HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-14 CPC PacketU1wat
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
June 9, 1993
THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993 AT 7:00
P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET.
Approval of Minutes - May 10, 1993.
AGENDA
1. Case No. PUD/93-23 - Planned Unit Development permit for a 256,000 square
toot commercial development on a portion of a 67.8 acre parcel of land
located on the northeast quadrant of Highway 36 and County Road #5 in the
Business Park -Commercial, BP-C, Zoning District. Target and Super Valu,
Applicants.
2. Case No. SUB/93-24 - A Subdivision of a 67.8 acre parcel into nine lots,
seven developable, ranging in size from 10.34 acres to 1.42 acres located
on the northeast quadrant of Highway 36 and County Road #5 in the Business
Park -Commercial District, BP-C. Target and Super Valu, Applicants.
3. Case No. V/93-34 - A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for construction of a
19 square foot sign on a canopy of an existing building in the Two Family
Residential, RB, Zoning District at 808 North Fourth Street. Consolidated
Lumber Company, Applicant.
4. Case No. SUP/93-36 - A Special Use Permit for operation of a painting
business out of a residence at 507 West Maple Street in the Two Family
Residential, RB, Zoning District. Forrest Cole, Applicant.
5. Case No. SUB/93-37 - Resubdivision of two lots, (2.48 acres), into three
lots of .65 acres, .65 acres, and 1.18 acres, located in the Two Family
Residential, RB, Zoning District at 1023 North Broadway. Robert McGarry,
Applicant.
6. Case No. SUB/93-35 - Minor Subdivision of lots 17, 18 and 19, Churchill and
Nelson's Second Addition, by adding a 5 ft. x 150 ft. parcel to Lots 6, 7
and 8, Churchill and Nelson's Second Addition. The property is located in
the Two Family Residential, RB, Zoning District, 311 East Burlington
Street. Edna Andrewson, Applicant.
7. Case No. SUB/93-38 - Minor Subdivision adding the south 10 ft. of Lot 4,
Block 3, Thompson, Parker and Mower's Second Addition to Lot 6 of the same
addition located in the Two Family Residential, RB, Zoning District, at 229
North Everett Street. Betty Swanson, Applicant.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MAY 10, 1993
PAGE TWO
8. Case No. SUP/V/93-39 - A Special Use Permit and Variance to the Bed and
Breakfast Ordinance (another Bed and Breakfast is located within 900 feet)
to conduct a four guest room Bed and Breakfast at 1306 South Third Street.
The property is located in the Two Family Residential, RB Zoning District.
John G. and Elizabeth Hilpisch, Applicants.
OTHER ITEMS
Consideration of Ordinances:
(1) Conservation Ordinance limiting development of sloped areas.
(2) Storm Water Ordinance requiring review of storm water damage.
(3) Other items.
2
1
Date:
Time
Members Present:
STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 10, 1993
7 p.m.
Gerald Fontaine, Chairman
Glenna Beaika, Duane Elliott, Dorothy Foster, Jay Kimble,
Kirk Roetman and Darwin Wald
Steve Russell, Comm. Dev. Director
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Planner
Absent: Rob Hamlin and Don Valsvik
Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Darwin Wald to approve the minutes of April 12, 1993; seconded by Glenna
Beaika. All in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. V/93-17 - Continuation of consideration of a variance to the setback
requirements for shoreline and front yard (90 feet proposed, 100 feet required) and
construction on slopes greater than 12% for construction of a 20 x 24 foot garage at
118 Lakeside Drive in the Bluffland/Shoreland, RB Residential District.
Applicants Michael and Sheryl Meyer appeared on their own behalf. Mr. Meyer stated
the request is now for a 22 x 24 foot garage. The new plans move the building 1 foot
back from the front property line toward the river. He said the garage is now placed 1
foot back from the house overhang and is no closer to the river than the house. Mr.
Meyer also said he had contacted Abrahamson Nursery to do a landscaping plan, as
the commission had previously recommended.
Mr. Russell noted that if the Planning Commission approved the request, the Meyers
would meet with DNR representatives prior to the City Council meeting when the
request will be considered.
Mr. Elliott moved the request as conditioned (six); seconded by Kirk Roetman. All in
favor. Mr. Meyer said he would try to set up a meeting with Molly Shodeen of the DNR.
