The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-10-14 CPC Packetwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1991 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1991 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET. AGENDA Approval of Minutes - September 9, 1991. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Case No. V/91-50 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for the placement of a 28 square foot Free-standing sign for a retail use at 110 South Greeley Street. The property is located in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Melissa Johnson, Applicant. 2. Case No. V/91-51 - A Variance to the sideyard setback requirements for construction of a garage on a corner lot (30 feet required, 17 feet requested) and to the size requirements for an accessory structure (1,000 square feet required, 1,008 square feet proposed) at 317 North Owen Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Donald Hill, Applicant. 3. Case No. V /91-52 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for additional signage on a commercial retail establishment which includes 24 inch channel letters on the rear building facade, and another additional sign mounted on a free-standing pylon. The property is located at 14304 North 60th Street in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Condura Marketing Corporation/ Tires Plus, Applicants. 4. Case No. V/91-53 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for the placement of an 85 square foot pylon sign, 18 feet in height, at 110 South Greeley Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Stillwater Sign Company, Applicant. 5. Case No. SUP/91-54 - A Special Use Permit for a residential use on tree second level of a commercial structure at 125 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. James and Kathleen Granger, Applicants. 6. Other Business: St. Croix Riverway View Study/Existing Conditions. NOTE: PLEASE CALL SHIRLEY, 439-6121, IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS MEETING. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Date: September 9, 1991 Time: 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman Angela :Anderson, Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott, Gary Funke, Rob Hamlin, and Don Valsvik Steve Russell, Comm. Dev. Director Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Glenna Bealka to approve the minutes of August 12, 1991, as submitted. Seconded by Rob Hamlin. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. V/91-41, - The applicant has requested a continuance to the October meeting. Case No. SOB/91-46. - A 1,400 square foot minor subdivision of Lot 19 to Lot 18 of Fairmeadows First Addition, (10 feet of property along the north 140 foot boundary line of Lot 19). The properties are located at 2316 Oakridge Road and 2307 Fairmeadows Road. John Serier, owner of Lot 18, presented the application. Susie Dahlin, owner of Lots 19 and 20, was also present. Mr. Serier wishes to buy 10 feet of property along the north boundary line of Lot 19 from Ms. Dahlin. Steve Russell explained that the City could approve the subdivision and waive the requirement for a Certificate of Survey. The subdivision would then be recorded by legal description, which is what the applicants prefer. There are four recommended conditons of approval in the staff report, two of which required a survey. The Commission agreed to waive the survey requirement. Motion by Rob Hamlin to approve the Subdivision request with Condi- tions No. 2 and 3 only. Seconded by Don Valsvik. All in favor. Case No. V/91-47 - The applicant was not present. Motion by Gary Funke to continue Case No. 91-47 to the meeting of October 7, 1991. Seconded Don Valsvik. All in favor. Case No. _ V/91-48 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for the place- ment and replacement of exterior signage for Lakeview Memorial Hospital/St. Croix Valley Clinic at 919 West Anderson. Richard Lang of Visual Communications, the designer of the signs, presented the application. He showed photographs of the existing P i:. -Cif 0.nned signage. The plan consists gage with few new signs added. :•:e.. . �< t.7::: he sign planned for the Greeley remain the same size, but a panel e OW in order to show the emergency t this would obstruct the view of it was determined that this would iig signs, will contain the hospital uicross from the hospital on Greeley -v-ed with the sign plan. -te of the parking lot signs be com- �-:.jnage. Mr. Lang stated that the refusing if some of the signs were king areas must be clearly marked r.—ireed not to include staff recommen- A but that they should be seen by We the variance request with one i. n . All in favor. Commission reviewed the sign ordinance Foods signage was approved. Other :,cm to the current ordinance. : -aft of an amendment to the current t Master Sign Program. ?- nd the proposed amendment to the 0, :., Hamlin. All in favor. T:-i-� Culc I_.• C!f re and building inspectors are now :ay their street addresses. :sion - The Commission met earlier applicants for the two vacancies -he i V-.A, °,,, C rfo members each voted for the top two ~; n 'd Idt ato, Toward Lieberman received the most _-..!iended to the City Council to fill :F"4-Dti- Council will also be given the PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/91-50 Planning Commission Meeting: October 14, 1991 Project Location: 110 South Greeley Street Comprehensive Plan District: Residential Zoning District: R-B, Duplex Residential Applicant's Name: Melissa Johnson Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for variance to the Sign Ordinance for a thirty square foot sign in a residential district. DISCUSSION: Too request is for a seven foot, six inch wide by four foot, four inches tall, thirty square foot sign for a retail use in the'Davian Building. A sign program for the building was previously approved (SUP/87-48, attached). Since approval of that sign program, a new :owner?