HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-08 CPC Packetr e'`
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
February 3, 1993
THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1993
AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET.
AGENDA
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: DOROTHY FOSTER AND KIRK ROETMAN.
Approval of Minutes - January 11, 1993.
AGENDA
1. Case No. SUP/93-6 - A Special Use Permit for a 2,400 square foot expansion
of the deck at the Freight House for placement of a temporary tent
structure. The property is located at 305 South Water Street in the CBD,
Central Business District. Todd Weiss, Applicant.
2. Case No. V/93-8 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for the placement of a
three foot by six foot lighted marque sign. The property is located at 920
West Olive Street (Nelson's Ice Cream Store) in the RB, Two Family
Residential District. Robert C. Pasket, Applicant.
3. Case No. SUP/93-9 - A Special Use Permit to conduct a beauty salon business
(nails only) in a residential structure at 121 South Owens Street in the
RB, Two Family Residential District. Heidi B. Colleran, Applicant.
4. Case No. V/93-10 - A Variance to the Parking Ordinance for an 850 square
foot restaurant use in an existing structure at 317 South Main Street
(River Exchange Building). The property is located in the CBD, Central
Business District. Scott A. Zahren, Applicant.
5. Case No. SV/92-58 - A Street Vacation for a fifty foot section of
Meadowlark Drive between North Sherburne Street and South Center Street in
the RB, Two Family Residential District. Madeline S. Connelly, Applicant.
6. Case No. SUB/93-11 - A
Minor Subdivision of
a 1.26 acre vacant
parcel of
land known as Lots 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, and 13,
Block 14, Sabin's
addition
into three (3) separate
parcels. The property
is located west of
Sherburne
Street and north of West Linden Street in the
RB, Two Family Residential
District. Doug and Mary
Christensen, Ron and
Eloise Zaniewski
and Agnes
Mowry, Applicants.
7. Case No. V/93-12 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for the placement of a
fifty square foot free-standing sign, twenty feet in height, at 2289
Croixwood Boulevard (Brooks Food Market). The property is located in the
CA, General Commercial District. Suburban Lighting, Applicant.
OTHER BUSINESS
- comprehensive Plan Update.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
IW,74
--MAP
STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: January 11, 1993
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman
Angela Anderson, Gene Bealka, Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott,
Gary Funke, Rob Hamlin, and Don Valsvik.
NOT PRESENT: Darwin Wald.
ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Charles Hooley, Steve Russell, Community Development
Director and Ann Pung-Terwedo, City Planner/Substitute
Secretary.
Motion by Gene Bealka, seconded by Don Valsvik to approve the minutes of
December 14, 1992, as submitted. Carried 8-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CASE NO. V/91-51 - A Variance to the placement of two signs which include a
48 square foot free-standing sign and a 16 square foot wall sign at 14460
North 60th Street (Goodwill Store). The property is located in the BP-C,
Business Park Commercial District. Scenic Sign Corporation, Applicant.
Bob Rubert, representing Scenic Sign Corporation, presented the case. Mr.
Rubert stated the Ordinance only allows for one sign and he needs two signs.
The colors of the signs will be blue and white. The total sign area on the
pylon sign will be reduced significantly.
Rob Hamlin stated that we do have sign regulations. The Zoning Ordinance is
supposed to regulate newer sign proposals. He also asked if the sign could be
moved back to 15 feet. Mr. Rubert responded stating the sign would then
infringe on the parking and landscape area. It would cost $3,500-$4,000 to
move the sign to a new location.
Don Valsvik made a motion to approve the signage as proposed for Case No.
V/93-1 with a condition:
1. The pylon sign area for all signage for the whole building (all
occupants) shall not exceed 100 square feet.
Seconded by Glenna Bealka. Carried 8-0.
2. CASE NO. V/93-2 - A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for an existing fence
which exceeds the six foot maximum and exceeds a previous Variance granted for
an eight foot fence (Case No. V/88-27). The property is located at 203 West
Hazel Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Richard Edstrom,
Applicant.
Julie Edstrom, representing the Edstrom family, was present. She stated that
when the Variance was granted, the frame was in place. The neighbor, Mr.
Kalish was supportive of the project at that time and stated his support in a
letter.
1
Ann Pung-Terwedo distributed a letter stating Allen Zepper, the Building
Official's, concerns regarding the fence proposal.
Julie Edstrom did agree that portions of the fence were above 92 feet.
Steve Russell distributed a letter from the neighbor, Mr. Kalish, requesting a
continuance on the case should there be any questions or other matters
relating to the case.
Julie Edstrom stated it would cost $2,000 to make the changes in the fence.
Mayor Hooley added that this fence has been in place for over four years.
Duane Elliott stated there is a difference between screening and blocking. Is
there some way to lower the fence on the east end towards the woods?
Mayor Hooley stated the City should not get in the middle of a dispute between
two neighbors who do not get along.
Gary Funke made a motion to approve Case No. V/93-2. Seconded by Gene Bealka.
Carried 6-2.
3. CASE NO. V/93-4 - A Variance to the Parking Ordinance for renovation of
a 3,200 square foot vacant second level of a commercial structure into a
retail space (Mid Town Antiques). The property is located at 214 South Main
Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Larry Martin, Applicant.
Mr. Martin, the building owner, was present.
Mr. Funke questioned where the parking would be located?
Mr. Martin stated he has more walk-in traffic at this location.