2
Case No. SUP/93-26. Continuation of consideration of a Special Use Permit for a
minor subdivision of a 75,625 square foot lot into two Tots of 38,50 square feet and
37,125 square feet. The property is located at 1030 W. St. Croix Ave. in the RA, Single
Family Residential District.
Applicant Bev Flory reaffirmed the property owners desire to proceed with the
subdivision.
Ann Pung-Terwedo noted that the property in question could not be served by city
sewer until the Amundson property south of the applicants' property is developed.
(Currently the sewer would have to be extended 520 feet to serve the Flory property.)
She said the Planning Commission has two options -- deny the request as premature
or allow the request with the property served by on -site septic systems.
Shawn Draper, 1221 Amundson Circle, expressed his concern about increased traffic,
loss of the tree line, and the accessibility of the area to emergency service and public
works vehicles. He questioned the length of time and sequence of (street, water)
improvements. He also suggested the proposal would require wetlands mitigation. He
asked that the request be denied.
Mr. Russell noted that if the request were approved, one of the conditions could be that
improvements be installed before the lot is subdivided. A public hearing would be held
and if approved, the City Could could order improvements, perhaps by the end of this
year.
Richard Kuula, 1241 Amundson Circle, also spoke in opposition to the request due.
He also cited concern about the possible loss of trees, and the proximity a roadway
would have to his pool.
Mr. Elliott noted that while the property is large enough to support on -site septic, it
would be unwise to surface the street until it is sewered. He said the number of
unknowns make it difficult for the Planning Commission to make a decision. He
suggested that the Florys meet with the Amundsons to determine their plans for future
development and that a street -net plan be developed before a decision is made.
Mr. Roetman also expressed concern about the number of unknowns -- the access
issue, the street plan issue -- and also suggested the Florys try to contact the
Amundsons. Mr. Elliott pointed out that if the Florys are unsuccessful in determining
the Amundsons plans for the property, the City could force the issue by ordering a
street -net plan and assessing the cost back to the property owners.
Mr. Elliott made the motion to continue the request until there is more information
relative to a street -net plan; seconded by Mr. Roetman. All in favor.
Case No. SUP/93-26. Special Use Permit for the placement of a 40 square foot wall
sign and a 90 square foot wall sign. The property is located at 514 E. Alder St. in the
RB, Two Family Residential District.
3
The staff report noted that Bluffland/Shoreland regulations do not allow advertising
signs visible from the river. The wording "slips available" does advertise a product. It
was recommended a condition of approval be that the wording "slips available" be
removed from the requested sign at the rear elevation of the building, reduced in size
to 12 or 8 inches and located on the front of the building beneath the main business
identification sign.
Lynn Wolf, applicant, and his attorney Karl Ranum appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Ranum said the intent of the advertising is not for river users, but for traffic on
Highway 95. He pointed out that Wolf Marine's Highway 95 signage was lost when the
road was reconstructed last year. He showed photos taken from the road and from the
DNR boat launch and stated that visibility of the signs from the water would not be a
problem.
Mr. Elliott said the the signage will indeed be visible from the DNR ramp. Mr. Wolf
responded by saying the 18 inch letters on the sign, as proposed, would not be
readable from the ramp which, he said, is about 1/2 mile away from his building.
Glenna Bealka suggested that the Commission should try to stick to the rules for signs.
Dorothy Foster made the motion to approve the signage as requested, without
conditions; seconded by Darwin Wald. Vote was 5 to 2 in favor; Glenna Bealka and
Duane Elliott voted no.
Case No. V/93-29. Variance to the sideyard setback requirement on a corner lot (30
feet required, 18 feet requested) for a garage addition. The property is located at 2117
Dundee Place in the RA, Single Family Residential District.
Applicant Dan Dalluhn appeared on his own behalf. The request is to add one stall to
the existing single -car attached garage; the addition would be 30 feet from the street
curb line as a condition of approval.
Mr. Elliott pointed out that most corner lots are larger. However, Mr. Dalluhn's lot is not
large enough to allow for the requested garage addition without the variance.
Darwin Wald moved to approve the request as conditioned; seconded by Kirk
Roetman. All in favor.
Case No. SUP/93-30. Special Use Permit for the construction of a 9,000 square foot
office/retail building. The property is located at 1900 Tower Drive in the BP-O,
Business Park Office District.
