative
buffers be established along the Brown s Creek
tributaries and wetlands in this area This will affect the
size and configuration of developable areas
Land Use
• Existing Land Use Much of the Boutwell South area is
currently occupied by large lot single family residences
Many of these residents indicated that they plan to
maintain this large lot development pattern for the
foreseeable future Issues related to the future land
use in the area include the following
o Identify appropriate long-term land use
designations in the Boutwell South area
o Evaluate which land use(s) would be
compatible with existing development in the
area, and identify needs for buffers or
separation between some land use types
o Evaluate which land uses are compatible with
roadways and storm water infrastructure
capacity available for the area
o Identify an appropriate land use transition from
the city limits going westward
o Existing residents in the area expressed strong
concerns about increased densities proposed
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
6
for the area Many were opposed to any
change in land use designations before 2015
Single family housing compatible with existing
homes in the area was preferred over attached
housing
• Parks and open space Additional open space and
neighborhood park areas should be identified in the
Boutwell South area as development occurs Open
space areas may also be designed and located to
serve storm water management functions and provide
transitions between land uses Open space corridors
and trails in the South Boutwell areas should connect
with those in surrounding areas
• Phasing issues The City has a limit of 120 new
residential permits per year within the entire annexation
area The timing of new development in the Boutwell
South area may be affect by these limits
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
7
III Planning Process
The development of the plan included meetings with affected
parties, including city residents in and around the planning
area, the City's Planning Commission, City -Township Joint
Board Washington County Public Works Staff and the City
Council The plan was also reviewed by the Brown's Creek
Watershed District
The final plan being presented for approval has incorporated
the results and approved recommendations from the
Expansion Area Traffic Study as they related to the Boutwell
South Planning Area
Discussions included the following
• Planning Commission and Public Input The City s
Planning Commission considered the plan at four
meetings, including a public hearing on April 8, 2002
A large number of residents from the Boutwell South
planning area and surrounding neighborhoods
attended these meetings and identified their issues and
concerns Issues discussed at these meetings are
listed in the previous section The plan includes the
Commission's recommendations regarding land use
stormwater management public utilities, circulation
and overall design
• City -Township Joint Board The Joint Board
reviewed the draft plan and Planning Commission
recommendations on July 24 2002 The discussion
and comments focused on roadway and land use
issues
• Washington County City staff and consultants met
with staff from the Washington County Physical
Development Department several times during the
planning process to discuss issues related to roadways
and trails County concerns and recommendations are
described in Section IV, and copies of letters received
from the County are included in the Attachments
• City Council On September 13, 2004, the City
Council held a public hearing on the plan At that
meeting, traffic impact of study area development on
Deerpath was identified as a concern for the study A
separate expansion area traffic study was then
conducted The results of that traffic study has been
incorporated into this plan Major new policies deal
with Deerpath/Brick and Neal Avenue
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
8
IV Recommendations for the Boutwell
South Planning Area
A Land Use
Recommendation 1 Figure 2 identifies proposed land
uses for the Boutwell South Area Land use for the
eastern portion of the planning area is designated urban
low -density single family (3 DU's per net developable
acre)' Most of the existing Rural Residential land use
areas in the western half of the Area are maintained in
rural residential use, with densities of one unit per 2 5
acres Two areas, corner of County 15 and County 12,
and County 15 and Boutwell Avenue are designated Low
Density Single Family
Recommendation 2 Development proposals for the area
should be in the form of Planned Unit Developments to
provide flexibility in project design and design review
The areas identified for Low -density Single Family land use
will extend existing land uses from the City Limits to Long Lake
Creek that bisects the planning area from north to south The
creek corridor will provide a transition between new land uses
and the existing larger -lot areas to the west While the
proposed land use designation is a higher density than the
existing Rural Residential land uses it is a relatively low urban
density and should be compatible with existing uses to the
west of the creek The new low -density single-family areas
should also be compatible with existing urban developed areas
to the east
Two areas identified for Low -density Single Family are located
at the western corners of the planning area These areas are
adjacent to CR 15 at CR 12 and Boutwell Road The two sites
are adjacent Setters Glen and Liberty commercial
The designation of the land uses will allow for a range of
housing types and help the City to meet its housing goals