`kast purchased the, property and would like additional signage. A second application (V/91-53) requests an.eighty :five square foot, eighteen foot pole sign at the corner of Greeley and Myrtle Streets. See Staff report for details. These signs are inconsistent with the approved sign program. Because of the residential nature of the area and the land use policy to keep the area residential, signage should not intrude on area views and the residential character of the surrounding area. Because two different applications have beenxeceived for the bavian Building, it is strongly recommended that the building owner prepare a coordinated building sign program for the building uses and that it be approved before individual signs are approved. RECOMMENDATION: Continue application for preparation on t}ie 'building sign program. ATTACHMENT: - App cation. A (IV +VV CASE NUMBER__ Case Numbor _��1 <5' _ Fee Paid ___U U-__--__ Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORtlr`i Street location of Property: _� _ ��._ �R LLLt)A logal Doscription of Property: _ � ` u � -- ---- Owner: Name _ -- .� of � �..___..______________.._______ Address 1Lo S =_ ____ Phone: Applicant (if other than owner): Name '` S A_�tidzbd4 _______-___ Address �� S. i�1� t� ---------__..__- -------------- Phone: Type of Request:' ___ Rezoning _ Approval -of Preliminary PIat Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat Variance ` -'--Other ----------------- Description of Request. I_q)C-I?RR_ Fop,NWhoc)o _-__-------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ �_ 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. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. r 5. Street names.- 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. � }' 7. Other information as may be requested.}'. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ----------- subject Approved ___ Denied ___ b the Council an y ________________ subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------------------------------- Comments. (Use other side), r• q., 4 `'� -F-l I �, �I l y 156 FROM WALL-1-0 ROA A �RVIA�I BLCX-, Iy Ko 2Ti4 1 FIR'i UklfrM CROOCH 9 e r'. �r -9l _kU _el 'T o aL al D Tim 1� A. v/91 - -5- PLANNING_ AAALICATION_REVIEW CASE NO. V/91-51 Planning Commission Meeting: October 14, 1991 Project Location: 317 North Owen Street Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential Zoning District: RB Applicant's Name: Donald Hill Type of Application: Variance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A variance to the-sideyard setback requirements for the construction of a garage (30 feet required, 17 feet requested) and to the size requirements for an accessory structure (1,000 square feet required, 1,008 square feet proposed). DISCUSSION: Tree request is to tear down an existing house and replace it with a 28 foot by 30 foot garage, seventeen feet from the side property line. The garage will accommodate the residential home located on the same lot facing North Owen Street on which there is presently no garage on the site. However, there is a 21 foot by 32 foot slab which does accommodate off-street parking for the site. The proposed garage is larger than what is allowable for accessory structures on a residential lot. The garage could be reduced in size and still provide adequate space for the truck and working area. The other off-street parking slab should also be removed. The 17 foot area between the garage and the street is large enough to park cars. The Parking Ordinance limits two parking spots per dwelling unit, one of which is covered. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The garage size shall be reduced to 1,000 square feet. 2. The slab area next to the home shall be removed and sodded. 3. All roof drainage from the garage shall remain on site. RECOMMENDATION: Appro� as'conditioned. FINDINGS: The proposed use as conditioned will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the "Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: VAC 100 Case Number��^_�_ Fee Paid Zz�-1_`� CASE NUMBER _ Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property: ____________ Logal Description of Property: _LtIQJD_fI41_Z_AZS�-1? n 1-9111 rl Owner: Name __ Q-CL O-Cad___-�jJ.- ____________________________ -- Address _ 3 -___- ------------ Phone: _ - __ - Applicant (if other than owner): Name...-----------------w__-----___--__ Address ------------------------------ Phone: --------------- Type of Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat ___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat AVariance ___ Other ___---w-__------___ Description of Requests __�C__Ct.PLC.L�__��'�xr�__t�►4�._______ ----Ctt IS---'=�•`i �--- - - ------------------- ------------------------------ --------- - Signature ________ Date of Public Hearing: _________________________________ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on this form or at- tached, showing the following:{ 1. North direction. f, 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. e/T'ro 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 ----------- (dute) subject to the following conditions: __---..______________________________ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions : ________________-_-___--..