Ray Martin and Jack Krongard, applicant, appeared before the Commission.
There was considerable discussion about parking requirements. Thirty parking spaces
are required for a 9,000 square foot office building (one space per 300 square feet).
Retail use requires one space per 200 square feet or 45 spaces for a 9,000 square
foot building.
4
The applicant's current site plan shows 27 parking spaces. During the discussion, Mr.
Russell agreed that an additional three spaces could probably be accommodated at
the rear of the building, which would meet the requirements for office use.
Mr. Martin asked about the possibility of leasing space from the neighboring business,
Arrow Building and St. Croix Bike and Skate, if the decision was made to put some
retail use in the building. Mr. Russell said that would be possible if the businesses
have excess spaces and agree to a long-term lease arrangement.
Glenna Bealka asked whether the applicants should see if they can rent extra parking
before the Commission acts on the request. Mr. Russell said the Commission could
approve the office use and review the application if retail use becomes possible by
using off -site parking arrangements.
Glenna Bealka moved to approve the Special Use Permit for a 9,000 square foot office
building as conditioned (seven); seconded by Dorothy Foster. All in favor.
Case No. SUP/DR/93-31. Special Use Permit for construction of a 7,500 square foot
veterinary clinic. The property is located on the northeast corner of Washington
Avenue and Curve Crest Boulevard in the BP -I, Business Park/Industrial District.
Doctors Rice and Waters appeared before the Commission.
It was noted the Special Use Permit is needed because of an open exercise area at
the rear of the building. The area will be enclosed with a six-foot high fence; three feet
will be brick to match the building, with an addition three feet of wooden fencing. The
exercise area will not be visible from the street.
Darwin Wald moved to approve the Special Use Permit as conditioned (one);
seconded by Duane Elliott. All in favor.
Case No. V/93-32. Variance to the height requirement (20 feet required, 24 feet
requested) and to the total square footage requirements for an accessory structure
(1,000 square feet allowed, 1,350 square feet proposed). The property is located at
206 Locust St. In the RB, Two Family Residential District.
Applicants Todd and Kathleen Remington appeared on their own behalf. They stated
their house is built on bedrock and the basement is not usable. The request is to build
a carriage house/garage in keeping with the design of their 1872-built home.
One neighbor, Maury Stenerson, spoke in favor of the request.
Mr. Russell asked there would be a water hook-up in the workshop area. He
suggested that checking the condition of the septic system be added to the conditions
of approval, the other condition being that no habitable living space be allowed on the
second floor of the carriage house.
Kirk Roetman made the motion to approve the request as conditioned. seconded by
Darwin Wald. All in favor.
5
Case No. SUB/93-33. Minor Subdivision for transfer of a 1,399 square foot parcel of
property from 1047 West Sycamore St. to 1401 Amundson Drive. The property is
located in the RA, Single Family Residential District.
Applicant Mark Thibodeau said the request is simply to extend his property line to an
existing row of pine trees.
Duane Elliott moved to approve the request as conditioned (one); seconded by
Glenna Bealka. All in favor.
Case No. DR/93-27. Design Review for the renovation of an existing school into an
office building. The property is located at 110 E. Pine St. in the PA, Public
Administrative Office District.
Jay Slater and Pete Smith of BWBR Architects gave a brief overview of the design
plans for reuse the east wing of the Stillwater Junior High School as Cub Foods
corporate headquarters.
Mr. Smith noted one change from the information in the packet. The office building is
67,000 square feet, rather than 58,000 square feet, increasing required parking
spaces to 224, 58 spaces would be provided at the office site and 171 proposed for
the west wing site. He also addressed several issues that were raised during the
Heritage Preservation Commission hearing on the request.
He said in an effort to address concern about the placement of the mechanical
equipment on the roof of the building, plans now call for the equipment to be located
on the "infill" portion of the building roof to eliminate any site lines. Also, he said the
service entrance trash would be located at the northeast side of the building. A site for
off-loading of larger trucks, which make deliveries perhaps once a week, would be
provided off Third Street, he said.
Regarding the condition that the service road on the north side of the building be
removed. He said the request is to leave the road as is, but unused except for
emergency vehicle access.