Low- density Single Family development may include either
clustered attached and single lot detached single-family
housing
The proposed densities allows for "clustering' of units on sites
to protect natural resources
1 Net developable land equals total acreage minus roads,
wetlands and steeply sloped area
Cory of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
9
16.923
14.322
Boutwell South Planning Area
Proposed Land Uses and Acreage
0 800
Feet
Land Use
City Public Works Facility
Park / Open Space / Cemetery
Rural Residential
Single Family / Low Density
800
Figure 2
kJBonestroo
ODERosene
ilAnderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
\510\51001109\cad\gis\luse.apr June 2002
The distribution and amount of land designated for each land
use type in the Boutwell South Area is as follows
Rural Residential (1 DU/2 5 AC) 167 acres
Single Family, Low -density (3 DU/Net Ac) 120 acres
Parks/open space/wetlands 48 acres
City (Public Works Bldg) 17 acres
TOTAL 352 acres
Recommendation 3 Annexation and development of
lands in the South of Boutwell Planning area should not
occur until a specific Neal Avenue connection location
and design has been determined The Planning
Commission continues to recommend that Neal Avenue
be extended from Boutwell Road and connected at
Northland Avenue They continue to have concerns for
allowing discretionary Phase IV development before
Manning Avenue (Washington County) and Boutwell Road
improvements are made
B Roadways
Recommendation 3 Neal Avenue should be extended
from Boutwell to County Road 12 and ►ntersect County
Road 12 at Northland
Further study is necessary to ensure that Neal traffic does not
significantly impact the Croixwood neighborhood Because
the land on the north side of CR 12 across from Northland is
not in the City and this property owner is not currently
interested in annexing to the City it may be some time before
the street improvement is possible
It is further recommended that Neal Avenue between Boutwell
and CR12, it be designed as a parkway with landscaped
median, larger building setbacks and trails The street should
be designed to fit into the landscape with gradual turns with
access to local streets The road design could also
incorporate stormwater management measures
Washington County strongly supports a Neal connection to CR
12 at Northland for traffic management reasons (Washington
County controls access to CR 12 and have purchased access
rights along that stretch of road)
Recommendation 4 The Boutwell-County Road 12
intersection should be studies with the extension of Neal
Avenue
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
10
Possible improvements include turn control The expansion
area transportation plan recommended limiting left turn
movements from Boutwell to Cr 12 when Neal is connected to
CR 12
Boutwell Road
The City of Stillwater has scheduled improvements for
Boutwell Road to be completed by 2005, including a new 26'
roadway and trail in the existing right of way The complete
Expansion Area Transportation Study is attached along with
the City Council recommendations
Traffic Analysis
The new Low -density Single Family land use areas proposed
in this plan could generate up to 3,445 total daily trips on area
roads, if the 120 acres are fully developed at the maximum 3
units per net developable acre
The number of trips would be well within the capacity of
existing area roadways, particularly when Manning Avenue
(County 15) is upgraded, and planned improvements have
been completed to Boutwell Road County 15 in this area
currently carries nearly 14,000 trips on an average weekday
Washington County noted that the combination of new traffic
from the Boutwell South Area with new traffic from the Settler's
Glen development north of Boutwell may create traffic
problems and delays at intersections (Boutwell/Manning and
County 12/Manning) The County has indicated that a new
traffic signal at the County 12/Manning intersection is likely,
though no specific plan has been proposed (the project may
be constructed in 2006) During discussions related to this
plan, the County indicated that it may consider addition of a
traffic signal at the Boutwell/County Road 15 intersection as
well, subject to the standards of the County's Traffic Signal
Ranking System and its cost participation policies
County 15 will be the focus of many of the work and shopping -
related trips from the new residential areas The City will
construct a new Frontage Road (extension of Curve Crest
Boulevard) from the intersection of County 15 and 62"d Street,
parallel to Highway 36, to the Curve Crest intersection at
County 5, as development occurs in the area along Highway
36 This will provide a convenient connection for residents
from the Settler's Glen and Boutwell South Areas to this retail
area (See map Concept Plan for 62"d Street Frontage Road
in the Attachments )
Cary of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
11
Ke-T M
I
Test,) 1 T° 1412A1 i.. UNPef,P
p
10IJf1rlU1-L 5aU1'+} -RAHNiNqAF6A— N�AI.,�,tvKvq,A; GoNc,gt'r MgtgN
1T
Iv9 7x.6" 1;4.
4451A10
{ cry
.4Q1,11
Vie
Y�!
0,11)
1,,(Jf 11 , Y
rt,r ' "
r % , 4} � , } �,1,,4 � J� `rs firr,,
ij1 S 1 � �v4 � f Y r is
� �j 1,t5j1 +.fC � f 1 tt r L E tt Itl q/° J r �jj �
1 ��r�llryry {7 t(h,1 r1 A�{ oaf. 4u7� ) r11ti_11 .`i,n;li •'11�}�wy �+1�Y�.11..M11
t (�,etit �11 C'` 4l a >I +l.Yjj tr
f k, %I ,.r, aht A),1...7 0 � 1 • ✓ r>po'•'"F, S4�f�NtX�1{`h
0,7
t'
• �P"� �Lti J. 1
111t'�= {I//414�' Jh• ••y 41 +.T1 1t t..t)t_+A/11,4
1 I..i�"•lA x �`I�� �P. Lu1• �i delh t\ �dl! fS.
'Y14 f1 �,441
'I St r ;.d 'Ir 1 e,ptj� r 01
arl i�rlVl.LM�Iy� 3 �f'�y� i
• 1r 1.t
0
z
A
01 c:1 Il LWATER
flnneem of
Rosen(
_111y 14n(1r rllf, R.