It was clarified by several Commission members that, if a ramp was built, some
downtown building owners would have to pay for parking. Mr. Martin concurred
with the Commission. He stated that the only alteration to be made on the
second level is an exit door as per the Building Code.
Gary Funke made a motion to approve the Case No. V/93-3. Seconded by Don
Valsvik. Carried 8-0.
4. CASE NO. V/93-4 - A Variance to the sideyard setback requirement for the
placement of an accessory structure (approximately two feet proposed, five
feet required) at 2304 Fairmeadows Road in the RA, Single Family Residential
District. Michael and Sandra Hudson, Applicants.
Mrs. Hudson stated the neighbors complained so she came in to secure a
Variance.
Phil Christman, neighbor, stated the structure was placed without their
knowledge. He felt the building should be moved. It is a nuisance.
2
Mr. Funke stated the Hudsons should get their money back and move the
structure by May 30, 1993.
Mr. Russell stated there were some costs incurred for hearing notices and
publications.
Gary Funke made a motion that the $70.00 costs should be reimbursed. No one
seconded the motion.
Rob Hamlin stated the fee should not be reimbursed.
Don Valsvik made a motion to approve the Variance until May 15. Seconded by
Gary Funke. Carried 8-0.
5. CASE NO. V/SUP/93-5 - A Special Use Permit and Variance for a 10,000
square foot expansion of the St. Croix Valley Clinic with at 29 foot setback
from Everett Street (30 feet required). The property is located at 921 South
Greeley Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. St. Croix Valley
Clinic, Applicant.
Peter Smith, BWBR Architects, presented the proposal. He stated the proposal
has been slightly changed to meet the 30 foot setback. The proposal includes
expansion of the administrative and examination area of the clinic. Some trees
would have to be removed.
The hospital expansion parking would have to be removed to accommodate the
parking.
The material of the expansion area would match the existing structure.
The forty-four car parking lot will be constructed across Everett Street.
Rosemary Jensen, 911 West Churchill, stated things have not been resolved
on the remaining homes. She has been trying to negotiate with the hospital
since last Summer. She is also concerned about the parking lot east of Everett
Street. She asked that the Planning Commission not approve the proposal until
negotiations to buy the remaining two homes on the block has been resolved.
Mr. Smith stated the clinic has not been involved in the negotiations.
Mr. Russell asked the Planning Commission that, when making a decision on this
project, the Planning Commission should look at the character of the
neighborhood.
Rob Hamlin stated a resolution should be made before the project is approved.
The clinic should find a mechanism to do the right thing.
Duane Elliott stated the hospital/clinic should move in good faith to purchase
the properties.
Rob Hamlin made a motion to deny the Special Use Permit request. Don Valsvik
seconded the motion with an addition that a resolution be made on the two
houses. Carried 8-0.
3
6. CASE NO. SUP/93-6 - A Special Use Permit for an 2,400 square foot
i
expanson o the eck at the Freight House for placement of a temporary tent
structure. The property is located at 305 South Water Street in the
CBD, Central Business District. Todd Weiss, Applicant.
Todd Weiss and Tim Stefan presented the proposal. Mr. Weiss presented the
proposal. Mr. Weiss stated the area will be used for expansion of the deck to
be used for banquet facilities.
Howard Lieberman, representing himself as a local resident and the Heritage
Preservation Commission, stated the tent is a temporary structure. It is
visible from the riverway and blocks many of our historic buildings in the
Downtown. The tent is obtrusive to the Freight House which is on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Rob Hamlin felt that live music outside may be an issue.
Don Valsvik made a motion to continue Case No. SUP/93-5 and send it back to
the Heritage Preservation Commission. &!ne Bealka seconded the motion. Carried
8-0.
Gary Funke stated the tent should be green or beige instead of white.
Rob Hamlin stated the Freight House draws a large number of people into this
area of the Downtown.
Gary Funke added that the project will improve the area.
Don Valsvik added that, even though the riverway regulations do not come into
play, the tent would have an impact.
Howard Leiberman added the tent is a permanent Summer structure and should be
looked at in that light. He felt there could be alternatives which should be
looked at.
Jerry Fontaine feels the proposal should go back to the Heritage Preservation
Commission on the aesthetics of the tent.
Don Valsvik made a motion to send the proposal back to the Heritage
Preservation Commission. Seconded by Glenna Bealka. Carried 8-0.
7. LEVEE WALL PROJECT
Ann Pung-Terwedo updated the Planning Commission one the Levee Wall/Expansion
funding sources. The Planning Commission reviewed a letter which will be
directed to State funding sources in support of the project.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Steve Russell presented the State Enabling Legislation for Comprehensive
Plans. He also reviewed the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework
prepared by the Metropolitan Council on Comprehensive Planning and the
Stillwater Township Comprehensive Plan.
4
Kathy Buck, Stillwater Township Board representative, was at the meeting
representing the board's interests. She felt the rural character of the area
is very important. The feeling of open space should be maintained at all
times.
Mr. Russell stated that, when looking at the area, wetlands, forest and hills
will be considered. Infrastructure expansion will be very important.
9. POLICY STATEMENT
Rob Hamlin presented a policy statement for consideration by the Planning
Commission. It basically states that public facility services will not
compete with private services.