Case No. DR/93-28. Design Review for a parking lot for 150-170 cars. The property is
located at 100 W. Pine St. in the PA, Public/Administrative District.
Rob Williams of Sanders, Wacker, briefly reviewed the plans for the site currently
occupied by the west wing of the junior high. The building would be removed. Parking,
with access off Third Street, would be located in the lower portion of the site. The
upper portion of the site, off Pine Street, would be landscaped to align visually with the
Historic Courthouse. Plans also call for the use of ornamental railings and construction
of a gazebo -type structure.
Sis Casanova, 223 W. Pine St., asked whether Cub employees would be required to
pay for a parking permit or whether the City was furnishing them with a lot. Mr. Russell
6
responded that Cub employees would be required to buy permits, just as other
employees are required to do in the downtown area.
Maury Stenerson, 205 E. Walnut St., questioned whether the proposals represent the
highest and best use of prime sites on the south hill.
Richard Kilty, 118 W. Oak St., showed slides of some "eyesores" (scrub trees and junk
in the ravines) in the neighborhood that would not be improved by the Cub project and
presented some alternate plan sketches. He suggested extending the fill down into the
ravine on the northern portion of the east wing site and building a parking lot on the
lower level of that site. He also called for a 100-foot strip of housing along Fourth
Street on the west wing site, with a shortened up version of the parking lot on Pine
Street and decking on the lower level of the west wing site.
Mark Balay, 416 S. Fifth St., questioned whether enough Tax Increment Financing
funding would be generated to complete the west site parking project and questioned
the advisability of even considering the project if the city doesn't have the available
funding.
Marlene Workman DeBoef said she like the east wing plans but questioned the use of
the west wing site for a parking lot. She said a number of potential users of the west
wing building had attended a meeting the previous week, and she urged the Planning
Commission to in turn urge the City Council to look at other options and allow at least
a portion of the west wing building to remain.
Mr. Kilty asked Tom Thueson, Cub Foods, about the plans for the northern half of the
east wing site. Mr. Thueson said plans are to leave the area in its current ravine state.
Mr. Kilty said there would be serious questions raised if Cub develops the northern
half of that lot that is got for $1. Mr. Thueson responded that Cub would be glad to
have that concern addressed as a condition of approval.
Kathleen Remington expressed concern about traffic and asked whether there weren't
alternatives to removing the west wing building for parking and, thereby, changing the
character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Russell responded that the city is looking at other parking sites in the south part of
downtown, specifically the UBC site and the possibility of a structure at the Second
and Olive street parking lot. Mr. Stenerson asked the west wing site is so critical if
there are other parking sites available downtown. Mr. Russell responded that parking
is needed in proximity to the Cub office building.
Jim Kellison, legislative chairman of the Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce,
"suggested and requested" that the Planning Commission approve the project(s).
Carol De Wolf, 518 S. Fourth St., spoke in support of the proposals.
During the Planning Commission discussion, Mr. Fontaine noted that most of the
discussion centered around the parking lot and taking down the west wing building.
During previous meetings, he said, including a previous Planning Commission
7
hearing, it became apparent that reuse of the east wing building was contingent upon
the provision of parking at the west wing site.
Mr. Elliott spoke favorably of Mr. Kilty's suggestion to deck the lower level parking area
at the west site. Mr. Russell said the design could accommodate a second level, and
said another of Mr. Kilty's suggestions, cleaning up ravines, could be incorporated as
a condition of approval.
Kirk Roetman moved to approve both design review requests with the added
conditions that the ravines be cleaned up and that the parking lot design show the
potential for added a deck; seconded by Glenna Bealka. (There are four other
conditions of approval for the parking lot, 13 other conditions for the office building.) All
in favor. Mr. Fontaine suggested that Mr. Kilty's plan be submitted to the Council for
their information.
Case No. SUP/DR/93-25. Special Use Permit and Design Review for a 90-room hotel,
conference center, along with a parking review. The property is located at 405 E.
Myrtle St. and 127 S. Water St. in the CBD, Central Business District/Flood Plain
District.
Mr. Smith of BWBR Architects briefly reviewed the design plans for the project and
addressed the conditions of approval. One condition deals with the awning in the front
of the hotel (the north end of the building on Myrtle Street) as it relates to the Myrtle
Street site line. Mr. Smith said the awning would be extended no further than the
existing property line, but does extend slightly over the curb for patron drop-off.