1111 A or,
, 1..1 J11«
1 t L!
1. Is 1. Ma
na v v Iw
1 A1111/1 (!Huff ,11t1 1...1 ruin w7Lon 41 A/ 1,14 hlllbll 51lror
ati M 4.II114 V/ t . the If salt U 14d1.1 44441115401 - -
1 1 r. I W n l , 1,1 17 1 n/,.. \.IN. 1.d 41 A
l L 11 11A J r-
t1 h1r..lA
Trips that do not use County 15 will be dispersed among other
area roadways —primarily Boutwell Road and County 12 and
Deerpath and Brick Street (see attached Expansion Area
Traffic Study for comprehensive discussion of expansion area
traffic)
Trails
Recommendation 5 Trails should be developed in the
study area as shown on Figures 1 and 6, and include the
following
• East side of Manning Avenue
• North side of Boutwell Road
• South side of County Road 12 (existing)
• Brown's Creek tnbutanes connecting with existing
trails to the Brown's Creek Open Space site and Long
Lake
• Proposed Neal Avenue connection
Recommendation 6 An underpass should complete the
trail connection under County Road 12 near Northland
Avenue The underpass is proposed to allow a safe crossing
to the park and elementary school on the south side of County
Road 12 The exact location of the underpass will be
determined in the future, and will depend on potential
alteration of the grade of County Road 12 and soils in the
area The County has indicated strong support for this
underpass (letter dated July 2, 2002)
Trails should be physically separated from roadways to
provide a safe and pleasant experience for trail users
The route of an historic trolley route from Como Lake in St
Paul to Stillwater is still visible within the study area and in
other portions of Washington County Consideration should
be given to preservation and use of this feature particularly if it
can be used to make trail or habitat connections to other areas
within the County
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
12
C Stormwater Management
Recommendation 7 The two existing landlocked
depressions within the planning area should be used to
provide flood control for the surrounding development
and moderate water level fluctuations Outlets are
recommended for both depressions The City will require
developers to provide water quality ponds, use infiltration or
filtration strategies, or other feasible management strategies to
provide water quality treatment within local development sites
and to control volumes and rates of flow to protect the
functions of these two regional ponds
Recommendation 8 When Boutwell Road is
reconstructed, the roadway and culverts should be
constructed as described in the analysis below, to prevent
flooding of Boutwell Road
Stormwater Analysis
The Boutwell South Area includes subdistncts S208, S209
and S206 of the Stillwater Drainage District described in the
1997 Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Figure 5
identified the boundaries of these subdistncts When the
AUAR analysis was completed, these subdistncts were
proposed to remain in rural residential land uses (1 unit per 2 5
acres) through the year 2015 This plan suggests that portions
of the area be designated for Low Density Single Family uses
at a density of up to 3 units per acre The change in proposed
densities requires that the AUAR analysis be reviewed,
potential impacts identified, and recommendations developed
to avoid or mitigate for potential impacts
The AUAR proposed to avoid impacts of proposed
development in the Stillwater Annexation Area by diverting
storm water away from Brown's Creek, a state -designated
trout stream, to McKusick Lake and a ravine downstream The
diversion system included in the AUAR Mitigation Plan was
sized to divert 100 percent of the runoff from events up to a 3-
inch, 24-hour event The recommendations for the Boutwell
South Planning Area include the rate control necessary to
maintain the storm water management goals of the AUAR
Mitigation Plan
Stormwater Analysis Assumptions
During development of this plan, the drainage system for the
area was reviewed from a regional perspective In modeling
the subwatersheds in the Boutwell South Area, two
assumptions were made
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
13
West Crossing
East Crossincr
•
• ' • I
ILEVENED)
•
Redevelopment locations
I4ajor Watershed Boundary
Pipe
Regional Pond
BOUTWELL SOUTH PLANNING AREA - SURFACE WATER ELEMENTS
1 7-Y 0 3TLLWATER
• ,
' \
/1."•• . \
•// ..-•••
A ...•
"_.:' —9 ',--'•— > • -.1.---....
.
— :Is
: ._,... - _ -
_,__a_ .,__, :,› .. • .....-
-. .• .,,,-,--_.,.._ .-r?,,
‘ ...„...--••••.41;?"... 7 > . '1'17
,....,-',... .
•—• a
.e-
tr- ,.. • - • 1 ,..._,, ---- i---, ., C$:1, r
- : --••-• ....-e--;.-..1 • t„,.- A.: •-•-• .a...-
.. _, \ •
LQ1,-, •••' • -•,-- •
"-I-
,....,,,-
.•-•.