___-_-__-___--_____-__- Comments: (Use other side), In addition to my house,I have a second house on my lot.I want to remove this second house and replace it with a two car garage of dimensions 28'x36'.I plan to remove the complete structure and concrete slab.Due to existing landscape this house each spring is flooded to a level which soaks the carpet inside the house.It is my plan to have the new garage slab to be 8" higher than present.y also plan to build the new garage with a ceiling height of 9' to equal that of my house -.Access to my garage will be from LINDEN ST,with a concrete driveway 17'long and full width of garage. I have two other basic needs for this garage,inside storage/protection and the additional off street pa.rking.In the past I have owned boats, ry vehicles and presently snowmobiles.All these pieces of equipment were stored off my property when not in use which is an inconvenience when you wish to use them.Not only inconvenient DEC.1989 my 1988 Arctic Cat and double wide trailer were stolen from my yard the night before a trip to northern Minnesota.This past summer a. bicycle belonging to my brother was also stolen from my yard. Secondly, having a two car garage would increase off street parking from two spaces for presently six vehicles to four spaces for four vehicles. I see this as the most ideal situation for use of my lot and to help keep my vehicles out of harms way when not in use. variance. I wish to thank you for considering this proposal for a -1- N 0 R T H 0 W E N S S T R E E T WEST LINDEN STREET 138 FEET 28 X 36 = 1008 SO, FEET EXTENDED CAB PICKUP 19'9" 5 FEET NSP POWER POLE WEST LINDEN STREET 22 FT 11 FT �28 FT-� PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/91-52 Planning Commission Meeting: October 14, 1991 Project Location: 14304 North 60th Street Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park Zoning District: Business Park Commercial, BP-C Applicant's Name: Tires Plus Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is a variance to the Sign Ordinance for a pole sign and wall sign. DISCUSSION: The business is located in the River Heights Auto Service Center. In March 1991 an overall sign program was approved for the site. At that time, variances to the Sign Ordinance were approved to allow a pole sign and more sign area for Big Wheel, ABRA, Kennedy and Tires Plus. Tires Plus was allowed one sign totaling forty square feet of signage based on the approved sign program for the building. Based on the March review, three signs were approved for Tires Plus of forty four square feet, thirteen square feet, and twenty three square feet - totaling eighty square feet. Space on the pylon sign, one hundred square feet, was available for the center generally. Tires Plus did not get space on the sign. The request before the City is for two signs (see proposed variance graphic). One sign is a four foot by six foot wall sign on -the west wall of the building. A second sign is either a separate eight by eight foot, sixty four square foot, twenty foot high pole sign on a four foot by ten foot panel on the existing pylon sign. The letter of application indicates the reasons for the request. Pictures have been submitted showing the view of the center from Highway 36. Tile reason for not allowing signage on the west side of the building, is the residential nature of Tuenge Drive to the north and the front entrances of the building being to the east. Also, the Commission cannot look at this request in isolation with considering other requests for west side sign locations. The Sign Ordinance does not allow individual business pylon signs for uses in the center. This would be a bad precedence. The additional signage on the pylon is the least disruptive to existing signage. If additional signage is allowed, it is recommended the signage be on the existing pylon sign and that the size of the panel be no larger titan the ABRA Auto Body panel. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of request. ATTACHMENTS: - ans and letter of application. . CARDINAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION October 2, 1991 Mr. Steve Russell Community Development Director Planning Department City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Sir. re: Variance application for Tires Plus Our client: Condura Marketing Corporation / Tires Plus In accord with our conversation, enclosed is a completed variance application and accompanying material requesting a variance to allow additional signs at Tires Plus, River Heights Service Center, 14304 North 60th in Stillwater. After you have reviewed this application, I will be glad to answer any questions and provide any additional material you may desire. Please advise me of the time and date of the hearings we are to attend so that I may block my calendar accordingly. -ation. JMD:ms Encl: cc: Donald M. Gullett Iry Margolis Patricia A. Weller 8609 Lyndale Avenue South # 10.1 & Bloomington„ Mlnnesotoa55420t- ; (6.12) 8811-5461' CASE NUMBER 01- I ,`� Case plumber Fee Paid Data Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISiRATIVE FORM River Heights Service Center Street Location of Property: aLO4 North 60ths Sti l l water,_MN _ 55082 __---_-- Legal Description. of Property: _ _____ __ -______________________ Gusto Partners C/O Marco Construction Owner. Dame Attenti_o_n:Iry Margo lis_i.,------------- —____-_________ 3460 North Lexington Avenue, Suite #307 Address Shoreview, MN 55126 __ Phone: (612) 484-5506 Applicant (it other than owneCondura Marketing Corporation/Tires Plus r : Dame __ 701 Ladybir Lane Address _�yr�svi 11 e��,MN 55337�_phone: ( .L )_894-2700___ Typo of Request: ___ .Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary PIat Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat _X _ Variance _\ _ Other ___________________ Description of Request. To increase permi tted_signs to allow 24'_'letters on west side of building and -ei ther_a 4'-x_10'_Tires Plus addition at bottom of existing --------------------------- pylon or a new pylon for Tires Plus at the southwest corner of the site. _-_-----------------------------g Corpora ion-' Signature of A rplican►i ! Donald M. Gu e t, Sr.'} Data of Public Hearing: -----------------------------___--____--_____ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back of this-#onil tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. �= ��•� r-' 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. ��i�4�,y"�;�. ��3 6. Location ❑i adjacent existing bL .dims. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by tho *Planning Commission on ----------- (date) subject to the following conditions: -_--_____-______-___________________ _____ __-_______-______*.------------------------------------------- Approved __- Denied -_- by the Council on ________________ subjec: to the followingconditions:------------------------------------------_--------------------------------------------------------------------- - Comments. (Use other side) AOb ..... y�.......... .............. . �y. .., PY10_ 9 '�' p��•� r � ,� ; —row + r �� I f �.. � .�J _■ If yy rr r. �� ! e' ` I. r /• 9.1d —4 �` -_ = f, 1 t/Y1L. G!l!{r'� , LI '`31,0 9�9 � 1 I � t•A � � � Fk P � � �\ �f�t9r��Ji � •-.r B' IA•� ._ �.ry �. _IB��rJ-4 .�� : I 918 cs r `1 44 sow — a14, � a TOTAL BUILDING AREA 23,'-,Ia -._-F M E M O To: City Council - City of Stillwater Planning Commission - City of Stillwater From: Condura Marketing Corporation / Tires Plus re: Variance request for Tires Plus at River Heights Service Center 14304 North 60th Date: October 1, 1991 This memo is to explain our request for a variance from the sign requirements imposed on Tires Plus/River Heights Service Center. As you are aware, you have previously approved the currently existing sign plan which allows Tires Plus to use 24" individual channel letters on the south face of the building, 18" over the entrance on the east face and their tire brand logos over the bay doors on the east face. After meeting with your staff and securing your approval for that plan, we have operated with it for the approximately six months we have been open for business at River Heights Service Center. Unfortunately the sign plan as allowed Immediately after opening we began customers could not easily find us or before they could locate our store. collected the signatures of customers problem finding the store. Copies of this application. has not worked as planned. to receive comments that had driven by many times For a period of time we who advised us they had a those signatures accompany We are now asking that you grant a variance to allow the following changes: 1) 24" individual channel letters on the west side of the building at the southwest corner 2) Either a 4' x 10' addition at the bottom of the existing pylon or an additional pylon at the southwest corner of the site All of these plans are shown, as well as the existing sign plans, in exhibits accompanying this application. We would like to bring several points to your attention which we feel are unique to this particular situation and make it reasonable, in the public interest, and not detrimental to grant our request. Page 2 - Memo - City of Stillwater - October 1, 1991 As you will note in the accompanying photos, or if you visit the site, due to the topography of the site and its relation to the highway it is very difficult to see Tires Plus or any of its signs, particularly when coming from the west. You will note that the west side of the building, where signs are not allowed, is visible. Photos were taken from west and east of Greeley and from points across from the site. The building layout, elevation and design were affected by the existing topography of the site and this has adversely affected its visibility. The traffic on Highway 36, as you are obviously quite aware, is extremely heavy and traveling at a relatively high speed, 50 miles per hour, which makes it very dangerous for drivers to be looking around trying to find the Tires Plus signs. Because of Tires Plus extensive marketing programs they draw many people from surrounding areas who may not be as familiar with the immediate area further compounding the problem. On the other hand, this drawing effect of Tires Plus is a benefit to other businesses in the community, as it is well known that once stopping in the area customers tend to also visit other establishments or attractions. While an auto service center such as River Heights is great from a city land use perspective as it avoids a series of individual, smaller, free standing businesses monopolizing your highway frontage, it does not operate with the same synergy as a shopping center. Customers do not come to one business and then shop others while they are there or simply come to the center to shop as with a normal retail shopping center. There is a certain limited benefit as people realize this is a location for auto services, but the majority of the customers still come to visit a particular enterprise and so visibility of the signs is very important. The existing west elevation of the building is bare except for the bay doors and some subtle differences in the block designs. Therefore it is very difficult for the public to realize that it is an auto service center. Suitable signs would help identify the center, add color, and likely result in a more pleasing appearance to help support the retail business nature of the area. Currently the west side of the building looks industrial in nature. We certainly recognize and respect your City's need to control signage so that your commercial areas are not just a total array of obnoxious blinking neon. We do feel that our request is a reasonable compromise that can meet the City's objectives while still allowing a successful retailing environment for Tires Plus. We therefore respectfully request your approval. ® HELP US TO HELP YOU! If you had difficulty in seeing and Iocating' our store, please fill in your name, address, and phone number below. We feel that to best serve you, at our Stillwater Iocation, your being ame to easiLy 1 • ill assistance•• • • i • .i • • ' Y • r • '1 • • • • • • Thank you. '. [SAM MOVE _ .. .. �: .4 .... �.