Rob Hamlin made a motion to approve the policy statement as written with
recommendation to the City Council. Seconded by Duane Elliott. Carried 8-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Glenna Bealka made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Duane Elliott. Carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Pung-Terwedo
I
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/93-6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Project Location: 305 South
Comprehensive Plan District:
Zoning District: CBD
Applicant's Name: Todd Weiss
Type of Application: Special
February 8, 1993
Water Street
Central Business District
Use Permit
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
At ast months meeting, January 11, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposal and after considering the request, referred it back to the Design
Review Committee for additional design consideration. (The Staff report for
the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1993 and the Design Review
Committee recommendation from their meeting of February 1, 1993 is attached.)
Beside the concerns for project design added parking demand, use of the deck
and completion of the landscaping and trash area improvements were discussed
by the Commission. Parking is an issue in the Downtown and the added decking
will increase the problem to some extent. According to the City parking
requirements, twenty (20) additional spaces are required for the expanded use.
Three (3) spaces are being added by redesigning the parking lot to the south
of the Freight House.
The applicant indicated in the letter of application that the new deck space
would be used for group dining facilities to accommodate receptions, tour
groups, meetings and special events. The applicant indicates there is a need
for this type of facility. The use proposed does not include live
entertainment. A condition of approval is recommended clarifying that live
entertainment is not allowed outside of the Freight House building.
To clarify and ensure that other landscape, trash enclosure and utility
screening improvements are made, a condition of approval is proposed that
requires these improvements be completed before the deck is used.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1-.—There shall be no outside live entertainment from the Freight House
deck.
2. All landscaped area shall have an automated sprinkler system.
3. All landscaping shall be planted, the trash structure constructed and
rooftop utilities screened before the new extended deck is used.
4. The parking lot shall be reconfigured and restriped to accommodate
thirty seven (37) parking spaces as shown on the plan before new deck
use.
5. The conditions of approval recommended by the Design Review Committee
shall be met.
RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of additional information for recommendation to
the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Project Plans
- Staff Report dated January 11 1993
- Heritage Preservation memo dated February 4, 1993.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1993
SUBJECT: CASE NO. SUP/93-6 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
EXPANSION OF FREIGHT HOUSE DECK, 305 SOUTH WATER STREET.
Background:
At the January 11, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, the proposal for the
expansion of the Freight House deck was directed back to the Heritage
Preservation Commission for further review of the design elements of the
proposal. The Preservation Commission had recommended denial on the proposal
because the white vinyl tent structure was not visually compatible with the
Freight House site or the Downtown Historic District. The applicant agreed to
work out a solution on the design of the tent structure and any other design
alternatives relating to this case.
The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal with Todd Weiss,
Manager of the Freight House, at their regular meeting of February 1, 1993.
The Freight House decided to pursue the proposal without the tent. The
Commission questioned other design elements of the deck expansion, such as the
railing material, landscaping, lighting and paving surface for the area. Todd
Weiss could not clarify these specific design elements because his architect
could not attend the meeting. Mr. Weiss is willing to work with the Commission
in the next few months in order to review and determine appropriate design
features for this deck addition.
The Commission felt the trash receptacle, the landscaping plan at the concept
level, and the screening of the utilities was appropriate; however, specific
details still need to be reviewed.
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The H.P.C. recommends approval of the project with the following conditions:
1.
No tent, canopy, enclosure or other deck covering structure
is allowed.
2.
The Heritage Preservation
Commission shall review and
approve the
lighting plan for the deck area
before building permits are
issued.
3.
The Heritage Preservation
Commission shall review and
approve the
concrete paving material,
and design and material of
the trash
enclosure structure, before
building permits are issued.
4.
The Heritage Preservation
Commission shall review and
approve the
landscape plan and railing
detail for the Freight House
site before
construction begins.
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/93-6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 11, 1993
PROJECT LOCATION: 305 South Water Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: Central Business District
Zoning District: CBD
APPLICANT'S NAME: Todd Weiss
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Special Use Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A Special Use Permit request for a 2,400 square foot expansion of the deck at
the Freight House and for placement of a temporary tent.
DISCUSSION:
The request is to remove the existing volley ball court on the northeast
corner of the Freight House site and replace it with a masonry deck with a
white seasonal tent to cover the area. This 2,400 square foot space is
proposed to be used for receptions, conferences, group tours and meetings as
stated on the attached letter.
The applicant has also included aesthetics improvements to the Freight House
site as part of this application. These include additional landscaping of the
parking lot, deck and north property line and screening the roof top air
units. Other items in the proposal include moving the caboose to the northeast
corner of the site, adding another seasonal bar and constructing a garbage
structure. This structure was a "condition of approval" for a Special Use
Permit granted in 1987. The structure was not constructed. (A copy of the
Special Use Permit is attached.)
The existing parking demand for the whole Freight House structure and existing
deck is 135 parking spaces. The additional parking spaces needed for this
proposal is 20 parking spaces which brings the total parking demand for the
whole Freight House site at 155 parking spaces. The proposal does call for
increasing the capacity of the south lot from 34 parking spaces to 37. Even
with this improvement, there is a 118 parking space deficit for the Freight
House. Also, according to the Stillwater Downtown Plan (1988), the calculated
parking demand for the South Main Street area, south of Chestnut Street and
east of Main Street during peak hours is 517 parking spaces. Peak hours are
summer weekend evenings after 7:00 P.M. This demand does not reflect the
Andiamo River Boat parking in this area.