P 1 -:-. 1.411 ',C _ , :: ....11';' ...'' . 1:,. : -I' ::. :: 11: 1 1. - - - '1: -1; ''.: : r r7:::3- - - — ••• (1: : :QI - . '
. --'—t • . -2
\*J:1: •:-,-.('-' - - - - .,. 55- FA
°,'Z.:__-•,< • . ! t
;-..\;‘:.1
'-? \ ", ' ' • _ (,>•;. : -.1"..
'—' - 1 ', d •,- _.,
----...,.. / • .!...:
• %."-•••'.J
13m-J4
,,s(‘\%•
/I/
,/
▪ fr-1/
H
0 •\,600
Scale in feet
FIGURE 5
1200
1 A3J-3-;
• •
1 433J:137:
• ;•
I -.-
I:\510\51 001 1 09 \CAD\DWG\51 001 1090152.0\NC
1 Development of the Boutwell South area was
assumed to occur at the maximum proposed
densities
2 The contributions of local water quality/quantity
ponds or infiltration approaches within local
development sites were not included Only the
completed retention ponds in the Public Works
Facility have been modeled Therefore the
results are conservative
Subdistrict S208 Recommendations
There are two landlocked depressions within S208 The
Tables and accompanying text below summarize the analysis
completed to identify impacts to these ponds from the
development proposed in the Boutwell South Area To provide
flood control for the surrounding development and moderate
water level fluctuation, outlets are recommended for both
depressions
The change in proposed land uses (represented by the curve
number on the tables) is associated with only a minor change
in High Water Level from the existing conditions for the two
depressions This is due to the addition of the outlets Table
3 provides the summary of the proposed pond
characteristics
Regional Pond S-P208 1 The farthest upstream depression
designated S-P208 1, has the following characteristics
• Drainage area = 24 75 acres
• Surface area at NWL (903 2' based on 1996 aerial
topography) = 0 72 acres
• Estimated existing watershed curve number = 65
• Proposed watershed curve number = 75
• Proposed outlet to be restricted by a 6-inch orifice
• Table 1 provides HWL comparisons between
existing and proposed conditions (assuming a
starting water surface elevation of 903 2 )
Table 1 - Rei,onal Pond S-P208 1
Storm Event
(24-hour)
Existing
HWL
Proposed
HWL
1-year
903 9
904 0
2-year
9043
9043
100-year
9071
907 2
Regional Pond S-P208 2 The outlet from regional
pond S-P208 1 was routed downstream to depression
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
14
S-P208 2 The drainage characteristics of S-P208 2
are as follows
• Drainage area = 19 66 acres
• Surface area at NWL (896 0' based on 1996
aerial topography) = 0 41 acres
• Existing watershed curve number = 65
• Proposed watershed curve number = 75
• Proposed outlet to restricted by an 8-inch orifice
• Table 2 provides HWL comparisons between
existing and proposed conditions (assuming a
starting water surface elevation of 896')
Table 2 - Re_aional Pond S-P208 2
Storm Event
(24-hour)
Existing
HWL
Proposed
HWL
1-year
896
8
897
3
2-year
897
1
897
8
100-year
900
3
901
1
Table 3- Pond S-P208 1& S-P208 2 Summa
Pond
NWL
100-Year HWL
Peak
Discharge
(cfs)
Storage
Volume (acre
feet)
S-P208 1
903
2
907
2
1
8
4
9
S-P208 2
896
0
901
1
2
1
5
0
Boutwell Road Recommendations
Boutwell Road frequently floods where the road
crosses two channels The road is expected to be
rebuilt in the near future due to its age and condition
There are two primary culvert crossings along Boutwell
that were evaluated in this study The west crossing
occurs in subdistrict S206, the east crossing in
subdistrict S209
The 1997 AUAR Feasibility Study recommended
improvements for flood protection at these culvert
crossings These recommendations were re-evaluated
and have been revised as discussed below The
revised recommendations were developed to restrict
flow rates under Boutwell Road, to provide a system
that meets the AUAR mitigation strategy The Boutwell
Road improvements are needed regardless of the
Czry of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
15
potential for redevelopment upstream of Boutwell
Road
Boutwell Road East Boutwell Road east
crossing receives flows from its direct drainage
area (subdistrict S209), Long Lake channel,
and subdistrict S208 The proposed culvert is a
36-inch pipe (estimated upstream invert 879 0)
The modeled 100-year storm HWL along the
road is 883 0 , with a peak flow of 53 cfs The
existing road elevation of 885 6' provides
sufficient freeboard
Boutwell Road West Boutwell Road west
crossing receives flow from subdistrict S206
and areas in Stillwater south of CSAH 12 and
from the City of Grant (west of Manning Ave )
This road crossing is the most susceptible to
flooding due to its low profile at the crossing
and insufficient culvert capacity One 36-inch
and two 24-inch culverts at staggered
elevations are recommended
The 36-inch outlet is proposed to convey
channel flow (estimated upstream invert
elevation = 878 5) The 36-inch culvert will
provide rate control for the 3-year and smaller
storm events The two 24-inch outlets with
upstream invert elevation of 881 0' will be used
only during high flow events The modeled
100-year storm HWL along the road is 885 6',
with a peak flow of 126 cfs The HWL and peak
discharge assumes ponding in Grant as
proposed in the AUAR Without ponding in
Grant the HWL will rise to 888 9 feet (unless the
road is allowed to flood periodically, though at a
lower frequency, or additional culverts are
added)
The existing road has a low point elevation of
882 9 feet The road profile will need to be
raised to provide flood storage volume
upstream of the road cover over the proposed
culverts and freeboard protection for the road
The recommendations for Boutwell Road may
