HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-05 CPC Packet.(Si kaftr
l
I
i
T H E B 1 R T H P LA CC E O F M I N N E S O T A
February 5, 1992
THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1992 AT
7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH ET. --
AGENDA
Approval of Minutes - January 13, 1992.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case No. V/SUP/92-3 - A Variance and Special Use Permit to construct a 22
foot by 44 foot warehouse/garage with a zero sideyard setback. The site is
located at 204 North Third Street in the PA, Public, Administrative/Office
District. Dennis McKean, Secretary, Board of Water Commissioners,
Applicant.
2. Case No. SV/92-4 - A Street Vacation for a 5 foot by 128 foot portion of
Alder Street between Highway 95 and Lake Street in the RB, Two Family
Residential District, Bluffland/Shoreland District. Daniel Challeen,
Deborah Desteno, Applicants.
3. Case No. SUP/92-5 - A Special Use Permit for the placement of a 4 foot
wide, 250 foot long, permanent dock at 2021 North Lake Street, The property
is located in the RB, Two Family Residential District, Bluff Iand/Shoreland/
Flood Plain District. Marvin D. Sjobeck, Applicant.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Consideration of annexation of land south of State Highway 96 and east of
Oak Glen Drive from Stillwater Township to the City of Stillwater.
2. Update view study.
3. Update Downtown Improvements (Phase II).
4. Spring planning workshops.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Date: January 13, 1991
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman
Angela Anderson, Gene Bealka, Glenna Bealka,
Duane Elliott, Rob Hamlin, Don Valsvik,
and Darwin Wald
Steve Russell, Comm. Dev. Director
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Planner
Absent:
Gary Funke
Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Don Valsvik to approve the minutes of December 9,
1991 as submitted. Seconded by Gene Bealka. All.in favor.
PURL I c HE&fJ NGS
1. Ca ze No. V 5 P/92--1 - A Variance to the Parking Ordinance and
Special Use Permit for the expansion of a restaurant/video store
(Stelletti's) into an approximate 600 square foot space. The
property is located at 826 South Fourth Street in the CA, General
Commercial District.
Donald Istel, owner, presented the request. He plans to expand
into the space behind his restaurant currently occupied by
Classic Care. He stated that he has never received any
complaints as far as customer parking. He does not usually have
many seated customers in the restaurant; most are serviced by
delivery or take out. He is concerned that Domino's Pizza may
move to a location across the street and therefore wishes to
diversify his business. In the future he may possibly add a milk
cooler and/or a frozen food cooler.
Ann Pung-Terwedo stated that a corner store/variety store use is
allowed and the parking requirements are similar to the video
store use.
The Commission could see no problem with the request. There are
four recommended conditions of approval.
Motion by Darwin Wald to approve the Variance and Special Use
Permit as conditioned. Seconded by Rob Hamlin. All in favor.
2. Case -Q. V/SUP/92-2 - Special Use Permit for construction of
a boat boarding plaza area with a Variance to the setback
requirement for construciton of a boarding deck located along the
St. Croix River just south of the Dock Cafe (225 Nelson Street)
1
Stillwater Planning Commission
January 13, 1992
in the Bluffland/Shoreland and Flood Plain District. City of
Stillwater, and St. Croix Boat and Packet Company are the
applicants.
Amy Stefan of Stefan Associates presented the plans. She stated
that the plaza will not affect the existing parking lot. It is
hoped that the plaza will alleviate the pedestrian problem in
that area. It should not result in an increase in activity, but
is designed to accomodate the activity that now exists.
Dick Anderson, St. Croix Boat and Packet, stated that it will
take about two weeks to build the plaza. It will be built and
maintained by the St. Croix Boat and Packet Company.
Mike McGuire, owner of the Dock Cafe, asked if any existing trees
are to be removed. Amy Stefan replied that no existing trees
will be cut down, but new, longer -living trees will be
established.
Motion by Rob Hamlin to approve the Variance and Special Use
Permit as conditioned. Second by Gene Bealka. All in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Election of Chsilt
Don Valsvik nominated Gerald Fontaine as Chairperson for 1992.
Seconded by Gene Bealka. All in favor.
Duane Elliott nominated Don Valsvik as Vice -Chair. Seconded by
Gene Bealka. All in favor.
2. R _HLof L i I L- ke Plan
Amy Stefan, Stefan Associates, presented the plans. Steve
Russell stated that the Park and Recreation Commission has
reviewed and recommended the plan. After the Planning Commission
reviewal, the plan will be presented to the City Council.
Amy stated that there are two phases to the plan. In Phase I,
the existing chain link fence will be removed and a walkway added
to connect the beach area with the fishing pier area.
Members of the Commission stated their concern with this aspect
of the plan. Chairman Fontaine felt that removing the fence may
make that area unsafe for children along the water's edge and the
path may actually draw children to it by making it more
attractive. Rob Hamlin felt that the plan has fewer barriers
from the water for unsupervised children. Duane Elliott
suggested that a legal opinion be obtained. Don Valsvik
suggested that a hedge be placed as a barrier from the water.
Steve Russell will look into this as a liability issue.
2
Stillwater Planning Commission
January 13, 1992
Anqela Anderson suggested that the landscape plan include more
white pine and more native plants.
Steve Russell was asked about the time frame for the project.
The picnic area is to be completed this spring or summer. The
pathway will be built as money becomes available. Phase Two will
be completed in five to ten years.
Don Valsvik made a motion to approve the Lily Lake Park Master
Plan subject to review by a water safety expert with toddler
safety as the focus. Second by Duane Elliott. All in favor.
3. gontext Study Grant AQpL cation
Ann Pung-Terwedo explained the CLG grant application for a
context study of Stillwater. The study will be at minimal City
expense.
Motion by Gene Bealka to recommend the grant ,application be
submitted. Seconded by Darwin Wald. All in favor.
4. Set date for. FQ)?r ry meetip_g
Ann asked if the Commissioners would be available to meet in
February given a few days' notice. Ann will contact the members
In February with a meeting date and all who are available will
attend the meeting.
5. Comm. Dev. Department's Work Program
Steve Russell presented the goals and objectives for the
Community Development Department and a work program for 1992 to
carry out the goals and objectives. After the Planning
Commission review, it will be submitted to the City Council.
Motion by Duane Elliott to support the work program for the
Community Development Department. Seconded by Don Valsvik. All
in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Gene Bealk to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Seconded by Duane Elliott. All in favor.
Submitted by:
Shelly Schaubach
Recording Secretary
3
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/SUP/92-3
Planning Commission Meeting: February 10, 1992
Project Location: 204 North Third Street
Comprehensive District: Public Administrative/Office
Zoning District: PA
Applicant's Name: Board of Water Commissioners
Type of Application: Variance and Special Use Permit.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A Variance and Special Use Permit for the construction of a 44 ft. by 22 ft.
warehouse/garage on the Water Department site.