•� ww A i• 4 r I* M �� t • .r w 4rr� ✓ . �1115111111i �. / R •. �% a r r Jir I ��J • 1 WIMAM Ie. a' � • � J � MIJ, M 4 a �0 y Z 'd Z 9 : 6 0 I66119V90 N31W'171I15 'd'1 140'IJ Pic� 9��j6 ® LP US TO HELP YOU! If you had difficulty in seeg and locating our store, please fill in your name, address, and phone number below. We Feel that to best serve you, at our Stillwater loplion, }spur beint able to easily find us is important. We are requesting a pylon si ,MY our store. Your4 assistance is appreciated. I ,�ank you. „�.•►� �" i I yCON vl LI 3'�--J863 �f Ia / 7 s,5V-T I 6t,:60 I66I'9Z'90 831dMIII1S 'd'1 WOJd PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/91-53 Planning Commission Meeting: October 14, 1991 Project Location: 110 South Greeley Street Comprehensive Plan District: Residential Zoning District: RB, Duplex Residential Applicant's Name: Stillwater Sign Company/Heidi Rosebud Type of Application: Variance Project _Description: Request for a valiance to the Sign Ordinance to construct an eighteen foot high, eighty five square foot pole sign. DISCUSSION: The request is to construct a pole sign at the corner or Greeley and Myrtle Streets. A sign program for the building (SUP/87-48) was previously approved. The pole sign request is inconsistent with the building sign program and the residential character of the area. It is recommended the pole sign be denied and that the applicant be requested to work with Staff on a building sign program before any new signs are approved. RECOMMENDATION: Continue application for building sign program. ATTACHMENT: -- A�cation. SSE Caso Numbor r/L__3 Pee Paid NUf4BER�1/-.5,3 ❑ate Filed -------------- PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property./�o��e e �� Legal Description of Propertys _L�� _`� _ lLr ----------------..________ Owner: Name�------------------------------- Address--��--- �'.._- ree''�y_____ Phone: _ ��__`�L 9'_f6� Applicant (if other than owner): Name _ . �__0_ rI]4!islr�•y Address __ - ___ Phone. Type of Requests- ..__ Rozo,li ng Approval of Preliminary Plat K-S pocial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance ` ___ Other ___________________ Description of Requests --------------- --' µ=——� --�� ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Signature of Applicant. �� T Date of Public Hearing: ___---..-____..__________________________ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back of this form or at. tacred, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions 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 ----------- (dute) subject to the following conditions: _...---------------------------------_ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to t ;a following conditions: ------------------------------------------------ Comments: (Use other side), n^� "V ��.1 � _ 1 � � �1 `� 3 � � J �h' �� r q ` 1� k �� - Q � � -- � , � IpV' h W w ////////// i 558921 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER In the Matter of the Planning Case No. SUP/87-48 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL USE PROCEEDINGS REQUEST BY: ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT Washington Federal Savings Bank Owner The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City Council on the 3rd day of November , 19 87, on a request for a Special Use Permit pursuant to the City Code for the following described property: Lots 5-7 & 9 - also E 1 ft. of Lot 8 and E 1 ft. of South 19 ft. of Lot 6, Greeley and Slaughters Addition. Block 10. Purpose: To revise the existing signage on the Davian Building - 110 South Greeley St. 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. All signs, including window signs, other than those proposed in the sign program shall be removed. 2. Any signs not in conformance with this building sign program, including window signs, shall require a variance. 3. Each business shall have one sign. Dated this day �)a,4 w7lev�� `; Mayor e PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. SUP/91-54 Planning Commission Meeting: October 14, 1991 Project Location: 125 South Main Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Owner's Name: James Granger and Kathleen Granger Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: A Special Use Permit for a residential use on the second level of a commercial structure. N-,ruceion Tlie request is to convert the second level of a commercial building into one residential unit. This use was being conducted without City approval until the City was notified. Building and fire inspections were made on September 24, 1991 and the tenant removed due to the numerous health/safety violations in the building. The owners have been issued a list of these deficiencies and are aware the building must be brought up to code(refer to letter from Fire Chief Seim dated October 2, 1991) before occupancy. A residential use on the second story is a compatible use to the commercial use on the first level of this building. Residential units occupancy much of the second stories in the downtown and Special Use Permits have been granted in these cases in the past. The applicants have stated they will be using the rear entrance on Water Street for access to the building; according to the Uniform Building Code, the rear entrance will have to be modified in order to accommodate the use. (Refer to No. 3 of the memo from Chief Seim.) No parking is provided on site for -the use. One or two spaces are required, dependent on the size of the unit. Parking is available in permit parking lots. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All building na d fire code requirements must be met as per Department of Public Safety comments which include the following: a. Wiring in this area and for this area was not installed properly with heavy reliance on extension cords substituted for permanent wiring. This is a violation of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. Article 85 and the Electrical Code. b. No egress windows in sleeping areas. This violates Minnesota Uniform Building, Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and the N.F.P.A. 101 Life Safety Code. c. Main exiting from second floor goes through two (2) rooms, this violates the Uniform Building Code. the Uniform Building Code allows exiting through only on additional room. d. Walls of the apartment area do not provide proper separation. One (1) Piour separation is required in this situation. This violates the Uniform Building Code. Plan Review - Case No. SUP/91-54 Continued e. Apartment door has to be twenty (20) minute rated and properly installed per the Uniform Building Code. f. Smoke detectors installed per the Uniform Building Code. As this is a new situation, the Code requires the detectors have to be hard wired. g. Proper light and ventilation per Uniform Building Code. h. Proper rise and run on stairway and handrail on stairway per the Uniform Building Code. i. The City of Stillwater has adopted Appendix Chapter 38 pertaining to sprinkler systems. This document is more restrictive than the Uniform Building Code. This building may be affected by the change of occupancy that has taken place. This could mean the building would have be to sprinkled. The Building Official has the sole authority for interpretation of this law and I will certainly accept any ruling he makes. j. Plumbing per the Uniform Plumbing Code. Any plumbing that has been done, or that will be done, has to be inspected by the Building Department. 2. There shall be no on -street parking for the use. Parking is allowed in designated lots with a parking permit. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FTNnTNnq- The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance once all building and fire code violations have been corrected. APPLICATIONS: - Application form, outline of request. - Letter to Jim Granger, dated October 2, 1991. PAC 100 CASE NUMBER�GI�� _ Case Number Fee Paid __`70 �`�— .._.... Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FOIRM Street Location of Property: _ _� __ ___ _ ___ Logal Doscription of Property, ---- yL --`----LCL�C� Owner. Name __ 1�'t ��---------�e.I 1�1 c'�>>�___��___�' _�-G i�J` �'---_-- _ i1 Address phone: , Applicant (iI other than owner): dame .._-__-__...________________________ Address ------------------------------ Phone ---------------- Type of Request: ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat _-- Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance _ her Description of Requests _1 __ -T-? O c j h {'r _I _ Signature of Applican,.a__Z�__ __- Date of Public Hearing: ------------------- ________________________ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn -on back of this fgrgi-.or_.at. tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot, 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. ',"` •UrH,�r. l 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. G �� 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- ( ute) subject to the following conditions:__--ti_..._______________________--__-- Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the ,ollowing conditions: ------------------------------------------------- Comments; (Use other side), Fvirmen Thompdvn HaA.dwaae 125 Sou-tA dki.n. Si... S. iLua;6ez to.6 i,ze- 20x.125 No &6emen iz 14cliacen t Lu.L. , cngz To ;tAe Nv2th /Najonic Lodae 13va Ceazka. Qanh To tlAe 6ad.;6 flvo. eyA - Cub o44i.ceA, (acJw,6,j G'aiea. S.bzee.t) To Ae Sough. S,4i. Lwat e.2 6a)h ea y Updx'a.uu ae4ideace .4enviced by a.eaa eattance on I*Catez si, Applwx.cma.�e. y /OJJ .d jua2e �ee.;6 - 2ad leve. �acirz wa.&z St. - veAi cl e 6veaing,d - %even L ;. , Souiz. o� Au. 6el&%y %off. Cry L z', Nv2tA o� .Super Ame&Lca 0 DAVID MAWHORTER PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR POLICE CHIEF ` ater., GORDON SEIM THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA FIRE CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF FIRE October 2, 1991 Jim Granger 314 East Marsh Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Inspection Number: 91090301 Dear Jim: On September 24, 1991 at 10:10 a.m., the building official, state electrical inspectors, a police officer and myself made an inspection of an area of the second floor (used as an apartment) at 125 South Main Street in the City of Stillwater. We made this inspection based on a complaint that persons were living in this area without the required permits and inspections. We found the following deficiencies: 1. Wiring in this area and for this area was not installed properly with heavy reliance on extension cords substituted for permanent