be modified when Boutwell Road is
reconstructed As stated previously the
recommendations assume a conservative
scenario were future local water quantity and
quality ponds within the redevelopment areas
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
16
directly draining to the road crossings were not
taken into account
Integration of Storm Water and Circulation Systems
The location and design of infrastructure systems in the
Boutwell South area provides opportunities to create
connections and amenities that will add value to the area
Figure 6 suggests a conceptual design for the Neal Avenue
extension and adjacent storm water facilities as a prairie
parkway that showcases the character of the local landscape
connects wetland and upland habitat patches, and provides
areas for storm water management and recreation
The concept design includes the following
• A curved parkway that emphasizes the rolling
nature of the landscape, and provides views of the
ponds, and upland open space areas The curves
and plantings could be designed to reduce speeds
on the parkway
• A wide boulevard along the parkway with groups of
trees and wide swales planted with native grasses
and wildflowers The swales may be used to
infiltrate storm water runoff from the roadway and
adjacent areas
• Ponds planted with native wetland and meadow
plants, and preservation of existing wooded areas
that serve storm water management and habitat
functions
• Open space areas that provide opportunities for
passive recreation and casual play
• A recreational trail that connects the proposed trail
on Boutwell Road with the existing trail on County
Road 12 The proposed underpass for trail
connections under County 12 is just west of the
proposed parkway
Design elements of the parkway, such as curves and
plantings, could be continued along new residential streets in
the Boutwell South area, to emphasize the character of the
local landscape and give the area a unique signature among
Stillwater neighborhoods
D Sewer and Water Services
Recommendation 9 City sewer and water services should
be provided to the areas proposed for Single Family land
uses in this plan The areas in the eastern half of the
Boutwell South area can be served from existing City services
at the current Neal-Boutwell Avenue intersection
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
17
69 vm. 6
Neill- PArkw
M°►IO 5lldgbMID i'V9lAC. -opF.N 6fAcA
•
11
FiLorow, -rpm L. uNcer-47,60
itpitie AVE,
*431144C)J-L sa Ind 171ANN Ili q Ar-6A - NEA0-'reer-tkvik; cortalo- 37 -tgN
Areas in the western half of the Boutwell South area that are
proposed for Single Family land uses can be served from
existing service lines to the north or south
City service capacity is available to meet demands estimated
for the proposed land uses in this area
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
18
IV Implementation
This plan will be implemented over time Timing will be based
on landowner interest, availability of services and public
improvements, market demand for development and City
ability to accommodate development Steps needed to
implement the plan include the following
Land Use
• Apply for annexation to the City Annexation requests
should be accompanied by Planned Unit Development
concept
• If annexation is approved the property is annexed with
Agricultural Preserve zoning designation
• Make application to re -zone the property Re -zoning
must be approved by the Planning Commission Joint
Board, and City Council consistent with area plan land
use and PUD
• Phase III expansion area development should direct
access and traffic, to the maximum extent, through
road design and location to TH 96 and CR 15
Roadway, Utility and Stormwater Improvements
• Neal Parkway between Boutwell Road and CR 12 may
be developed in phases based on the timing of
development on various parcels in the Boutwell South
Area
• City presents proposed Neal Parkway design, including
connections to CSAH 12, to the County The City
coordinates with the County to complete final designs
• Public hearing scheduled with area residents to
discuss proposed changes to CSAH 12 including
access changes at Northland Avenue
• County Board must approve connection to CSAH 12
• Boutwell Road and related trail and stormwater
improvements completed by the City in 2005-2006
This may include reconfiguration of Boutwell/County 12
intersection
• Regional ponds and local storm water management
strategies are designed as part of the PUD process,
and implemented as development occurs
• County completes improvements to County Road 15
from TH 36 to CR 12 (2007)
Trails
• Trails are completed as development occurs The
City and County may participate in development of
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
19
some trails and in completion of the underpass at
County Road 12
Crty ofStillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
20
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Approved Expansion Area Study
Recommendation City Council, April 20, 2004
Attachment B Washington County Public Works
Letters regarding CR 12 and Boutwell South Area
Plan (July 29, 2002 and August 23, 2002)
Attachment C North 62nd Planning Area Concept
Plan (Curve Crest Extension to CR 15)
Attachment D Boutwell Area Transportation Study,
November 12, 2003
City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan
21
Attachment A
City of Stillwater City Council Minutes
April 20, 2004
Motion by Councilmember Knesel, seconded by Councilmember Rheinberger to