DISCUSSION _
The request is to construct a 44 ft. by 22 ft. warehouse/garage to replace the
existing Water Department garage with a zero sideyard setback. The Water
Department feels the existing garage does not meet the needs of interior
parking for trucks (the stalls are too small) and storage needs of the
facility. The garage was also built on a slab with no footings. The structure
has cracked walls and is leaning to the south.
The new garage wi l l add two interior parking spaces. It will also provide two
outdoor parking spaces west of the structure. As stated in the attached letter
from the Water Board, the new garage will solve parking and storage problems
for many years to come.
The rear of the Water Department site where the garage will be located is all
asphalt. Drainage from the existing garage and proposed garage runs off to the
south on the Trinity Church property. It is then directed to Third Street.
There is no dedicated drainage easement on the church property for this
run-off.
On July 9, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the idea of a new garage. At
that meeting, the Planning Commission questioned if the existing garage had
historic merit. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal at
their recent meeting and has concluded the structure does contribute t❑ the
historic significance of the Water Department site. (See attached memo from
the Heritage Preservation Commission.)
The Heritage Preservation Commission also reviewed the design of the new
structure as stated in their memo. Recommendations on the design are included
in the Conditions of Approval for this case.
1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The City Engineer shall review the plan for surface water drainage.
Any comments shall be incorporated into these conditions.
2. The window style shall be the same as the existing garage.
3. The trim'of the structure shall be black.
4. Dormers shall be incorporated on the roof.
5. The Water Department shall take pictures of the existing garage. Any
written material shall be gathered and submitted to the Water
Department file at the Stillwater Library.
Y
ATTACHMENTS:
- Application Form and Packet
- Memo from Heritage Preservation Commission
- Letter from Dennis McKean
2
VAC 100
CASE NUMBER
Case Numbor �/,14
Fee Paid ---------------
Date Filed --------------
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FOIZ A
Street Location of Property: __=01�-dorth Third St--------------
Logal Doscription of Propertyc _Lot 20,_Lilk_ 20�Ctri,',in�l 4cnWm
C)Wner: Name-Bc,�rd-of ,later Co--- oners __--------------------------
Address -2-0 __o_- --ir� st_eP�Phone:
Applicant (if other than owner): Name _-D�' '� 5 �KcKean- s_ c!Z--------------
Address ------------------------------ Phone: ---------------
Type of Recquestz- ___ Rezoning _-_ Approval of Preliminary Plat
_ x Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
_ x Variance _-- Other -------------------
Description of Request: -_Demolish Eydstinr,-, 19'�6 ,arehouse/Garr�ge and
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.
5. Street names.
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
Approved ___ Denied ___ by tho'Planning Commission on ___________ (dute)
subject to the following conditions: -----------------------------------
- -_--------------------- -----------_--_--- -_-_-_---- _----------__
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the
following conditions: ___-___----_-__-----------------------___- --_-
Comments. (Use other side),
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
204 NORTH THIRD STREET
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
BOARD MEMBERS:
DON JAHNKE, President
JOHN L. JEWELL
JAMES WEAVER
January 15, 1992
Mayor & City Council
216 Fourth St N
Stillwater Mn 55082
Re: Warehouse/Garage
Dear Mayor & Council,
DENNIS McKEAN
Secretary/Manager
The Board of Water Commissioners have determined a need to construct
a Warehouse/Garage at 204 North Third Street.
Initially, the Board of Water Commissioners request your approval to
demolish the existing 1936 frame structure. This structure is not of
adequate width, 8 foot doors, to accommodate trucks. Because it was
built on a slab, no footings, the floor is buckled, walls cracked and
the building is leaning South approximately six (6) inches.
The Board of Water Commissioners further request approval to construct
a slightly larger (22' x 44') building on approximately the same site,
eight (8) feet further East, than present building.
The new building will have two (2) 10' doors, 12 x 12 pitch roof and
brick farad to match existing buildings.
With this approval, we will add one ( 1 ) outside parking space and solve
our storage problem for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Dennis McKean
Attached: Site Plan & Plans and Specifications.
r water
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992
SUBJECT: WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING
The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the garage replacement request
of the Stillwater Water Department, Case No. V/SUP/92-3. The Commission was
concerned about the structure because of the historic significance of the
Water Department site to the City of Stillwater. The structure itself (c.a.
1936) is a simple vernacular structure built specifically for small trucks of
that period and contributes to the historic significance of the Water
Department site. The Water Department began in 1874 with C.A. Hathaway who
formed a water supply company. This company may have been the first water
supply company in the State of Minnesota. In the 1880's the Stillwater company
was developed as a thirty year franchise to the City. A 3,600 foot well was
drilled on the Water Department site. The existing Water Department building
was reconstructed in 1891 and the garage in 1936 to support the Water
Department needs.
The Commission questioned the reasons for removing the existing garage and
replacing it with a new garage only two feet wider and two feet longer. Ann
Terwedo explained that the Water Board felt it would be impractical to modify
the existing structure for their needs. The Water Board was not specific on
exactly what the costs were to widen the garage doors and lengthen the
structure to adaptively reuse. Ms. Terwedo was directed to discuss the project
with Dennis McKean to investigate the exact reasons to demolish the structure.
The Preservation Commission felt very strong about investigating the
possibilities to keep the structure.
If keeping the structure is not feasible, the Heritage Preservation Commission
recommends the following design elements for the new garage as part of the
Conditions of Approval:
1. The window style shall be the same as the existing garage.
2. The trim of the structure shall be black.
3. Dormers shall be incorporated on the roof line. (Dormers were
recommended on the garage structure built in 1989. They were not
included.)
4. The Water Department shall take pictures (interior and exterior) of the
existing structure. Any written material shall be gathered and
submitted to the Water Department file at the Stillwater Library.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
204 NORTH THIRD STREET
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
BOARD MEMBERS:
DON JAHNKE, President
JOHN L. JEWELL
JAMES WEAVER
February 4, 1992
Ann Pung-Terwedo-Planner
216 N Fourth St
Stillwater Mn 55082
Re: Warehouse/Garage
Dear Ann,
DENNIS McKEAN
Secretary/Manager
We talked today of various reasons the Board of eater Commissioners
arrived at a decision to demolish the existing garage and replace
with a slightly larger structure.
Original discussions began in 1989. A contractor was asked to look
at the existing garage and advise us whether this structure could be
expanded. We were advised of some brick replacement, roof raised and
rafters extended, footings dug and block wall needed, existing floor
removed, covered or replaced, interior walls moved, and larger door
openings cut.
At this point the verbal cost was $15,000.00 plus.
In addition the Board concluded the South retaining wall needed
attention, some windows needed replacing and noted we still had an
old building that was not in the most desirable location.
Therefore, the decision to demolish and build seemed to be the most
practical solution and would provide the Water Department with a more
useful structure for many years to come.