wiring. This is a violation of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, Article 85 and the Electrical Code. 2. No egress windows in sleeping areas. This violates Minnesota Uniform Building, Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and the N.F.P.A. 101 Life Safety Code. 3. Main exiting system from second floor goes through two (2) rooms, this violates the Uniform Building Code. The Uniform Building Code allows exiting through only one additional room. 4. Walls of the apartment area do not provide proper separation. One (1) hour separation is required in this situation. This violates the Uniform Building Code. 5. Apartment door has to be twenty (20) minute rated and properly installed per the Uniform Building Code. 6. Smoke detectors installed per the Uniform Building Code. As this is a new situation, the code requires that the detectors have to be hard wired. 7- Proper lDight and ventilation per the Uniform Building Code. 8- Proper e - and run on stairway and handrail on stairway per the Uniform Building Code. 212 North Fourth Street, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Police Phone: 612-439-1314 or 612-439-1336 Form 2091 DiSk STW 1 Fire Phone: 612-439-6120 Jim Granger October 2, 1991 Page Two 9. The City of Stillwater has adopted Appendix Chapter 38 pertaining to sprinkler systems. This document is more restrictive than the Uniform Building Code. This building may be affected by the change of occupancy that has taken place. This could mean the building would have to be sprinkled. The building official has the sole authority for interpretation of this law and I will certainly accept any ruling he makes. 10. Plumbing per the Uniform eke-ehan.ical Code. Any plumbing that has been done or that will be done has to be inspected by the building department. The above listed items will have to be taken care of before any special use permits will be granted pertaining to R-3 occupancy of this area. To best resolve this situation, a plan should be submitted to the Stillwater building official. This plan should contain dimensions and specific information pertaining to sleeping area egress, exiting system and wall construction, etc. If you need further information or have any questions concerning the code items listed above, please call me at 439-6120. Sincer ly, Gordon Seim, Chief Stillwater Fire Department ORPFS Background STILLWATER ST. CROIX RIVER VIEW STUDY In 1989, the DNR filed a lawsuit against the City of Stillwater for granting a variance to the bluff land/shoreland ordinance for the construction of an addition to a home at 120 Lakeside Drive. The addition included raising the roof approximately four feet thereby adding a second floor living space to the home. The home was a rambler, built in the later 1950s. All the homes on the east side of Lakeside Drive were similar in height and pitch in the roof. These structures were constructed before this section of the St. Croix River was designated a wild and scenic river in 1973. The structure at 120 Lakeside Drive is considered substandard because it was built fifteen to eighteen feet from the bluffline. The bluf f land/shoreland ordinance regulated by the City of Stillwater and the DNR limits setbacks to forty feet. Due to the substandard status of this structure, no additions were allowed that would alter the existing visual outline of the structure. The DNR, in their lawsuit, stated that raising the roof on the home by four feet changed the view of the home from the riverway. In DNR terms, the addition to the home was visually conspicuous from the riverway or to the river channel. After numerous hearings and depositions on this case, the DNR has requested that the City of Stillwater conduct a "iis�v`� study of Stillwater from the St. Croix riverway. Along with this study, some recommendations should be made for additional policies and regulations on the development of Stillwater along the St. Croix River. OQ' I. Goal Statement OUTLINE LOWER ST_ CROIX FINAL MASTER PLAN FEBRUARY 1976 Lower St. Croix River The overall goal of the plan is to preserve the existing scenic and recreational resources of the Lower St. Croix River through controlled development. Summary: The characteristics of the Lower St. Croix River from Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to Prescott exhibit the following characteristics: A highly scenic course, in particular, a lake -like river environment in the lower reaches (Lake St. Croix from the north end of the City of Stillwater - south). Water of high quality suitable for many outdoor recreation pursuits, including whole -body contact activities. A colorful history that follows the development of the upper Midwest from the days of the Indian through the logging industry. Close proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul urban area. Present and Potential Dan er to River: A shoreline that is rapidly being developed for both residential and commercial uses and is under construct pressure for further development. The possibility of water quality degradation as population served by the Lower St. Croix River increases. II. How the Lower St. Croix River Plan Impacts Stillwater The Plan: Minnesota/Wisconsin. Topography has had a definite influence on the past settlement pattern of Lake St. Croix. Only in larger municipalities such as Stillwater do the dense urban residential settlement patterns extend up and over th bluff, 100 to 200 feet above the lake level. In much of Stillwater, except for the downtown area, sheer rock cliffs rise up approximately 100 feet with a quarter of a mile of the lake. (Page 47). Overall Goal of the Comprehensive Master Plan: The major