make Deerpath right out only onto Olive Street, make Brick Street the collector
street and upgraded, and have further study done on the intersection of Neal
Avenue at County Road 12, along with other intersections along County Road
12
Ayes Councilmembers Knesel, Milbrandt, Rheinberger, and Mayor Kimble
Nays Councilmember Junker
Motion by Councilmember Milbrandt, seconded by Councilmember Knesel
directing staff to implement the SRF Consulting Short Range Recommendations
1) Encourage the development teams to orient planned streets and access points
to encourage new development generated traffic to use Manning Avenue 3) The
agencies should work together to manage access to Manning Avenue between
Highway 36 and Highway 96 and actively support improvements that provide a
high level of mobility on this important arterial facility 4) The City should actively
work with Stillwater Township to plan for and implement a north frontage road
connection along Highway 36 between Manning Avenue and Stillwater
Boulevard The frontage road should be implemented as soon as possible and
be designed to a minimum of 35 MPH All in favor
WASHINGTON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
& PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH $JILWA.TER MINNESOTA 55082 9573
651-430-4300 acsFie a hwife. 651-430-4350 ,
ZOO?.
July 29, 2002
Steve Russell
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
216 N 4t St
Stillwater, MN 55082
BOUTWELL SOUTH AREA PLAN
Dear Steve
PC) rr
8CI1'S� Ab`'J�ra-
p,41fi C -
Donald C Wis Attachment l
Director
Donald J Theisen, P E
Deputy Director/County Eng
James D Luger RLA
Parks Director
Virginia S Chace
Administrative Services Division Manager
Lary S Nybeck, PLS-County Surveyor
Deputy Director Survey and Land
Management Division
Marvin Erickson
Facilities Manager
We appreciate your, Klayton's, and the City's consultants' time in meeting with us on July 23rd to
discuss the Draft Boutwell South Area Plan Draft Report With the Stillwater City and Township Joint
Board's approval of the Draft Report on July 24th, we want to provide you with our comments on this
report and the recommended Neal Avenue alignment as the City Council considers final approval
This area has several challenges for providing a local road system that works with our County
highway system These include vertical grades, current City street spacing, current traffic patterns
and their affect on neighborhoods, and adjacent properties that will develop in different timeframes
We all know that traffic on City streets and along County State Aid Highway 12 (CSAH 12) will only
increase with time While neither the amount nor the pace of this increase is exactly known,
planning for this increase in this difficult area is needed
The County's investment in access control when CSAH 12 was constructed in the mid -seventies
was a step to assist in the future planning of developments The existing access openings on the
north side of CSAH 12 are generally 30 feet wide and, therefore, do not accommodate a City street
There is no access opening that aligns with the proposed Neal Avenue connection Any changes to
this access control will require County Board approval
We appreciate that the proposed alignment of Neal Avenue addresses some local concems
However, transfemng or creating problems on the regional highway system to adaress local
concems is not reasonable We know from our expenence in operating our highway system that the
proposed location for connecting Neal Avenue to CSAH 12 will create operational problems on the
County highway There simply is not enough length between the adjacent intersections (Northland
Avenue and Maryknoll Dnve) to develop appropnate left tum lanes It would be irresponsible for us
to allow construction of an intersection that will create a situation that affects the safety of current
and future highway users
While further analysis is needed, the proposed Neal Avenue connection location may be acceptable
if Northland Avenue and possibly Maryknoll Dnve are restncted to nght-in/nght-out movement only
This would require a raised median on CSAH 12 The County does not have any project
programmed or funds available in the current Capital Improvement Program for this work We
would expect that the development creating the need for this improvement would bear the cost of
the needed work
WASHINGTON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
& PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 9573
651-430-4300 Facsimile Machine 651-430-4350
August 23, 2002
Shern Buss
BRAA, Inc
2335 W Highway 36
St Paul, MN 55113
BOUTWELL SOUTH AREA PLAN DRAFT REPORT- AUGUST 2002
Dear Sherri
Donald C Wisniewskr P E
Director
Donald J Theisen P E
Deputy Director/County Eng neer
James 0 Luger RLA
Parks Director
Virginia S Chace
Administrative Services Division Manager
Larry S Nybeck, PLS-County Surveyor
Deputy Director Survey and Land
Management Division
Marvin Enckson
Facilities Manager
We have reviewed the latest draft of the Boutwell South area Plan and generally feel that it fairly
represents the County's positions We do have several comments
• Section II Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways, Streets, and Trails- Manning
Avenue- We suggest changing the term "stoplight" to "traffic signal" The reference to a
temporary traffic signal at the BoutwelVManning intersection could be misconstrued- it is too
late to add that to the tum lane project but one could be considered at that intersection if
signal warrants are met We plan to add that intersection to our Traffic Signal Ranking