Sincerely;
Dennis McKean
-danmo Jd
Loollrp ran alrn+r hnnod
Fr�`in N� uiN�-dl-�r+rs+xv— �avu,�� � 4r�x�ead
1
BnixlC_ �rrRLStXg
i1�1Eri.'b!�•
LyrlO�llna lc�•�EiloM
_�_ k%IIFjIY3
=s
M u„'Lwlx g.
n
I
(Ydnme 14J 49J1�
711 J4 Y 7rySn7 !�
v d=•
,asr12 a
i�X1�7
vl
3'�h1C=MLLS7X2—
_o
71
I I
(i✓of
o�, %ems
am rmt9s rw i
•C +1`I
� nM Yl caalUl1
M.
Jo
m
- —
raW:o sn1',at. r,uki '•31i-I
rt
_
n(n•
a
ir
_
x
'nni :�
t,1 J31�U do A-9 I.,"IV :",elm ?+zLS4
- �--'- ._
�2 � �
s.•o::n�`n 0
.nss,l s,x�l ��rii Jnus�� r_rN
V ��y
V'r'miN4 1'rnlK�' .
' z
AAkL 5
L
4Y'GA a}TJ\
a n
Ct
n A; ID
- NOLIv»�1-i Sµ1T zay IennAl 3-
,� LT9,1 Kr
oex mvoml; .
=— _e !r ,
;,4 :?S: w4. , loaYY Trs :rn1
—__SiilJ71' .► � � _I xtie4.tdlxS+:arn
-ywYl1Y�••' �Y ��1�/
u3£ WA
y,a"a ,rJYA
i I
tftftf � 1 `}
or: r+wnn �
ZI�zl is�ivi�rnr/ r'
I
I
j`J0.�^��~-�
`la
� j •� c/aq i. trtt.6_
y�v •i>lsar+c'n5
liJ u-1•i�a 1 µC��+1i�
_�'t'T<4 RY1GOu r
Clzs P.A F. t.-�� e-
r!tiull.i
�yIY+
/�•'4'i:'
- .
p_-F+•c4'r�+y
AI
=�� /I
.ixli.11,•e.. r
� s.t o�•5a•.n
�r..r.,- __IY
� r¢a�w 1���coo r 6' Irscw�K
ttrl+6 jeFav,y war 6•:,(erc
r
I
- 4�:5 WAi',tls^..
r.?,jO-D VS CWe. Aw
IW av) C,wirs.Y�YJ.! YID)
��
S Ah;
..
IT rf-yiE-iri-C•
•x1.4wa 4Nrn lb"o
CvunPra9)-
h�+CFrF+caACs kG'+r'Jrra�'-pnca, Yl(
J.mv40 l].a Tlt
- uF3.olm w�r
_gNti Sue 3l I�i..V •'{'1PN•
41t`
M O.ti�i �•Rw
'w...••M�
A.
�i. a.S.Jt•
rr %"ram
Is•D¢Fv.q r-o-r
Y2' P•Y�v7 snrzrn.y
FJJ�rA• 4fr+ aE
r/mkr-c%.uY
H,u,aai Q�I F•.cxA�
—t I,ti1 usva P+<ar+•`• •
I--1
m.rrlF,:r-I r
9'r+cc EMrJ. y�ne-L.' nAS
�
•I Ash YM4 - ._ ••
puJi -,. P-e
.i5/S:' IMSJL SnifT•"'•'1
I`j
IPk�M9.OjmfS
is POV�si arr/.
iA
v -APO ti
-(lvwunru !f ve Cal Vroao
- /. L.TrZMVT. FJa•L YD) -.-.
Lahr 4.P-FU*AL1 Y,
. � mwS H•J• ••
[c:Pa•7r,�i of
41� Mr D�� rarro'rw ••�• � — "P ,I -
2+j aNL—
• a l ! rr maoc ,y... n,d I ;�Idll.t7i-ROSS.Li!"dIa—avnr, r
�
•h crhF!
I µy. �,�. .w. y.�an•r. R_. 9j ,..r..�:-.^Sj�67q!••o'-- `av K-rrA mix
. an+s+arr� o •.ne ralr� — —�— J— — — — �—
� ..:o-s ' � - �^_�',•uw py.Dt+r.u1+5 fit• .a
Yi-�PI � V—SI'esrre i.Ay r{�iSl2'a.a p.wY � f0.Me ��w.fiWi.eb��• 4
da•c•-.%.drm OA wWk% Flu..
.'ia�x�ci.Sn•. � f ' . --=7iP+'�--iH+�pw1r .-- ^-r!• -w. s'•vxl'•a rrit�4,
T .I f I-y�ZwSw
vr•tt. ; r , I «Flax. SL•.s Lta:a=� µ— �'
r„a�•rr'
- .o nt
a� , �^• �^ '+A -. b�w•ce.+r[c� I s'. o I'•o �0 S:'t`•c.wf Bz—P7. W1.1:-5 wl'•FLs`a-PG
l �^4iC'J. pfN 9••wS� C"rR•G 9•••�C .�w/?•5 ir►Yr' ' I -F
ou a••�Jrr'•a1�'r'LI wv s wNY,+`P!'�•a'+.ur, tom' on) lv
=�FG-. 'I b�•S--'—. ` L' }'nrk 7{w! _ J•F !'w'i�TuuNn�. Sla.•J- p
en+rJ'�Cn` -'. VtIF•15lx;jD.��•+.wDDE+7H
1r . , rS RIN * ••S, �_�
�wrwcs 'o�..i�i ;I: wtL4 xIL CEZInJttv3- •�
�i•t•f^-dIriev SI; tiI Lll{CjJnpDM�`c/Tar ,a
R
• 3m* r 14 Pun-0 W�
(Ii5 PN+,..) ,
2 Y?UILL71�Ci IpN ITvpINA� wcTio,Q
Ixx: Pwr,DL'1(.'+tirn' G
N
'VFT•iX4
.nn. •vr:arn�.
n
r16s J l: •i.a,
is" Rlorcr�s 9•9hP.lwA.
� Y,titq r: nr.pw 1
fi''�'�r�a'°',�•n..-"n
tf{
furrhaxn rJ7.1 oa)
";,,yb•a5
'
4;pr•'i i_r •••
5"ca�.-3WI• wlr9clZar.�
.
or
' nJ•IJLWNI=•e•i--•
TV`
,STDC"ieGUX. 51 JWCk f
r �•sura•� hro 8'ru.�sra•r rv+�+3 I
Lk^.. Ho •+S J45uoW MwL
a
IpA153 n1v G• I— {i'.a� l•c h
rJ•.— >n na=y I Safi 1
—
C@.5r jd}- -AX ME"
1 —_ - I 1(,-C�
saR. rrnsF n 6 e-cl.+,r
I r{wr...s•. e+-s y tsr-lf].I*'r•
.
I r
_�
�STIMr• S�: fRQ Ma P=Tumo -"-•
IV ah
I idAw'IM.� .�
w.Woc ir^4- I
•_•�J
wµ,s ! e1u•+• •r Gw•G6,
taznw.ra rJn.f MD]
y
_�
`
.........-
e
.... -.• ..