The Heritage Preservation Commission/Design Review Committee reviewed the
proposal at their regular meeting of January 4, 1993. The Commission reviews
the visual impacts of the proposal based on the historic integrity of the
Freight House and surrounding streetscape. The Downtown Design Guidelines are
a basis by which they make their decisions. The Committee recommends denial
for this project. Because of the design, color and material, they do not--feeT
this tent is appropriate next to a Nationally Registered Historic Building
and Downtown Historic District. However, the other aesthetic improvements to
the site which included the landscaping, roof -top air vents and the trash
Planning Application Review
Case No. SUP/93-6
Page Two
enclosure are appropriate.
The applicant has verbally stated they may, on occasion, have live music or
amplified music in this area. This raises a concern regarding the intensity of
noise in the Downtown. There has been concern in the past about noise levels
in the Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Noise seems to bounce off the
bluffs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
FINDINGS:
The proposed use does not meet the intent
proposed tent does not meet the purpose or
Guidelines and Preservation Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Administrative Form
- Letter from the Freight House
- Site Plan.
of the Parking Ordinance. The
intent of the Downtown Design
CC450 Numbor
_2-Q -_----
a
Fee Paid r
^n(z1: nlilMRFR --- Date Piled .. -11-21. AIU�w�
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
3oc, So. wKfGR �CR€rr�T (FfZEtC�ttT
Street Location of Property: ______-.._-..,-..-----------�--„�,_....__.��.__,�_ k�V w )
Logal Doscrip#ion of Proportys------- --------------------------------
Owner. Name
5ti'ITF- itoo --
Address __�00 2uo �"SVQ _ So.� Wl�t•5 M�J ___ Phone:
Applicant (if other than owner): ame To �D t� El S S
Fl
Address __ 305 Sa _WINri5Z ST.________..- Phone: __r375 3l°0 _�-
Typo of Requests' Rozoning Approval of Preliminary Plar
. . Special Use Permit _.,.. Approval of Final Plat
_-- Variance Other .,__--_--__-...,----_-
Description or Request:
----KeHZuF F/WTiaO YP"4"(t5, ._Wrtr-AtJP-CAC6 WITIt )Z'A-IS,'D
m-r Lo &r4 e" z I I (J c t tJ DES Ae G om r—1 e uxk4i G slT e . Cre"s 6�)a. P S>
---------------W---------------------------- --------------
Signature of Applicant: -__-__---_..--------------
Dote of Public Hearing:
___________
NOTE; Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn -on back of 10im. ar ,-
tached, showing the following;
1. North direction.
2. Location of proposed structure on lot.
3. Dimensions of front and side set-backs.OF
4. Dimensions of proposed structure.
S, Street names,
Il l
6. Location of adjacent existing bui?dings.
jq
�_ :. `
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved _-_ Denied -__ by tho'Plonning Commission on -----------
(&d'e)
subject to she following conditions; _--___-r:----w--_-_-_..-------------
--___-..._--_--___-_r!___M-_-Y-----r------M-_4.__M--------------------
Approved _-- Denied _-- by the Council on __-------- __--.._ subject to she
I----- conditions: ____---- __ r-_rw-r---..•w-_w++__..+.__-.__r_-__
rw __----_-r__-r__+r-_�r�rr_r.-_r_w_r�.__r-rM�._rr�___w�______w�_w_,.,
Comments: (Use other side),
Ann Pung Torwodo
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission/City Council
216 4th Street North
Stillwater, MN 55092
RE: Freight House Restaurant Use Permit
Dear Members of the manning Commission and City Council,
Enclosed find the plans describing the proposed alterations in
usage at the Freight House Restaurant. We intend to cease the use
of the Volleyball court and alter the existing, space with a masonry
patio. The patio would be highlighted with a canopy; the canopy
would be seasonal and removed in the late fall. In addition to
these improvements, we propose the following:
--Enclosing; the garbage area with a masonry structure and slo_ning
roof, more suitable to the Freight House style.
--Provide entry awnings at the North and East entrances.
--Landscaping the parking lot, patio and frontage areas.
--Adding a small, seasonal bar to the deck/patio to match the
existing structures.
--Relocating the Caboose to the Northern property line.
--Reconfiguring the South narking area to maximize space.
--Screen the roof -ton air units.
The proposed alterations of our present space are in response to
an increase in requests for group dining facilities; retentions,
tour groups, meetings and special events. By accommodating these
requests, we will be able to .further attract large groups to the
Stillwater business community.
We intend the alteration of the Volleyball court to remain in the
existing character of the Freight House by using permanent and
high quality materials. We believe these alterations will benefit
both the Freight House and Stillwater business community; additionally
these alterations will be esthetically appealing and provide
further interest along the waterfront.
Thank -you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Todd Weiss
General Manager, Freight House Restaurant
305 South Water Street • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
612/439-5718
WATER STREET.
:ENmrPAnNG T PATIO ADDITIONARE9AMA =14coSF
TORIEMAN Y CAPACGY 20SF✓PER9ON.120 PEOPLE
r •••-- PARKXKLOELLAND JPERSORCAR.IOSPACES
{ FREIGHT HOUSE ENTRY i___ j �•
CANOPY
SIGNAGE
' ' • I I EXISTNIO SIGNAGE AREA
. GARB E STRUCTURE
•M9NVM EUI c*�=� �1 • SAC 4A
•WfLr 710N� C+7 /f
d � I ` � 10YAL vl �+1 AptA� LId Y/A
I EXISTING WOOD DECK EXISTING CRY
PARKN IILOT ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE AREA
' _ I � f _+ �Ji � •li'-�-- I� ^_ . . . . rJ'^rar .tro' n� eLvo.PAce n 4E0 /r
NELSONSTREET, 7 `{ 'I ; ��-r---__«..._—_._._� .I .� II , _ .. • {
PARKING CAPACITY �._....�_...--_�1 BAR _ • �•
EASTVIG 3/ REVISEDPARKINGlA1f0UT: i���_ --- pCATEDCA0005E
PROPOSED -77 . . • ?... „• f EXISTING DECK AND BAR •--, i I Ar . A,
. (+ry. IFY Nb`9.1n6 ti. :i F . • Y.�'4.��� Yi .�r+v •w^K='�'•T.'A�••"i^
.���—� � PUNRNr,SCREErnNG -
Ji.--✓M— ;T.�(-�r`vjs--�%'f•�Ty.r •?ar-.+u•I —: I..r. .- RAILROADTRACKS
LAL—'------- -- ..... .. ._ -- ...---....�.....«—_.-•---_•_ ..._. ..