System but would not ordinanly install a signal until the conditions at the intersection place it
in a position in the rankings to get funding At that time a signal would be installed in
accordance with our cost participation policies Realistically, it could be many years before
this intersection would nse high enough in the rankings to be funded Also, the last
sentence in the Manning Avenue section contains a typo and it could be clearer- the earliest
that we could get federal funding for an upgrade of Manning Avenue north of CSAH 12 is
2008
• Section II Existing Conditions and Issues, Existing Traffic -The frustration expressed by
local residents about poor circulation and about increased traffic on Northland and Maryknoll
illustrates a classic sense of frustration of residents in growing areas- they can't have it both
ways Good circulation will, in most cases, increase traffic Nevertheless, we do not feel
that aligning a Neal Avenue connection to CSAH 12 with either Northland or Maryknoll will
lead to significant cut -through traffic- the routes are simply too circuitous We feel that it is
necessary to align Neal Avenue with an existing street to create a safe intersection Our
collective opinion is that nearly all of the dnvers wishing to go to the commercial areas
around County Road 5 and Highway 36 will use Deer Path as a cut -through route as dnvers
are doing today We feel that development of the Boutwell South area will increase traffic on
Deer Path significantly because that is the shortest, most direct route and that dnvers will not
choose Maryknoll or Northland because they are longer and Tess direct
• Section IV Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area B Roadways,
Recommendation 3 Neal Avenue should be extended to County Road 12 midway
between Northland and Maryknoll Avenues - As we have discussed, since the nght of
Page two
Letter to Shem Buss — Boutwell
August 23, 2002
way of CSAH 12 includes access control, approval of the County Board is required for any >1
connection to be made in the access controlled portion Our discussions of medians
centered on raised medians creating a physical bamer to prohibited turning movements and,
therefore, being the only way to enforce 'nght-in/nght-out' restnctions It would be difficult
and very expensive to design medians that effectively limit movements and allow a safe
location for the inevitable U-tums that will occur Moreover, the restnction of Northland,
Maryknoll or both to nght-in/nght-out movements would likely be very unpopular with the
residents of those streets Under some conditions, we might be able to recommend a plan
such as this to the Board, but we feel that lining the Neal Avenue connection up with either
Northland or Maryknoll is very important Under any circumstance we could not allow
restnction of the streets to the south without a public heanng
• Section IV Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area B Roadways,
Recommendation 3 Neal Avenue should be extended to County Road 12 midway
between Northland and Maryknoll Avenues - The comments on lowered speed limits in
this section are speculative and may give residents who view speeds as too high a false
sense that development along CSAH 12 will lower the speed limit when that is rarely the
case In any event lowered speed limits do not correlate to increased access
• Section IV Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area B Roadways,
Recommendation 3 Neal Avenue should be extended to County Road 12 midway
between Northland and Maryknoll Avenues - The City's recommendations for the
recommended Neal Avenue alignment are illogical Access to collector roads would be
better if intersections with the artenal road (CSAH 12) were consolidated at fewer
intersections This plan does not consolidate access, it spreads it out to more locations than
necessary and more than can safely be accommodated Fewer intersections along the
artenal would reduce the number of turning movements necessary to get on and off of the
artenal and the intersections could be controlled with traffic signals or all -way stop signs, if
necessary The recommended alignment will result in more intersections, none of them
easily controlled The mid -point location of Neal Avenue would not necessarily spread
traffic among the residential streets to the south since few of them offer a direct route
anywhere- it would likely perpetuate the already contentious cut -through traffic on Deer Path
• Section IV Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area B Roadways,
Recommendation 4 The Boutwell-County Road 12 intersection should be modified to
improve safety Traffic Analysis- The comments on traffic signals at the CSAH 12/15
intersection and at the CSAH 15/Boutwell intersection should be clanfied It is highly likely
that the reconstruction plans for CSAH 15 will include a traffic signal at CSAH 12, but
nothing specific has yet been proposed It is certainly an option and very likely, but at this
time, there are no plans A signal at CSAH 15/Boutwell intersection is a possibility, but it
would be treated as all other County road intersections are- it would be subject to the
standards of the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System and our cost participation policies
• Section IV Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area B Roadways,
Recommendation 4 The Boutwell-County Road 12 intersection should be modified to
improve safety Traffic Analysis- We disagree somewhat with the wording of the section