�IM+JI•lr1:V DJ �4-S .Y r�rYv cSAr.+4S Cc+.•D
—-••-�•"-
•:-. YW T46L.-W Plt•av 1% Ci9lti AlIF3SirF ys.l ETC_
0 8
o
U 1
3 0
w
fl �'
1 L
�0
0
• O
Nu
u
zi a
j?� 1
Al 1
4iPL:
uf
`S n
aU.
A.l.i
.r 3
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SV/92-4
Planning Commission Meeting: February 10, 1992
Project Location: 2103 Schulenberg
Comprehensive Plan District: Residential
Applicant's Name: Daniel Challeen and Deborah DeSteno
Type of Application: Street Vacation
Discussion•
The request is to vacate the north five feet of Alder Street just west of Lake
Street. The area requested for vacation is the yard area for the residence at
2103 Schulenberg (on Alder Street). The reason for the request is that a
portion of the residence is over the street right-of-way. (See Certificate of
Survey.) The street would not be affected by the vacation and there are no
plans to widen Alder Street and use the proposed vacation area.
The vacation request has been referred to the City Utility Departments for
comment.
Recommendation:
Approval of vacation subject to Public Works Department, Water Department and
City Engineer's comments.
Attachment:
Certificate of Survey.
Application Fee $100,00
e�" -K.. 5V/9a.-q
PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC STREET
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY PETITION THAT ALL THAT PORTION OF
Platted Alder Street, as shown and described on attached survey.
ABUTTING LOTS -
G. Lot 2, Sec. 21, T30, R20 BLOCK NA
Carli & Schulenburg's ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA,
HEREBY BE VACATED,
NAME 1
8'I
in
ADDRESS
z'103
aio
L
ATTACH MAP SHOWING STREET TO BE VACATED
SKETCH SHOWING PORTION OF ALDER STREET TO BE VACATED
See survey for details and legal description of portion of Alder
Street proposed to be vacated.
21
� 1
0
l . P
Vc�7rldN I
DSO �.rn li to
p G o
J� I
o
2
cs2 ;
F + n 3 0 �3
.3 :
o
o
r� d
ST,40
/.ro
Trunk H19H vay �• 5►—,—
2
3 1�_
3 "iti
1.
14.24
/J
I
L 0'AF
•�
�
o\
Q � W
h
NYl
`,
.• \ V V
C
�
xa7°rrzr•� o
�
uI
¢
3
W 0
m
7T.OD
/RPf 4.
ic. G t
c.74
Cfvr ID Bwcal.v,F
h/occ �rvr. "
1r ��i vas I
1 l
t 1
r
i ^ ,jN6D
PART OF GOVT. LOT 2, SEC. 21, T30N,
.G fC. (NEST
riTli
DFS7EN0/Cy.9L1EE/1/
PiPOP05E0 67l/6.CAz.4 151,eCE L
69. 33 Ac.
Suez-, To TE.hp. ESM T.
/357/ Sq, Z-r. — Exrsr. �sQr Env
of &XC. �JRCEL px.yp, d¢gg¢¢•
r
hn'
l 1
--V
E.IVES
STO,eY
£
i
Alaels--
i
}� rv0 "+• '� `r z a
---
�0�' NB9°L:z'sz'6 128.Do -
�- - -
c a�r.rrRg pws o/e.G
Lc/NLL !r i
0 l4 f I,r�rs .
IIII 5v � � II �•p /r � � /� f
i fff `---- 26^¢S�z.ao--- D " r �I'1 f ''�' ; CoNc. `•. .`•, s:+,., ��!;Ace' - ;i � �..�.�s __�
4�QJr �^ j% v�1S.3$ •1 ��PD.J��~` -3.5'� ST.PEE%
.L1LSC,r/,�
"LN.S• ir.`.rF- C � � C� r .S. �❑ F` .PEL' EAJT
�er Ara LcQ.l87C ♦ \ �! W� �._7'oc --- /Y99'.22'S,2
• � •ate � u N C.:C of � "�iT.. O.yV7.
ti
-
\\
t
SE ew. Qw.c.
R20W, WASH. CO., MN.
- 25.00
51
W
�h
1 �Q
.�I+. r7r.• .j. _.
9
N
A I
h;
=/,ar
'k
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/92-5
Planning Commission Meeting: February 10, 1992
Project Location: 2021 North Lake Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB and Flood Plain/Shoreland/Bluffland
Owner's Name: Marvin Sjobeck
Type of Application: Special Use Permit
Project Description:
A Special Use Permit for the placement of a 4 ft. by 250 ft. dock off a
residential property.
Discussion
The request is to place a 4 ft. wide, 250 ft. long, residential dock between
Rumpf's Marina and Wolf Marina. This dock is proposed to be used to dock the
property owner/residents two boats.
The City Flood Plain Ordinance requires a Special Use Permit for this type of
use in the Riverway District. DNR also requires a Protected Waters Permit.
This Special Use Permit request will be the local government review for the
permit.
The dock proposed will be shorter than the two adjacent docks at Rumpf's and
Wolf's Marinas.
The water is shallow in this area requiring the 250 ft. dock length. As stated
in the application, the dock is for the use of the owner/resident - two boats
only.
Recommendation: Approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The dock shall not be covered or have covered slips.
2. Any lighting shall be directed down and the light source not visible
from the river channel.
3. A DNR Protected Waters Permit shall be obtained before dock
construction.
4. No alteration to the river bank shall be made, including construction
of structures or removal of vegetation.
ATTACHMENT:
Application.
'Al.; IOU
Caso Numbor � cYll _
Q
Fee Paid ---------
CASE NUMBER Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
Street Location of Property: _--_ 2021 North Lake -Street ---__---_--____----
Logal Doscrip;ioAAn oftt Property: Lot One (1) Block fifty-two _(52), Carli & Schulenburg's
lgdj/�opt oofSS'saidwjt�r, excepting therefrom the North 30 ft and the South
Owner: Name -------------------- Marvii�Lad�-------------------
Address _ 2021 North -Lake _Street��i11R,-L er Phone; (512)439-E343____
Applicant (if other than owper): Name ---------------------------------
Address------------------------------ Phone: ---------------
Type of Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Pict
_.Y_ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
Variance ___ Other __-_-____--_..__----
Description Of RegUest: Request_ construction -
a permanent floating wood dock
from my property on Lake St Croix River (Backwater area). The dock would be four (4)
feet wide and approximately two -hundred-& fifty feet long -(length due to normal
shallow water area) The dock will be secured to my property & will use steel vertical
spuds 7posts7_to secure each section of dock. -It W-lrl be attrac-ve and of shorter. length
than the adjacent docks to my property. ���yy�
Signature of Applican :;�,_d .0.__ _
Date of Public Hearing: ---------------------------------------------
NOTE. Sketch of proposed property and structure to be dra%vn.on back of thin form or at-
tached, showing the following: _
1. North direction.
2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 'l, ✓
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs.