P'TIM EXTENDED' (nNA/A, AKWAA CA+a.—....__ -- - .
PROPOSED SITE PLAN' v1t •ro NORTH —•- --
_--� o 0 0 0
" ! AVOO AN
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/93-8
Planning Commission Meeting: February 8, 1993
Project Location: 920 West Olive Street
Zoning District: RB, Two Family Residential District
Applicant's Name: Robert Pasket
Type of Application: Variance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION:
The request is to place a 3 f t. by 6 ft. portable sign on Nelson's Ice Cream
Store lot. The store is located in a residential district and currently has a
plyon sign and wall sign.
The sign that is proposed is currently on the site facing Greeley Street. It
appears temporary without site landscape or other improvements. The sign has
been used to advertise specials and products sold on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
ATTACHMENT:
Application.
CASE NUMBER � 7
V I�3 - F
Case Numbor xs----___
Fee Paid ___ ----_-_-..
Date Filed _.� ��.j ------
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE F01%V
Street Location of Property:S-___-_____-
Logal Description of Pro arty: _-__-------_
Owner: Name ---_ --------_--Zz- r------------- 359�
Address da -_, ,F w! Phone:
Applicant (if other than owner): dame ____ _____________________
Address ------------------------------ Phone: ---------------
type of Request:- ___I Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
Varia ce __ Other ___________________
Description of Request: _�� -- �.�--------------------------- ------- _ ---
Signature of Applicant; ------------
Date of Public Hearing: ---------------------------------------------
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back of. u is fu r.1: or at-
tached, show;ng the following:
1. North direction. • �' a.
2. Location of proposed structure on lot.
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs.
4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 'Y
5. Street names. y3y3"�
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- (dute)
subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------
- --__-_-_------------__-r-__-------------------------- _----_-_-___-
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the
following conditions --------------------------------------------------
Comments. (Use other side),
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/93-9
Planning Commission Meeting: February 8, 1993
Project Location: 121 South Owens Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: Heidi Colleran
Type of Application: Special Use Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A Special Use Permit to conduct a beauty salon business (nails only).
nPz IICCTON-
The request is to conduct a beauty salon (nails only) in a home. The home is
located on Owens Street between Olive and Myrtle Streets. Ms. Colleran has
stated in her application form that she will be the only employee and will
have no more than two (2) customers at a time which will require two (2)
parking spaces. The site can accommodate these cars in the driveway. Since
vehicular traffic on this portion of Owens Street is quite busy, cars should
park on the site.
Ms. Colleran has not indicated the amount of deliveries to the home.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. No signage is allowed.
2. Any modification to this permit, or intensification of use, will
require an amendment to this Special Use Permit.
3. All cars shall park on -site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as conditioned.
FINDINGS:
The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to public welfare.
ATTACHMENTS:
�- Application Form.
Caso Numbor -----------
Fee Paid ---I--_.--.-------
CASE NUMBER - C Date Filed _�� I_ --
PLANNING A DMIN1S f RA 1VF F0IIR,,M
Stree► Location of Property. ..,��� -- -1 - --
Logal Doscription of Proport z -
-� i
Owner• Name �rL� s �_ -_� ��:I� r -� -- __..___----_.-__-_______
•_L7T----- Phone: _7 `� _ -5
A?plicant (if other than owlier). Name
Address s_S---__ _ Phone:
Type of Racjuestz* ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
'. Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
--- Variance --- Other -------------------
Description of Request: _� __Q1�C' _L'C�'1?2_�2-L 01Y11
I b e �� E
lyre-� 'fit m _.� i0l CC,
Signature of A nlicant:?YC�k -------
Date of Public Hearing: _-__---------.--____- __-------------------____
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on bac:s of 2;:i. for
tacked, showing the following:
1. North direction.
2. Location of proposed structure on lot. '
S. Dimensions of Iron' and side se' backs. '
4. Dimensions of proposed structure. E•.. ��' N1
5. Street names. Auk
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- (date)
subject to the following conditions:
------------------------------------
---------------------- T-------------------------------------------
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on _________ __ sublet: to the
following conditions.
Comments: (Use other side), :
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/93-10
Planning Commission Meeting: February 8, 1993
Project Location: 317 South Main Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District
Zoning District: CBD
Applicant's Name: Scott Zahren
Type of Application: Variance
PROJECT LOCATION:
A variance to the Parking Ordinance for a 850 square foot restaurant space in
the River Exchange Building.
DISCUSSION:
The request is to open a small restaurant on the first level space of the
River Exchange Building facing Water Street (formerly Sherstad Woods). The
proposal is for serve -up counter type restaurant which sells beer and wine.