that states that, "The proposed alignment for the Neal Avenue connection to County 12 at a
point midway between residential streets to the south, to encourage the use of County 15
and disperse traffic among other streets, rather than creating a direct connection and higher
Page three
Letter to Shem Buss — Boutwell
August 23, 2002
traffic volumes on residential streets to the south " This sentence is grammatically unclear
and suggests that dnvers will continue south through any street that lines up with Neal
Avenue, whether it is a direct route to any destination or not Very few dnvers will cut
through residential areas unless they find that it is a quicker route to their destination
Neither Northland nor Maryknoll is an efficient route to anywhere but the residential areas
that surround them
• Section IV Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area B Roadways,
Recommendation 4 The Boutwell-County Road 12 intersection should be modified to
improve safety Traffic Analysis- The final bullet in this section contains a typo and we
also disagree with its content We feel that development of the Boutwell South area will
have minimal traffic impact on Maryknoll Avenue and Northland Avenue, but will perpetuate
the pattern of dnvers using Deer Path as a cut -through route
We appreciate your efforts to include our comments in the report I hope that these comments
clanfy the County's positions Please call me at 651-430-4312 if you have any questions or
comments
Sincerely,
1seph Lux
Senior Transportation Planner
c Steve Russell Stillwater Community Development Director
Klayton Eckles, Stillwater City Engineer
Don Theisen, County Engineer/Transportation Division Director
Wally Abrahamson Washington County Commissioner, Distnct 3
Jim Schug, Washington County Administrator
MAUSERS\PWUR.UXWORD\Plat Review- Sh7twater'Boutwe0 South August 2002 Drandoc
100 (R STORM
SEWER PIPE
AND OVERFLOW
CHANNEL
— -TRAIL — _
3
O
u
GREEI\IWAY
CORRIDOR
OPTION 3
CAMPUS RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 36
STI LLWATE R, MN
NORTH 62ND PLANNING AREA CONCEPT PLANS
OUSErC-0131 E
VEDES
Bonestroo
OEMRosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Eng nears & Architects
Attachment C
-
RI NI
CONSULTING G ROUP,
Study Area Recommendations
Short Ran ecommendations
Encourage the development teams to orient planned streets and access points to encourage new + eve opment
generated traffic to use Manning Avenue.
2. Encourage the development teams to connect Neal Avenue at the existing intersection of County Road 12 and
Northland Avenue and at Boutwell Road.
3. The agencies should work together to manage access to Manning Avenue between Highway 36 and Highway 96
and actively support improvements that provide a high level of mobility on this important arterial facility.
4. The City should actively work with Stillwater Township to plan for and implement a north frontage road
connection along Highway 36 between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard. The frontage road should be
implemented as soon as possible and be designed to a minimum of 35 MPH.
5. The City should consider closing Deer Path at County Road 12/Myrtle Street to eliminate excessive "through"
traffic on a narrower local neighborhood street with many driveway access points, short setbacks and no sidewalk.
6. The City should consider designation of Brick Street as a collector street with a long range goal of reconstruction
to shift the roadway to the west within the existing right-of-way plus add sidewalk, boulevard landscaping and
screening, protected parking bays and driveway turn -a -rounds. This provides for increased safety and places
higher volumes on a wider less developed street.
7. The City should consider designation of Brick Street as part of their Municipal State Aid System to enhance the
funding options available to implement the improvements to Brick Street.
8. If traffic is shifted to Brick Street the County should install All -Way Stop Sign Control at the Brick Street
intersections with Myrtle Street and Olive Street.
9. The City should monitor traffic conditions on Maryknoll Drive/Oak Ridge Road, Northland Avenue/Croixwood
Boulevard, Neal Avenue, Boutwell Road and consider traffic calming measures should the volume and speed of
traffic on these roadways become a concern.
Stud Area Recommendations
Long ange Recommen 1 ations
1. Once the Neal Avenue connection between Boutwell Road and County Road 12 is
implemented the County should consider restricting the intersection of County Road
12 and Boutwell Road to a Right-In/Right-Out Only intersection. This
recommendation is made to improve safety due to poor sight distance and intersection
geometrics issues at this existing intersection.
2. The County should consider installation of Traffic Signal Control at the Brick Street
intersections with Myrtle Street and Olive Street when conditions justify this traffic
control.
3. Mn/DOT and the County could consider future reconstruction of the intersection areas of
TH 96 at County Roads 15 and County Roads 5/55 to provide Modern Roundabout
intersections.
4. The County should consider a follow-on traffic study to consider future traffic signal
control and evaluate the need for geometric and/or lane use improvements at the
intersection of Myrtle Street and Owens Street.
5. The County and City should work together to improve West Olive Street (add off-
street sidewalk/trail and other possible roadway improvements) from southwest of
Deer Path to Brick Street.