4. Dimensions of proposed structure. %z
5. Street names. �Tlyt �JA���
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. ; C' 5-rJLLNA "8• Y
7. Other information. as may be requested. No �.�l5-
Approved ___ Denied ___ by tho'Planning Commission on -----------
subjects- to the following conditions:__________________________________-_
-'------.-..._.._-_---------r-----------------------_.. ----_- .----------
Approved _-_ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the
following conditions:
Comments: (Use other side),
PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
The dock that I wish to construct will be used privately to secure
my two (2) pleasure boats.
L
--4-
:3 � 0 , 0,;.) C,/4,
92�- �e-e 10-9 le, -w- —A—A
46 -r (.)v
PHONE NO.
tlilSnnTATE OF
��UV IE s 0) qrz%DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106FiLENO.
296-7523
Dh'R PROTECTED WATERS PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS
DATE: I - 3\ _5 �-
L�1,�A, tN
FROM: MOLLY SHODEEN, AREA HYDROLOGIST
WATERS AFFECTED:
S� • C Yv'%V wkV-�'r
PROJECT SPONSOR:
u\-\zr v '\ Sob edc- 43'�)k
NATURE OF WORK:
COM>=S DUE BY:
J000
V'JN- vte-z Pt
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NA-02622-04
Rev. 10 /89
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
PERMIT APPLICATION
TO WORK IN PROTECTED WATERS OR WETLANDS
IINCLUDING DAM SAFETY)
► ► Please read instructions before attempting to complete this application -
I.
V
IX
OFFICE USE ONLY.
P.A. NO-
0 swco 0 c/c
D w D p USCOE
Applicant's Name (Last, First, M.I.)
Authorized Agent (if applicable)
Tftg ponp��n�7�[y,eeccr
5 jobeek, Marvin D
(612 ) 439-5 )
Address (Street, RFD, Box Number, City, State, Zip Code)
2021 N Lake Street, Stillwater, MN 55082
LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BE SURE TO INCLUDE SKETCH SHOWING HOW TO GET TO THE SITE)
Government Lot(s)
Quarter Section(s)
Section(s) No. Township(s) No.
Ranges) No.
Lot, Block, Subdivision
1 052 Carli r; Schul
Fire No., Box No. or Project Address
County
Project will affect]LaIt--
e Ian or ate,course
as above
lWashin on
(namenumber.
TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE)
IV. TYPE OF PROJECT (CHECK ONE)
❑ excavate ❑ repair
❑ shoreline ❑ shore -protection ❑ obstruction ❑ dam
❑ fill ❑ remove
❑ channel ❑ harbor ❑ bridge ❑ other
❑ drain ❑ abandon
❑ sand blanket Q permanent dock ❑ culvert (specify)
10 construct ❑ other (specify)
❑ install construct dock
❑ riprap ❑wharf
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 600fl.00 (est.)
VI. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET): 86 ft
VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS): None
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF PROJECT: (EXPLAIN_ WHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOW WORK.WILL BE DONE)
+fish to construct a floating permanent wood dock with steel spuds secured to my property
)y a dock contractor.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explain �Lhy this project is needed)
Dock will be used to dock and secure our recreational boats.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources, including unavoidable but detrimental effects)
Pdo ck)angu in land, water features, charachter or quality._
ALTERNATIVES (Other alternatives to the action proposed)
Do not know of any alternatives.
I hereby make application pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 105 42 and all supporting rules for a permit to work in or affect the above named protected
water(s) in accordance with all supporting maps, plans, and other information submitted with this application The information submitted and statements made
concerning this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
S7a)urre of Owner or Authorit� Agent-
Date
Signature of Leasee
Date
day of I 19 LORRIE K. FRAUTSCHI
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
RAMSEY COUNTY
My commission expires ;s My commission expires 6-2-97
Signature of Notary
bution:
White: DNR
Blue: SWCD
Green: Watershed District
Goldenrod: City or County
Pink: Army Corps of Engineers
Canary: Applicant
trDEPART
NATURAL
XCEM6 rg4 OF
oa�rt_ �<;. vw RESOURCES
r
_ NA-02670-M
Rev. 7/50
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT COMMENTS
PART B
Section I (To be completed by applicant)
Name of Applicant
ilarvi;: D. Sjobeck
Quarter Section(s)
PROJECT LOCATION
Address (Street, RFD, Box No., City, State, Zip Code)
2021 .i Lake Street, Stillwater, 2,"N 55032
n(s) Township(s) 1 Range(s) County(ies)
Project will affect: (name and number of lake, wetland, or watercourse)
Lake St. Croix River
I hereby submit this application for permit to: Signature of Applicant Date
(mark proper box)
appropriate water 0 work in protected waters X �' �!-; r I ''" �'�
4_.r
Section II (To be completed by local unit of government) rrr�—r--���—��^------�—�—
The following local unit of government comments and/or recommendations are submitted for consideration by the
Department of Natural Resources In the disposition of the referenced permit application. (YOUR RESPONSE MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAYS.) Water Appropriation Permit Applications and Protected Waters Permit
Applications are to be sent to the DNR Regional Office. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES).
Was the proposed project field inspected by this local unit of government? [:]NO AYES (if Yes, give viewer's name)
Viewer's Name Title
Authorized Signature Title Date Telephone No. (Area Code)
Name of responding Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed District, City or County
Address (of the above named local unit of government)
(DNR-Division of Waters addresses on back)
r e
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION STUDY OF LAND NORTH OF STILLWATER
AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 96
The City Council requested the Planning Commission to
consider annexation of the area south of Highway 96 and
generally north of the City boundary. The area is in the
City planning area. For the March 9th Commission meeting,
annexation a planning study will be prepared including
proposed land use and the availability of City services.
This item is brought to the Commission at this time to
provide an opportunity for the Commission to indicate any
special items you might want considered in the study.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
F
0
A -
WRAT Y ,
r i water
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Work on Phase I Downtown Improvement will be completed
early next summer. The enclosed report describes work
completed and work yet to be done next Spring.
The City Council and Downtown Plan Action Committee met
January 21, 1992 to discuss the next phase of -Downtown
Improvement. As a result of the discussion, the Council
directed that plans be prepared for reconstruction of the
Levee Wall and Lowell Park extension to enable possible
reconstruction in 1993. The Council also directed that the
parking situation based on the First Phase Improvements and
unpaved parking management.
The report is made for your information. Don Valsvik is the
Planning Commission representative on the Downtown Plan
Action Committee.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
DOWNTOWN UPDATE
DOW_NTQ N_PROJECT $O% COMPLETED
As of December 1991, 30% of the overall Downtown Improvement Project was
completed. Generally, heavy excavation work and most of the work in the area,
including Main and east of Main Street, is completed. Repair and installation
of new water, sewer and storm sewer lines downtown is 95% completed. All
electrical, telephone and cable TV lines are buried under Water, Mulberry, and
along North Main Street to Laurel Street. Final electrical connections to the
new ground -mounted transformers along those streets will be completed and the
old utility poles removed over the winter months. The Water Street raised
pedestrian walkway will be completed with the installation of the iron railing
and street lights.