The parking demand for this use is approximately nine (9) spaces. This site
has no on -site parking. This area of Downtown Stillwater experiences the peak
demand for parking. The owners of the building should be made aware that they
are adding to the parking problem in the Downtown without paying for the
burden on these facilities.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Any signage proposed shall meet within the guidelines of the Sign
Ordinance. All signage must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
2. The Building Official shall inspect the area in order to determine the
maximum occupancy load for the space. If it is lower than 35 persons,
then the Building Code shall prevail.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval as conditioned.
FINDINGS:
The proposal does not meet the regulations of the Parking Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Application Form.
- Site Plan.
CASE NUMBER_Tg/ 73 /0
Case Number -----------
J
Fee Paid -_-76 _--,-...__r-
Da',e Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE F01%1l
Street Location of Property:-----_-,.-_..__--.._---____---_------
Locgal Doscription of roportyi
Owner: Name ----
-1 -- ----� __ ---- ----------------
r � ... 55�3rr c�
Address _ �� S--rF1 , R lc.�� �{,� s _�� _-,__ Phone:. `��
Applicant (i, other than owner): Name _------__
Addressl�_` �________ Phone:
Typo of Request: -__ Rezoning __- Approval of Preliminary Plat
___ Special Use Permit --_ Approval of Final Plat
-__ Variance Other -------------------
Description of Requests ___-_-__-
-------------
Signature of Applicant.
Date of Public Hearings ---------------------------------------------
NOTE. Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn•on back of this form or at-
tached, showing the following:
1. North direction.1
2. Location of proposed structure on lot.
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. w
4. Dimensions of proposed structure.
5. Street names.
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on
subject to the following conditions: ___--__----__--_--__________________
Approved __- Denied __- by the Council on ________________ sublet; to the
following conditions:-----__-_w___w___________________-_-----_- --
Comments; (Use other side),
8
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SV/92-58
Planning Commission Meeting: December 14, 1992
Project Location: Unimproved Meadowlark Drive, east of Center Street.
Comprehensive Plan District: Multi -Family Residential.
Zoning District: RB, Duplex Residential
Applicant's Name: Madeline Connelly
Type of Application: Street Vacation
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request to vacate unimproved Meadowlark Drive easement between South Center
Street and North Sherburne Street (unimproved).
DISCUSSION:
This item was heard by the Council at their meeting of January 19, 1993 and
referred back to the Commission for further consideration. Since that
referral, the applicant has requested withdrawal of the Street Vacation
request and approval of the resubdivision request (SUB/93-11).
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of the request for withdrawal of SV/92-58.
ATTACHMENT:
Letter of Withdrawal.
January 26 1993
Planning commission
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, Mn, 55082
Re:Request to vacate Meadowlark Drive
To whom it may concern,
I am requesting the petition to vacate Meadowlark Drive be dropped
from the February 8th planning commission meeting. I have entered
into a new purchase agreement with 3 of the adjoining homeowners
and they will be submitting a request to sub -divide this lot into
3 separate parcels.These parcels would then be incorporated into
their existing homesteads.
This appears to be the best solution for the neighborhood and
myself.
Thank you for your previous consideration.
Sincerely,
C;
Madeline S. Connelly
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/93-11
Planning Commission Meeting: February 8, 1993
Project Location: West of Sherburne Street and North of West Linden Street.
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: Douglas and Mary Christensen, Ron and Eloise Zaniewski and
Agnes Mowry.
Type of Application: Minor Subdivision.
Project Description and Discussion:
The request is to resubdivide portions or all of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
13, Block 14, Sabin's Addition, into three irregular shaped parcels that would
be combined with three adjacent properties. Because of the irregular shape of
the proposed parcels and the lack of access to the parcels it is recommended
that if the subdivision is approved, a development restriction be placed on
the lots not allowing development. The irregular shaped lot pattern being
proposed would not be approved for subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A Certificate of Survey with legal descriptions of the resubdivided
property shall be prepared before final approval.
2. A deed restriction shall be placed on there resubdivided land that
prohibits the construction of structures on the subdivided land.
Case Numbor-.T
Fee Paid __30
. �__ ________
CASE NUMBER _ Date Filed _4a�f3
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
Street Location of Property:t,1-i111-YY LL4__ _ ___
Logal Description of Property,_--___-..-------------w_____--_-__- -_--
Owner: Name =�__ --- ---- ----------------------------------
Address ______ .�____ _-___�______ Phone: _______________
Applicant (if other than owner): Name w_�__� �''_':..._w__ �� =■__ >`
'Address 21L--1-r ----= �_�_ �t,:�'--'-- Phone:
Typo of Request:- ___ Rezoning Approval of Preliminary Plat
___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
___ Variance ___ Other -------------------
Description of Request:___--
r e�
1..
_-----------------------------
_ —_ ___` ----------------
Signature of Applicant:
Date of Public Hearing:
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn -on back of this form' :or at--
tached, showing the following:
1. North direction. # .. 3
2. Location of proposed structure on lot.
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs.
4. Dimensions of proposed structure.-
5. Street names.f
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- (dute)
subject to the following conditions: --------- w---_-___-_-_--__--- -__--
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the
following conditions:------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comments. (Use other side),
January 22 1993
Planning commission
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, Mn, 55082
Re:McKusick lake lot sub -division
To whom it may concern,
We the home owners of the below listed properties request that the
City of Stillwater allow us to sub -divide the vacant parcel of land
known as Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 13 Block 14 Sabins Addition to the City
of Stillwater into 3 separate parcels.