Another conditions suggests that the applicants consider the reducing the riverboat
appearance of the front of the hotel in the final design. Mr. Smith said the design
represents more than a riverboat theme -- the penthouse and stacks are functional
elements.
Mr. Russell addressed parking concerns and said he felt the existing spaces (60) in
the Hooley parking lot as well as available public parking in Lowell Park lot should be
adequate during the week, but there could be a potential "conflict" for use on
weekends.
James Laskin, 308 E. Chestnut St., said he liked the proposal, and was a "tad
nervous" about parking. He also questioned whether the riverboat smokestacks would
be kept in the final design.
Mr. Kilty questioned where the service entrances would be and suggested that as a
condition of approval the city should vacate Myrtle Street, as it would no longer be a
public street.
Commission members agreed with the concern about the drop-off/awning extending
into Myrtle Street and the possibility of traffic congestion and/or restriction of traffic to
the river, especially on weekends.
Mr. Kimble suggested that providing for two lanes of traffic, as well as the protected
drop-off area be made a condition of approval.
8
Mr. Roetman moved to approve the Special Use Permit with the added condition,
bringing the conditions of approval to six; seconded by Darwin Wald. All in favor.
SIGN ORDINANCE
Ann Pung-Terwedo a "compromise" has been met which would allow the hanging of
"open" signs in the downtown area. The signs are to be made of fabric, no larger than
35 inches by 11 inches and hung seven feet about the sidewalk.
Darwin Wald moved to amend the sign ordinance allowing "open" signs which meet
the ordinance requirements; seconded by Kirk Roetman. All in favor.
ZONING ORDINANCES
Consideration of a possible zoning ordinance amendment regulating development
and conservation of ravines and a possible storm water ordinance were continued to
the next meeting.
Darwin Wald moved to adjourn the meeting at 11 p.m.; seconded by Kirk Roetman. All
in favor.
Submitted by:
Sharon Baker
Acting recording secretary
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. PUD/93-23
Planning Commission Meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: Northeast corner of Highway 36 and County Road #5
Comprehensive Plan District: Commercial
Zoning District: Business Park Commercial & Business Park Office
Applicant's Name: Target and Super Valu
Type of Application: Planned Unit Development, PUD
Project Description:
The application is for concept approval for a 67.84 acre commercial
development and final PUD approval for 27.2 portion of the PUD.
Discussion:
The request is to construct a 256,000 square foot community commercial retail
center on a 67.84 acre parcel. A detailed application requests subdivision
approval of the site into nine lots (SUB/93-24). The application includes site
plan, grading/drainage plan, certificate of survey, subdivision, utility plan,
landscape lighting plans and building elevations.
The site is zoned Business Park Commercial, BP-C, and Business Park Office,
BP-0. (See Stillwater zoning Map No. 1.)
The West Business Park Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, provides
City direction for the development of the site. The plan designates the site
retail commercial and office and prescribes development standards for new
development. Special site (No. 1 and 2) development criteria are included in
the Business Park Plan are for this site. The criteria calls for a coordinated
project on the entire site, 1 and 2, area through a planned unit development
permit. The building design, materials, landscape plan, street plan, and
parking should be coordinated to achieve maximum community benefit.
Development criteria for site No. 2 states "No signage shall be directed to
County Road #5 and special landscaping and setbacks required along County Road
#5, an entrance to Stillwater". (See attached special site 1 and 2 map and
development criteria.)
The proposal does have a free-standing monument sign directed to County Road
#5 and no special landscaping is provided along that road.
The project meets the zoning use requirements for the site. All development
setbacks, lot coverage, and parking requirements are met or exceeded.
The project design has been reviewed by the City Design Review Committee (June
7, 1993) and the results of their review are included in the attached memo and
recommended conditions of approval.
The proposed road system is consistent with City, Washington County,
Stillwater Township and MnDOT plans for improvement in the area. The drainage
1
and grading plan uses much of the previous grading that has been done on the
site and incorporates it into the current project. The existing detention pond
will have to be expanded to accommodate future runoff from State Highway 36.
An additional detention area may be necessary north of new Curve Crest Blvd.
to handle runoff from the development north of Curve Crest.