During the winter the deteriorating limestone wall along the west side of Main
Street, north of Staples Mill, will be reconstructed. Work has begun on the
north end of the wall and will continue to the south and be completed by
March. Sewer pipes in Third Street, from Chestnut to Olive, Olive from Second
to Third and Nelson from Main to Second Streets will be sealed and lined
beginning in January with completion in February.
By the end of April, depending on the Spring thaw and weather conditions,
construction will be in full swing on the remaining 20% of the project.
Construction activities will center west of Main Street, along Second Street.
Second Street from Nelson to Myrtle will be reconstructed. Reconstruction
includes milling or removal of the asphalt street, removal of curbs and
gutters, sidewalk and old street lights and the installation of new street,
curb and gutter, street lights, sidewalk and paver strip. Along Second Street,
Nelson Street from Main to Second Street, Olive Street from Second to Third
and Myrtle, Union Alley to Third (sidewalk abutting curb and gutter only),
will be reconstructed. Commercial Street from Second Street to Main Street and
Second Street from Myrtle Street to Mulberry will be sealcoated and new curb
and gutters, sidewalk, pavers and street lights installed.
1
Other remaining improvements that will be completed include repaving and
marking City parking lots at Olive and Second, Water and Chestnut, and along
Main Street just south of Maple Island, completion of the parking lot between
i
Rivertown Commons and the Lowell Inn along Second Street, construction of a
new 100 car parking lot just south of the Minnesota Zephyr boarding area and
undergrounding electric lines on North Main Street from Laurel to Elm Street.
Pavers will be installed along Main Street, north of Chestnut Street, where
needed and street and highway signs installed.
As a final improvement, all streets will be paved with a final coat of asphalt
and street parking and traffic markings painted and benches and trash I
receptacles will be installed. According to schedule, the Downtown Improvement
Project will be completed in time for Lumberjack Days.
2
UNDE24 ST.
�
N
�
Z
z
N
MULBERRY ST.
Z
771
1
9
9
DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE - SPRING 1992
LEGEND
SPRING CONSTRUCTION
AREAS
PUBLIC PARKING LOTS
N
dwoo�
lHim,v'ater.
Rebuilding The Birthplace.
ROBERT A. ELLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS (ELECTRICAL)
EDINA OFFICE • 5513 VALLEY LANE • EDINA, MN 55435 • (612) 941-2886
MINNETONKA OFFICE • 14407 EXCELSIOR BLVD. • MTKA, MN 55345 • (612) 931-0190
December 10, 1991
Mr. Stephen S. Russell
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
City Hall
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, minnesota 55082
Dear Mr. Russell
At your request I looked into light polution ordinances in the
twin cities area. I found that very few cities have addressed
this problem with an ordinance.
The only actual ordinance I found was in the city of Maple Grove
Minnesota which I have attached.
The City of Plymouth is presently developing an ordinance. At
this stage the propossed ordinance reads as follows: Any
lighting from outside a property shall not be visible at the
property line. Visible light has been determined to be
0.5 horizontal footcandles by the City.
The City of Golden Valley Minnesota does not have an outdoor
lighting ordinance but the city recently used the following
definition of light polution to encourge a used car lot to
modify its outdoor lighting.
Light trespass is defined as unwanted light on a property from a
source outside of that property that obstructs the use of the
property or interferes with the ability to see other objects
clearly due to light glare.
I have also included and article in the Lighting Design and
Application magazine on light polution.The magizine is published
by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
I am sorry I could not find any more cities with this type of
ordinance. If I hear of any more I will forward the information
to you.
Robert_ -A.-," ller Associates, inc.
By
Robert A. Eller, P.E.
of
m
G
t:
or
NOT IN A4Y WINDOW
YOU DON'T I DON'T
CARE WHAT YOU
HAVE TO Po To
CORRECT ?HE
PROBLEM, BUT.__
THE ANALYSIS .7
0 F
COMMON L irrmT : ` � ,;
R
ONALP P. LEVV'5
.......... .....
... I will not tolerate that light shining in my window all night
long. 11 you don't lix the problem soon you will be hearing
from my lawyer.
That was my introduction to the subject of light trespass.
That also was my introduction to lighting as a career. l was
fresh out of graduate school and working in a program that
was designed to turn engineers into sales and marketing
people Engineering school had taught me how to deal with
facts, figures, and formulas. Unfortunately, it had not taught
me how to deal with the emotions of people, the subjective
world of lighting. I found out early on that light trespass is both
a technical problem and a people problem.
The person who was upset over the light coming through
his windows had every reason to be upset. In this particular
situation, high -wattage HID post -top luminaires were placed
at just the right height and distance from his windows so as
to cause maximum irritation instead of illumination. It was
evident that no one had thought about possiblelight intru-
sion problems when this lighting scheme was selected.
Seventeen years have gone by since that frictional start in
the lighting business. A lot has changed in that time, but one
thing hasn't. People still complain about lights shining into
their bedroom windows.
Out of all the changes that have taken place over the years,
the most universal is the growing complexity of almost
everything we do. Lighting designers and specifiers have not
been immune to this plague of complexity that has permeated
our society. It seems almost impossible to satisfy all the dif-
ferent demands placed on an outdoor lighting design today.,
Some of the issues that must be evaluated are:
■ Safety and liability
■ Security
■ Energy cost and availability
■ Initial costs and project budgets
■ Architectural coordination
■ Codes and ordinances
Some of these requirements seem to be directly opposed to
one another. Rising crime rates and rising liability insurance
costs would suggest you add more lighting. At the same time,
the pressure to conserve energy and to bring the initial cost
of projects within limited budgets increases. Issues such as
acid rain, global warming, nuclear power, and insufficient
power production by utilities are making energy conservation
a hot issue These limiting factors of energy and budget are
interpreted by some as a mandate to reduce the amount of
lighting used.
Safety and security interests say increase lighting, while
power and financial people say reduce No wonder specifiers
are in a quandary as to which criteria to use
It makes sense that a design review for potential light
trespass problems is one of the last steps in selecting the
luminaires and their locations. Sometimes, however; lighting
plans are completed without any regard at all to light trespass
considerations. This may happen because of limited site in-
formation, or because the specifier doesn't think about light
trespass or its potential problems.
Ordinances
I recently spoke at an IESNA chapter meeting and was sur-
prised at the interest in Iight trespass and its regulation. Codes
and ordinances seemed to concern them greatly. They used
terms such as vague, ambiguous, ineffective, and bureaucratic.
Such regulations are often the result of prior problems, and
although their intent is to eliminate potential problems, they
frequently create new problems of a different kind.
Part of the difficulty in generating enforceable light trespass
regulations is simply identifying or defining what, in fact, light
trespass is and what it is not, The Subcommittee on Light
Trespass of the IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee pub-
lished a report in 1985 titled A Statement on Astronomical Light
Pollution and Light Trespass (IESNA publication number
CP-46-1985). "It is certain that most light control ordinances
based upon illuminance at property lines do not solve the
problem. Moreover, the local light control ordinance can
create confusion over the acceptability of lighting equipment.
They do little to solve the basic problem if they are not based
upon the scientific principles of illumination and vision."