The purpose of this request is the desire for each of us to own a
portion of this property that adjoins our existing homesteads so
that we can preserve the wet lands and prevent any future
possibilities of development.
We are all in agreement on this point and would have no problem
with the City making this request for sub -division subject to
language being added to our new legal descriptions forever making
these 3 parcels non -buildable.
If you approve this request it also address the issue of Mrs. Agnes
Mowry ( 1104 Meadowlark Drive ) not having an easement to her
property being she will now own the parcel her driveway is on.
We are not requesting that the extension of Meadowlark Drive be
vacated. This will maintain harmony in our neighborhood, and should
satisfy the other property owners who had opposed this previous
request.
Please review the enclosed site drawing for reference as to how we
propose the property be divided.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Agnes Mowry
1104 Meadowlark Drive
Stillwater, Mn.
la
Ronald and Eloise Zaniewski
1112 Linden Street
Stillwater,Mn.
3a
Douglas and Mary Christensen
415 North Center Street
Stillwater,Mn.
2a
Proposal for McKusick Lake lot sub -division
As out lined on this plat drawing the home owners are the numbers
with a letter following.
la - Agnes Mowry
1104 Meadowlark Drive
Stillwater, Mn. r E 5
2a - Douglas and Mary Christensen r
415 North Center Street ,
Stillwater, Mn. L�G
3a - Ronald and Eloise Zaniewski
1112 Linden Street " ate- y�i
Stillwater, Mn. Cr..�.L..�
What we are proposing is that the city allow us to sub -divide the
existing parcel of land into 3 separate parcels (numbered to
correspond to adjoining homesteads ) The extension of Meadowlark
Drive would remain a dedicated roadway.
13
,t-
KCKVSICK LAKS
- P�oov P�hn1 B4�'
(ioo yP-)
_GJM1I�6nIT 't�J3,'O�
III;
�r
}
-4a 6
/-�- Y-f v
H
-�
m
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/93-12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: February 8, 1993
Project Location: 2289 Croixwood Blvd.
Comprehensive Plan District: Commercial
Zoning District: CA, General Commercial
Applicant's Name: Suburban Lighting, Inc.
Type of Application: Variance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Variance to the Sign Ordinance to allow replacement of a third 120 square foot
sign with a 50 square foot sign.
nTCr'IICCTnm
The request is to remove and replace an existing 24 foot tall, 120 square foot
sign, with a 50 square foot, 20 foot tall sign. The Variance is required
because Brooks Food Market has three signs, two signs are allowed, one for
each street frontage, County Road #5 and Croixwood Blvd.
The Variance is required because the existing sign will be removed and a new
sign installed. The new sign will improve the non -conforming condition by
reducing sign size and increasing the setback from County Road #5. The sign
being proposed is the same as the Downtown "FINA" sign.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
ATTACHMENT:
Application.
CASE NUMB ERY9 � - ,
Caso Numnor -----------
Fee Paid _ Z-0 ---------
Date Filed ---
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FOR-M
Street Location of Property:
Legal Doscripiion of Property; --_-_--- -------------- - ---- __
"--
Owner: name -- r --T3s3
5meTrIn!A 7 ti
Phone: l3 = ---
Applicant (if other than owner): Name�ta='�'�'--�r`�-'-`"-(_11`�`=----_-
Address��ZZ_�_wl_r?_o 1 ��------ Phone:3--v --
• .%T/ L. G G<-C�iC ram. <'l'� �'�C � �
Typo of Requestc ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plct
Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
--- Variance :-- Other-------------------
DescripNon o, Recluesi. - -
_8c/ F1 mezzo/
of Applicant: _7Signature
Date of Public Hearing: ---------------------- ------------------
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back of this form or at.
tached, showing the following:
1. North direction.
2. Locatio,: of proposed structure on lot.
3. Di -pensions of front and side set backs.
4. Dimensions of proposed structure. : `{
5. Street names.
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on -_--------_.
subject to the following conditions:
------------------------------------
---------------------- 7-------------------------------------------
Approved _-_ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the
following conditions: _____ ----
_____-_-_-__-________---------------
Comments. (Use other side),
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE Z- Z -7
SI ALE
PRODUGT226-1®p Inc, Groton, Mec5.01471 To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1-800-225-6390
l
water
THE 91RTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1993
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW WORK PROGRAM.
The Comprehensive Plan Work Program recommended by the
Planning Commission was considered by the Council at their
meeting of January 19, 1993. At that meeting, the new
Council continued consideration of the Work Program until
March 16, 1993. Staff held a work session with the Council
on January 25 and went over the Work Program.
At the Commission meeting, Staff will go over the Work
Program for the benefit of the new Commission members.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WORK PROGRAM�1993
I. Background for Comprehensive Plan update and approval of work work program.
This item includes developing the work program for the Comprehensive Plan Update
and providing the Planning Commission and City Council with background material
regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan will be described and
defined, functions of the plan described, recent examples of Comprehensive Plans
provided along with planning documents from other regional or local
organizations that will be considered in the Comprehensive Plan update. The
legal requirements for the Comprehensive Plan will be provided. This item will
generally familiarize the Planning Commission with the Comprehensive Plan and
Update Program.
The overall work program and schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update has been
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission to the City
Council.
Product: Approved overall Comprehensive Plan Work Program and budget.