purpose of the Lower St. Croix Master Plan is to balance the need for recreational use of the area against the equally important objective of preservation of the natural values of the area. To preserve the existing scenic and recreational resources of the lower St. Croix River is through controlled development. III. Implementation Zoning Municipal. Stillwater is delegated to use land use control powers within its boundaries. The state issues minimum standards and criteria for local zoning control and administration for these controls. In cases of permit applications, Stillwater and the DNR will work closely in order to check issues, modify or deny permits. Optional Optional Regulation. Due to the acreage limitations, state and federal administration and management is confined to the area within narrower riverway boundaries. It is strongly recommended that local units of government adopt building height restrictions and control on the cutting of vegetation in area from the riverway boundaries to the limits of the Total Visibility Zone. Total Visibilitv Zone. Lands which can be seen from the water surface. Existing Conditions The following is a written description of the City of Stillwater as viewed from the St. Croix River in August of 1991. This description outlines the views according to what can be seen from the river. South Stillwater From the St. Croix Riverway entering Stillwater from the south, one is looking west toward Minnesota. The bluffline rises approximately 200 feet above the river level where the natural vegetation frames and envelopes the steep slopes. This vegetation consists of Aspen, Birch, Elm, Maple and Pine. Scattered below this frame and varied elevations, sit various, large residential homes. A majority of these homes were built in the late 1950s to 1960s. This is determined by the style of the home. Most of these residences have flat roofs and are generally the colors of white, brown, blue and gold. As one travels north and approaches the downtown area of Stillwater, homes become older. These homes along the bluffline were built during the Lumber Era of Stillwater with one exception. This is the large grey victorian built in 1989. Below the bluffline, is Highway 95 which runs parallel to the river. Cars on this highway can be seen at various points. The shoreline along the south end of Stillwater is natural. The vegetation hangs over the river like a Willow. There are two breaks in the natural shoreline area. One is the Aiple Barge Offices and the other is the sulfur storage pole barn and loading area. The Oasis gas station and restaurant can also be seen at this point. Downtown Stillwater Traveling north on the St. Croix River, the Historic Stillwater Bridge faces directly north. To the west is the Pamaramic Bowl of Stillwater. Along the many blufflines rising above the downtown in this bowl are church steeples, Victorian homes and some newer high rise building. This view has remained relatively unchanged for 100 years. The Historic Downtown Stillwater buildings do not rise far above the river. These buildings create a true urban element to the riverway which makes the statement that one has arrived at a City. The shoreland and riverway compliments this urban environment. The Dock Cafe, Lowell Park, the lift bridge, Mulberry Point and the Stillwater Yacht Club are urban structures and open spaces constructed for people. This is especially true of the concrete levee wall in Lowell Park. There are many colors in the bowl of Stillwater. The Historic buildings are brick red and the newer buildings range in color from white to gold. North Stillwater Traveling north out of the Downtown Stillwater bowl area one bluffline remains. This sharp area of vegetation creates a natural wall. Vegetation in this area consists again of Aspen, Spruce, Pine and Walnut. There are various large homes in this area on the north end of this Stillwater Bluffline. These homes are mainly white with some grey. As one enters the Brown Creek Ravine area, another bowl opens up. This area has various residential structures scattered within its boundaries. The feeling is not as urban as downtown Stillwater but it is still not a totally natural/wild area of Stillwater. The feeling of the area is rural. Leaving downtown Stillwater along the shoreline from the Stillwater Yacht Club, the terrain turns natural, similar to the south end of Stillwater. One break in this area is a residential home with a boat and dock. Lakeside residential area is a drastic change to the shoreline on the far end of north Stillwater. This area is its own urban residential area. Most of the homes hover on the first bluffline over the river approximately 30 feet. These homes were built the late 1950s - 1960s. The homes vary in height with colors of grey, brown, white and yellow. Two marinas mark the City limits of Stillwater on the shoreline. These marina have scattered dockage and shorelines. There are some residential homes in these areas. Looking South As one is traveling north out of Stillwater, the south view of downtown Stillwater is breathtaking. The church steeples rise over the blufflines and the building outlines remind one of the quaint a New England town or a village in the Rhine Valley in Germany. cl� LLJ LL LLJ F- < C=) F- M- 3 CD do C) F- V) V) C) V)l •- r Ln ;Z: V) O,2 x 0 a, LLJ C) LLI ME TI R,�4 7 T7 Fr. U iL rl F7 L, L'A"nE I E !a: V) ' LLJ LLJ CD -i LL- LLI F- LLI r)--, Lr) LLI < LLJ jgo! E v —31 J -� Af- . t•, w. p�i` � T-* � ^...I+ ,�lj"" •{ ' .dN657x ! `-• R ;«r..._.- r�r'�il r �{"'"'•'r,a.r - LI U7 1 JL ...... . t9 477 er�=."E--,, L I,IL 7 [] F: — ss 7--W P`71�. J (7 ..... � l I 7 F,-rl —jr7t-q 'S - Lo'