There is little benefit in dwelling on those things that don't
work or are least understood. Let's turn our attention, instead,
to what we do know. Light trespass complaints usually fall into
one of the following three areas:
1. Unwanted light in windows
2. Unwanted light on adjacent properties
3. Excessive brightness in the normal field of vision
Light intruding into windows is perhaps the classic model
for light trespass. Even there we don't have definitive values
of what light level is acceptable If it is zero, street lights, porch
lights, decorative lanterns, garage lights, etc. maybe in viola-
tion. This is obviously not a cut -and -dry issue We can, how-
ever, pick out offenses made blatant by the poor distribution
and location of the luminaires.
The biggest surprise to most people comes under the second
category —unwanted light spilling onto adjacent properties.
This phenomenon has increased markedly in this age of con-
venience stores and fast-food restaurants. Single-family
homeowners that were once rural residents are finding
themselves on the front line of the latest growth surge The
wooded lot next door has now become a convenience store
or condominium complex. Like the Hatfields and the McCoys,
these commercial and residential neighbors at times dorit see
everything quite the same way.
For at least a decade now specifiers have utilized that
workhorse, the "cutoff' or "shoe box" fixture to light everything
from parking lots to shuffleboard courts. That type of fixture
has done a fair job of limiting the problem of light in the win-
dows. But what happens when these units are placed around
the perimeter of a fast-food restaurant or convenience store?
What happens to the 35, 40, or even 50 percent of the light
that is distributed to the house side of the cutoff lumi-
naire? On occasion it falls well into a neighbor's property. If
the neighbor is unhappy about noise levels, traffic, or anything
else, unwanted light on their property can be the catalyst that
spurs them to action. Even if there are no other inflammatory
LD+AIJuly 1989
Figure 1—Vertical candela distribution curve of luminaire number 1
Figure 2—Vertical candela'distribution curve of luminaire number 2
Figure 3—Vertical candela distribution curve of luminaire number 3
factors, stray light may cause offensive shadows or color
distractions on neighboring properties.
Cutoff luminaires do a fine job in many applications, but
in some applications they may be a poor choice One area to
particularly pay attention to is where the majority of lighting
will be placed around the perimeter of a property. Even though
cutoff luminaires are available in a variety of distributions, a
substantial amount of light usually goes behind the fixture to
the house side or curbside. Not only can this cause light
trespass problems, it also detracts from the amount of light
falling on the primary area that is to be lighted. ,1 substantial
amount of energy maybe used lighting areas you didn't even
want to light. Problems from light falling onto adjacent pro-
perties are minimal, but you should be aware of their poten-
tial nonetheless.
A third area that has been associated with light trespass
relates to excessive brightness. This may be in the form of a
floodlight that, while it is sufficiently distant from the home
so that it doesn't shine into windows, impacts on the ability
of the homeowner to see out from the window. Is this
phenomena possible? I have reason to believe it is.
Recently I was staying in a hotel located near the intersec-
tion of two major highways. One of the highways led directly
into the city; the other was a typical beltway around the city.
When I checked into the hotel the daylight view from the
fourth floor was extensive I could see the city skyline, the
highways, and much detail. That evening when 1 looked out
through the same window almost all I could see was a 50-ft
tower with 24 floodlights that lighted a parking lot. That tower
was at least half a mile away, but it was blinding against the
dark sky.
Let me describe a more frequent problem that involves the
same principle There are thousands of Victorian acorn -
shaped and colonial-lantem style post -top luminaires that
have been retrofitted7rom incandescent to HID lamps. The
fixtures now provide many more lumens and lumens per watt,
yet some of these fixtures have made it more difficult to see
because of excessive brightness. One last example of this prob-
lem comes from the commercial sector I'm sure all of us have
driven past new- and used -car lots, gas stations, and shop-
ping center entrance signs that are meant to be dazzling but
in fact are blinding.
Vertical footcandles
All three of the forms of light trespass listed earlier can be
minimized, if not eliminated, by the careful selection and
placement of luminaires. One stumbling block to avoiding
potential problems is the standard of using isofootcandle
curves and horizontal footcandle data. Most offensive lighting
jobs are characterized by excess or stray tight on in the ver-
tical plane, yet most designs are based on horizontal plane
data. A post -top sphere may look fine on an isofootcandle
diagram, yet actually 75 percent of the light might go unac-
counted. Even worse, the maximum candlepower may be
shining in a direction that causes discomfort glare, if not
disability glare An even better illustration uses wall packs.
A vertical candela distribution curve allows the comparison
of the relative brightness or glare of fixtures that may be under
consideration. Once the cutoff angle is selected the candela
of each fixture can be directly read for comparison purposes.
Figure 1 shows a luminaire in which the candela at the cutoff
angle of 77-1/2 degrees equals 10 percent of the peak candela
for that fixture.
Luminaire number 2 (Figure 2) produces 30 percent of its
peak candela value at the same cutoff angle. Even though
luminaire number 2 is considered a cutoff luminaire, at the
10 LD+AIJuly 1989
Figure 4—Cross sections of two shoe box luminaires
cutoff angle it produces three times the brightness of lumi-
naire number 1. This may well be an excessive level of glare
at that high angle
Figure 3 shows a luminaire that is less bright than luminaire
number 1 at the cutoff angle This is shown as 10 percent of
its lower peak candela value Luminaire number 3 would be
the logical choice if glare control was the only criterion by
which to choose a fixture Unfortunately, since the peak
candela angle of fixture number 3 is less than that of the other
two fixtures, producing the same uniformity of illumination
would require substantially more fixtures spaced closer
together. Luminaire number 1 would require fewer fixtures,
poles, and bases. This could reduce the initial, operating, and
maintenance costs of the installed lighting system. Luminaire
number 1 would also produce much less brightness at the
cutoff angle than luminaire number 2.
12 LD+A1July 1989
Trying to minimize glare and maximize spacing at the same
time is not always easy. There are, however, luminaires
available from several manufacturers that utilize concealed
lamps and double reflectors. The lamp is out of direct view
and the light is dispersed by the large surface area of a
distributing reflector: This design allows light to be projected
at high angles without producing disability glare Highly
sophisticated systems utilizing several staked double -reflector
assemblies have been developed but are not widely available
These state-of-the-art optical systems are available in period
as well as contemporary fixture designs.
Many specifiers have used shoe box fixtures as their stan-
dard for almost every site lighting application. This type of fix-
ture is useful in controlling glare and potential light trespass
problems. The one feature that may exclude it from some ap-
plications is inherent in the geometry of the fixture If you look
at a profile of the fixture and draw a line through the center
of the lamp, an interesting characteristic becomes appar-
ent (Figure 4).
Most of the light coming from the bottom half of the lamp
goes directly out of the fixture A large percentage of the light
that comes from the back side of the lamp is reflected and
redirected around the lamp and down. It is a relatively small
percentage of the light that is reflected to the higher (but still
below the glare zone) angles. Consequently, there is frequently
a hot spot at the base of the pole and relatively poor unifor-
mity unless the poles are spaced close together I mention this
to illustrate that there isn't any one simple solution that meets
all the different criteria of a good site lighting design.