The applicant will be required to dedicate 3.75 acres of land for park
dedication. The city is interested in purchasing the 3.45 remainder of the
site to add to the armory site just west of the project for a community
facility.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet has previously prepared for the old
Woodland Lakes Development. That review determined that a negative
declaration could be issued. The current project is significantly smaller than
the previous project and at this time the EAW is being reviewed for
application to this project.
A Wetland Alteration Permit will be needed to expand the detention pond before
building or grading permits can be issued. That review and approval will come
after Planning Commission review.
The request is for PUD Concept Approval of the entire 76.7 acre project and
final approval for the proposed commercial center.
Recommendation:
Approval as conditioned.
Findings:
The project is consistent with the Stillwater West Stillwater Business Park
Plan and zoning requirements.
Attachments:
Application/plan
Memo from Design Review Committee.
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All comments from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the
final plans for the site.
2. All comments regarding the road system from MnDOT and Washington County
shall be incorporated into the final street design.
3. The park dedication requirements shall be met by land dedication.
4. A final environmental review shall be completed before final Council
PUD and subdivision approval.
5. Design criteria, including building, sign and landscape standards
shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the city Design
Review Committee before final PUD approval.
6. A Wetlands Alteration permit shall be obtained before a grading permit
or building permit are issued.
7. The conditions of approval from the Design Review Committee shall be
incorporated into the final building plans.
8. The entry to the site off County Road #5 shall be landscaped along the
edge in a manner consistent with project landscaping.
9. Street trees shall be planted between Curve Crest and the property
boundary to the north along County Road #5.
10. Final PUD approval shall be required for the development of all
outlots.
11. Sidewalk shall be constructed along Neal and Curve Crest providing
access to Orleans and County Road #5.
iliwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: JUNE 10, 1993
SUBJECT: TARGET/CUB FOODS RETAIL CENTER - CASE NO. PUD/93-23
The Design Review Committee reviewed the Target/CUB Retail Center (Stillwater
Marketplace) at their regular meeting of June 7, 1993. The attached Staff
report gives an overview of the project along with a list of conditions.
The Design Review Committee agreed two plyon signs on Highway 36 and County
Road #5 was excessive. The building signage alone will indicate the business
as viewed from County Road #5. This signage also exceeds the total building
signage allowable. The Committee and the Developer agreed the pylon sign on
County Road #5 be lowered to a monument sign not to exceed ten feet in height.
The Design Review Conditions of Approval are attached.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. DR/93-16
Project Location: Northeast corner of Highway 36 and County Road #5.
Comprehensive Plan District: Business Park Commercial
Zoning District: BP-C
Applicant's Name: RLK Associates
Type of Application: Design Permit
Project Description:
Design Review for a Target/Cub Foods Retail Center on the northeast corner of
Highway 36 and County Road #5.
Discussion:
The request is to construct an 247,380 square foot retail center to include
Cub Foods, Target and two or more smaller retail stores. The site is visible
from Highway 36 and County Road #5. The building will be located along the
east boundary of the property facing west. As part of the project, Curve Crest
Avenue will be extended to the west to connect with County Road #5. Neal
Avenue will also be extended to the south and link with the Frontage Road to
provide access to the site.
The building will be constructed of a rock face, reddish brown masonry block.
Accent materials will include a charcoal grey block to be located at the base
of the building and bands of burnished buff and a warm grey throughout the
front and side facades. Columns will be accent architectural features
throughout three sides of the building.
Signage proposed for the project includes two pylon signs (internally
illuminated) to be located on the southeast corner of County Road #5 and Curve
Crest Boulevard and another located at the Frontage Road. The proposed 36 foot
height of these signs are 11 feet higher than the maximum allowed by the Sign
Ordinance which is 25 feet. The size of the pylons also exceed the size
allowable in the Sign Ordinance. The proposal calls for the signage to be 288
square feet. The maximum allowable is 120 square feet.
The wall signs for the center include a Target/Pharmacy sign (red) and a Cub
Foods/24 Hour Savings/Pharmacy (orange/red) sign. These signs are individual
box letters. The small retail outlets do not have signage size identified. The
total signage for Target is 256.5 square feet, which is appropriate. The total
Cub Foods signage is 705.4 square feet. The total signage allowable is 400
square feet (one square foot for each square foot of frontage). This sign is
305 square feet more than what is allowable.