II. Define Existing Conditions
In this phase of plan update, information in the following areas will be
reviewed and existing conditions documented. Deficiencies or needs in the
following subject areas will be identified.
Land Use (residential/commercial/industrial/public/vacant)
Parks and Open Space
Land Ownership Patterns
Demographic Trends and Forecasts
Employment Projections
Infrastructure
Sanitary Sewers
Water Services
Storm Drainage
Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation (Pathways)
Historic and Cultural Resources
Natural Resources
Wetlands
Sloped Area
Soil Condition
Biotic Resource
Scenic Resources
Community Character
In collecting the information City Departments, and source organization will be
contacted ie: DNR, Stillwater Township, MWBAC, Washington County. The City
Engineers (Short, Elliott and Hendrickson), Public Works Department, Planning
Consultant and City Staff will prepare the Existing Conditions Report.
Product: Existing Condition Report
1
III. Issue Identification and Goal Setting.
Some issues will be identified as a result of examining existing conditions.
Other issues will be identified through neighborhood meetings and information
collected from a community questionnaire administered through the City
Newsletter or utility billing.
The Planning Commission will hold neighborhood meetings where residents will
have an opportunity to express their likes and dislikes about their neighborhood
and the development of the community at large.
From the meeting and questionnaires, a report will be prepared describing the
planning issues, regarding the future of Stillwater and what the residents would
like the future to entail. Goals will be formulated by the Planning Commission
based on the community input, past City planning policy, existing conditions
and planning issues.
The issue identification and goals report will be prepared by City Planning
Staff with assistance from the City Engineer (SEH), Planning Consultants.
Product: Issue identification and City goals report.
IV. Alternative Plan Development, Review and Selection.
From the above phases of plan development; existing conditions, issues
identification and goal development, alternative future plans will be developed
that have different effects and cost to the community.
These alternative futures will be developed, and presented to the Planning
Commission, neighborhood groups and the City Council. From the review of
alternative and impacts, a final Comprehensive Plan will be prepared.
The alternative plans will be developed by the City Planning Staff with
assistance from the City Engineer (SEH) and Planning Consultant.
Product: Alternative Plans Report and description of plan impacts.
V. Final Plan Development and Adoption.
The last phase will include final plan preparation based on goal statements,
alternative plans and comments and impact of alternative plans. The final plan
will include information describing existing conditions and proposing policy
that will reach the desired future. The plan policy may call for Zoning
Ordinance revisions, changes in land use designation, orderly annexation
agreements, capital improvements, land purchases, or other action required to
implement the plan.
The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Draft Revised
Comprehensive Plan and based on the review and input from the public, recommend
a plan for adoption to the City Council. The Council shall hold a public hearing
and adopt the recommended Comprehensive Plan.
N
The Final Comprehensive Plan will be prepared by City Planning Staff with
assistance from the City Engineer (Short, Elliott and Hendrickson) and Planning
Consultant.
Product: City Comprehensive Plan.
VI. Plan Implementation.
A plan implementation program will be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the
plan is adopted, follow-up action will be required over time to carry out the
plan.
Planning Staff will coordinate and prepare plan implementation items.
VII. Comprehensive Plan Review and Update.
To keep the Comprehensive Plan current, it should be reviewed yearly or on a
regular basis to make sure it reflects the desires and needs of the community.
The Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed on a regular basis by the Planning
Commission with Planning Staff assistance. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
will be necessary as conditions change.
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
The Comprehensive Plan Update began in October 1992 with the Planning Commission
discussing the Comprehensive Plan and Work Program. The Comprehensive Plan
Update is a major work item for the Planning Department and will take consultant
assistance from the City Engineer (SEH) in the areas of circulation,
infrastructure and wetlands and natural resources. Planning Consultant
assistance is proposed for the City expansion area so that when the
Comprehensive Plan is complete, the City will have a special area plan,
including design and development guidelines for that area. Also, plan graphic
and production assistance is necessary to prepare presentation material and
graphics for the final documents.
A budget for the Comprehensive Plan Update is attached. The budge includes costs
over and above the City Planning Staff costs. Ten thousand dollars was set aside
in the 1993 budget for the Comprehensive Plan Update activity. (To give some
perspective of plan development cost, the Downtown Plan cost $85,000.)
This budget request does not include funding to comprehensively study the water
utility needs of the future expansion area. It is estimated by the City Engineer
that $6,000 - $7,000 in addition to the above costs would be needed to include
the water utility in the Comprehensive Plan. It is suggested the City Staff be
directed to request the Water Board to fund the Water System Study cost so they
can be a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
3
RMAFT
The budgets costs related to Work Program item:
II. Existing Condition Report:
a. Existing City
Engineering
$1 500
Circulation
1,500
Infrastructure
b. Expansion Area
Engineering
Circulation
1,000
Infrastructure
2,500
Water Resources
3,000
Planning
1,500
III. Issue Identification and Goal Setting:
Engineering
Infrastructure
15000
Circulation
750
Water Resources
500
Planning
25000
VI. Alternative Development and Review
Infrastructure
750
Engineering
750
Planning
2,000
V. Final Plan Engineering Preparation:
Infrastructure
750
Circulation
750
Planning
2,000
TOTAL BUDGET
Circulation
4,750
Infrastructure
6,500
Water Resources
3,500
Planning
5,000
Production
2,500
Other
_21,750
TOTAL $25,000
$10,000 has been set aside in this years budget for the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
4
4N
W
.' NI
z
uZ� R
Q o 0
EGO ao
mum
LAM �
I
a
00