Recommendations
Fortunately, light trespass is not a frequent problem. It is,
however, incumbent on us all to deliberately and consistent-
ly put a step in our design process in which we check for
possible light trespass problems. Where local ordinances have
appeared, extra paperwork, extra costs, and extra delays have
followed. Weve all heard the old saying, `An ounce of preven-
tion is worth a pound of cure'
Lighting designers perform a delicate balancing act with
design criteria. The same fixture cannot possibly be perfect
for every project. I recommend that, if at all possible, the ac-
tual site be studied, not just the plans.
Anticipate problems. Know the horizontal and vertical
distribution of luminaires. Select the fixtures with the widest
distribution or best uniformity that still meet your cutoff re-
quirements. This may substantially reduce the number of
poles used and the installed system cost. Lastly, design each
outdoor lighting project as if each of the neighbors was go-
ing to be given your home telephone number
The author: Ronald R Lewis is Hanson lighting Groulis representative to the
National Electrical Manufacturers Association where he chairs the Outdoor
Section of the Lighting Division. He also serves on the Capitol Hill
Task Force.
An HLG representative to the Lighting Research and Education Fund Com-
mittee of the Lighting Research Institute, Mr. Lewis serves on the Marketing
Task Force there.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
REVISED 1987
375:21, Subd. 4(h)(13)
r
(Rev. 1987)
li(13)
Li htin . All off-street parking areas for residential uses of
twelve 12) or more spaces and all off-street parking for
industrial,
commercial, institutional, and public uses (except
neighborhood parks as identified in the Maple Grove
Comprehensive Park System and Recreation Plan, as amended)
shall be equipped with operable lighting designed to illuminate
the entire surface of the parking area to a minimum level of
one (1) foot-candle at ground level.
(A) Light standards shall be located with a safety island or
around the perimeter of the parking area and shall not be
placed as a freestanding structure within the parking
'
area.
(B) All lighting must be so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses,
and public rights -of -way and be in compliance with Section
375:12, Subd. 9, of this Ordinance.
(Amended,
Ord. Nos. 81-28, Sec. 5; 86-32, Sec. 5)
(14)
Signs. No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight
lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any
parking lot. All signs shall conform to the Maple Grove Sign
Ordinance.
(15) Curbing. Except for single family, two family, townhouse and
quadraminium dwellings, all driveways, loading areas, and
parking areas shall be bounded by curb and gutter.
(A) The City may exempt curbing where the City has approved
future expansion of the parking lot.
(B) Traffic safety islands shall be installed at the ends of
each parking tier. Additional traffic safety islands may
be required to maintain a safe and orderly flow of traffic
within the parking lot.
(C) All required curbing and safety islands shall be
poured -in -place concrete.
(Amended, Ord. Nos. 81-28, Sec. 6; 86-32, Sec. 6)
(16) Re uired Screenin All open, non-residential, off-street
parking areas o ive (5) or more spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts
in compliance with Section 375:12, Subd. 7 of this Ordinance.
375:12, Subd. 8
(Rev. 1983)
Subd. 8. Traffic Visibility. On corner lots in all districts, no structure
or planting in excess of thirty (30) inches above the street center line grade
shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: beginning at
the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets,
thence thirty (30) feet along one property line thence diagonally to a point
thirty (30) feet from the point of beginning on the other property line, thence
to the point of beginning.
Subd. 9. Glare.
(a) Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or
other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from
any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct
or sky -reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high
temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be
directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall
be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent
property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in
view of adjacent property or public right-of-way.
(b) Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public
street shall not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter reading) as
measured from the center line of said street. Any light or
combination of lights which cast light on residential -property shall
not exceed four (4) foot candles (meter reading) as measured from
said property.
C
r water
I
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1992
SUBJECT: RIVER VIEW STUDY
For the meeting of February 10, 1992 I would 1 ike to
discuss methods that could be used to regulate development
along the river shoreline to minimize the visual impact
from the river.
From the meeting, a list of measures will be developed that
can be further studied to determine their appropriateness
and feasibility.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
STILLWATER ST. CROIX RIVER VIEW STUDY
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 built in
the late 1950s to 1960s. 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 style home 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 mostly in a natural condition. The vegetation over hangs the
river. There are two breaks in the natural shoreline area. One is the Aiple
Barge Offices and the other is the fertilizer storage pole building and loading
area. The Oasis gas station on the inland side of Highway 95 and restaurant can
also be seen at this point.
Downtown Stillwater
Traveling north on the St. Croix River, the Historic Stillwater Lift Bridge
dominates the view connecting the Minnesota and Wisconsin sides. Tothe west
Stillwater rests within a Pamaramic Bowl framed by bluff top trees. Church
steeples, Victorian homes and some newer high rise building define the downtown
area. This view has remained relatively unchanged for 100 years.
The Historic Downtown Stillwater buildings do not rise far above the river but
provide a stark contrast to the natural beauty of the open reaches of the lower
St. Croix. These buildings create a urban village element to the riverway. 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 that define the rivers edge and separates Lowell Park
from the river.
There are many colors in the bowl of Stillwater. The Historic buildings are
brick red and the newer buildings range in from white to gold from light white
and cream to dark brown and gold.
North Stillwater
Traveling north out of the Downtown Stillwater bowl area one bluff line remains.
This steep area of vegetation creates a natural wall. Vegetation in this area
consists of Aspen, Spruce, Pine and Walnut. There are various large homes along
the north end of this Stillwater Bluffline. These homes are painted white and
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 totally natural/wild.
The area feels more rural.
Leaving downtown Stillwater moving north 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 single residential home with a boat and dock.
Lakeside residential subdivision is urban in appearance. Most of the homes hover
on the first bluffline over the river approximately 30 feet below. These homes
were built the late 1950s - 1960s. The homes vary in height and color.
Two marinas mark the City limits of the City of Stillwater on the shoreline.
These marinas have scattered dockage and irregular shorelines. There are some
residential homes scattered throughout the area.
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.
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
NATURAL
- .sue. }:_ � z •�-M1-,r
D.11 LL
BLUFFLINE
WITH 4 :,., [D�t
HOMES 4 y;_ 6
MARINAS
C DENTIAL. ARE
{
Zt-
NATU y �+1
l SH NE
Ij (,
E
q
� F
ILa�1I —�•� — I Z s i - ; 4i
I STO I C
�. CI DOWNTWN
s
r; _kA RBAN R f-
OHORCH STEP
AND HOMES
31
� L� •�
NAThAL
HISTORIC a "� ""`a�. SHORELINE
HOMES
INDJ STRIAL
k6
USES '
L.. NATURAL
a "' " LUFFLINL
Li
d - �l .� •� TTERED VITH
El m"._ol HOMES
s�LL w
MF
\
NORT
STILLWATER
DOWNTOWN
STILLWATER
SO_
STILLWATER