The landscape plan includes varieties of blooming trees, evergreens, and
shrubs which will provide a wide range of color. A formal landscaped drive
centers the building and will provide a focal point. Planters will also be
located in front of the center.
All trash receptacles and recycling refuse will be located inside the rear of
the center.
1
DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PUD/83-23
1. The pylon sign along Highway 36 shall be 36 feet in height with a sign face
of 288 square feet.
2. The free-standing sign on County Road #5 shall be a maximum height of ten
feet with the sign face in proportion with the height of the sign. The
materials of the sign shall be compatible with the pylon sign and other
signage on the site.
3. An in -ground sprinkler system shall be installed around the north, west and
south perimeter of the site.
4. The following design guidelines shall be established for Outlot B.
A. Buildings shall be constructed of a reddish rock -face brown block.
B. Signage for this area shall consist of either (a) building signage
as regulated by the Sign Ordinance, Subd. 22.10 or (b) monument
signage not to exceed six feet in height. The face of the signage
shall not exceed 30 square feet. The materials shall be compatible
with the Target/CUB Foods and the Stillwater Marketplace signage.
C. The location and varieties of the landscaping shall be compatible
with the Target/CUB Foods Center landscaping.
5. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee This plan
shall consist of lighting style and intensity of lighting throughout the
site and location of light standards.
01 Minimurements for lot area, width, frontage, height, yards, ground floor area for BP -I, BP-
M
YMBOL
USE
DISTRICT
LOT AREA
LOT WIDT`"
SETBACK
FROM
PUBLIC
TREET
SIDEYARD
SETBACK
ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRI
(A •D)
REAR YARD
SETBACK
HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS
*r
:MAXIM*,
. LOT j4iY
(COVERAGE)
r,
-
=v[
P-I
1 ACRE
200
FEET
40
FEET
'.
75
FEET
30
FEET
40 FEET
60% .'¢
P-C
1/2 ACRE
100
FEET
0
FEET
20
FEET
75
FEE
30
FEET
40 FEET
60%
,P-0
1 ACRE
- 200
FEET
40
FEET
20
FEET
75
FEET
30
FEET
40 FEET
60%
SPECIAL SITES
Four special sites present special opportunities for new development because of their size, single ownership or location.
See Special Sites Maps 8, 9 and 10.
Site #1 and #2 are commercial sites located at the corner of County Road 5 and Highway 36.
Special Site #1, a 36 acre site, is bounded by County Road 5 to the west, Curve Crest Boulevard to the north, undeveloped
land off of Washington Street to the east, and the Frontage Road to the south. The site is a part of the old Woodland Lakes
project. It has been graded for drainage and road improvements. This site represents the best location in the Plan Area
for a commercial center.
The Land Use Plan designates this site Business Park -Commercial (BP-C). The commercial designation allows a range of retail
and office uses. A Planned Unit Development permit is required for this site to coordinate access, uses and project
design. It is the intent of the Planned Unit Development approach to have an overall plan for the site before any
development occurs. Through the PUD process, a coordinated landscape plan, site design, access, landscaping, signage and
parking program plan can be achieved and the development opportunity is maximized.
18
0
WOODLAND LAKES 1 & 2
CORPORATE LiAliTS-N
, Norm rr—s—ra
Asp 8
Site`'"l2i' located just north of Curve Crest Boulevard part of County Road 5. This site was also a part of the Woodland
Lakes.;development. A P[JD plan is also required for this site, perhaps coordinated with Site 1. The design of this site
and its appearance from County Road 5 is of particular importance. As with Site #1, coordinated architecture, landscaping,
signage, parking and access shall be required. No signage shall be directed to County Road 5 and Special landscaping and
setbacks are required for this Stillwater entrance along County Road 5.
Bite13 - Benson Fa The Benson Farm is designated single family and mu amily in the land use plan. The area adjacent
to the Pine Tree Tail r• •ential area and around Lily Lake is desi•.._ -. single family and the south portion of the site
located along extended Wes ans multifamily residential. ghborhood sized park, 5-10 acres, is located in the
southeast corner of the site. A • to the Benson farm are. .11 not be provided from Pine Tree Trail. The Benson
is not currently in the City of Stil^ When the ar is ready to develop, a conceptional Planned Unit Development
plan showing land use, residential densiti-, buffer a-• -, park lands, road system and open space area should be presented
to the City with a request fur annexation. e plan meets with City approval the required annexation request,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and MUSA line ext can be processed with the Metropolitan Council and State Municipal
Board.
11 Site #4 - Industrial Sites. These es should be protec to make sure they are available for future industrial
expansion. This can be done wit .•division regulations and 1. use controls, City acquisition of sites or incentive
for industrial development. strial lands next to the Benson Fa -sidential area should have special setbacks and
• landscaping to minimize the impact on the residential area.
i
i
19
ti
077t01At i M(Crs
- ,
ri 1..r.^:.1_l�.-rL:_rl_1w1�..,nNS='��,--r--1.i!i..2'i41a1.1 I_..�-eJ_Ll.L�1:+i .. �_.
WEST STILLWATER BUSJNESS PAR
STATE
T 7111ug III D if WAY N0.
( (7/.7}21;'A1 r ! 1.11/
I
COIIAGE on
1 SE DLY
�` IL 1:, 1 r
r . Alp
.54,c0
C 'CC r•11ON
I nor; IAGE IIDAO
A1,r Acncs
I .rr. �!•l.•r .f 11: '.' ul. • q,•:p. I"S1.•.' �+.Sv _•
0
rU >,•r
v .— E
H • E Iro
r- rc1
Ln LL. W Tli
vI •— O
tS Q1 • r Q •r
- r- 4-
C, CT -1-) 4-
C r—O
C:7)•r-
C N
Cr)
C 1 1caI
OIL c1
.Parks/Open space
ra
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/93-24
Planning Commission Meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: Northeast corner of County Road #5 and Highway 36.
Comprehensive Plan District: Commercial
Zoning District: Business Park Commercial and Business Park Office
Applicant's Name: Target and Super Valu
Type of Application: Subdivision.
Project Description:
Subdivision of a 67.84 acre site into nine lots including easements for Neal
Avenue/Frontage Road, North Neal Avenue and Curve Crest Blvd.
Discussion:
The request is to subdivide the 67.84 acre site into nine lots. The lots meet
the lot size requirements of the district and are consistent with the Planned
Unit Development request (PUD/93-23).
Recommendation:
Approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Any utility drainage or road easement required by review agencies shall
be provided on the final plan.
Attachment:
Preliminary Plat.
A RELMMARY
SITE Pt -AM
1T11WATER
TARGET
G! tt
P P
4
()TARGET
t=ass:
tttttttttt
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/93-34
Planning Commission Meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: 808 North Fourth Street
Zoning District: RB, Two Family Residential District
Applicant's Name: Consolidated Lumber Company
Type of Application: Variance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The request is for a variance to the Sign Ordinance for the placement of a
nineteen square foot wall sign on a canopy.
DISCUSSION
The request is to place a nineteen square foot wall sign on an existing canopy
on the Consolidated Lumber Company building at 808 North Fourth Street. This
lumber company is located in a residential district; therefore, commercial
signage is not generally permitted.
The signage proposed will be individual letters to be placed on the canopy.
This structure is the only commercial style building on North Fourth Street.
The new sign will increase the commercial visibility of this business located
in a residential neighborhood. It is suggested the new signage stay within the
12 square ft. framework as previously exists.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial or approve 12 square ft. of signage with the proposed design.
FINDINGS:
The proposal does not meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Sign
Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Application Form
- Sign Elevation
CASE NUMBER
Caso Numbor _/
Fee Paid 2°'
Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE
FORM
Street Location of Property: 808 North 4th Street
Lo0a1 Doscription of Proporty:
Owner: Name CONSOLIDATED LUMBER COMPANY
Address 808 North 4th St.
Phone: 439-3138
Applicant (if other than owner): Name
Address Phone:
Type of Request:. ___ Rozoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
Spocial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
___ Variance _X Other •_ Sign Change
Description of Request: Remove existing 12 Sc, Ft, Sig,_n from brick
wall and install a 19 Sq. Ft. Sign on canopy. Sign will be in-
dividual M.D.O. Plywood letters.
*NOTICE: ENGINEEING FEES MAY BE BILLED TO APPLICAN
Signature of Applicant::
Date of Public Hearing:
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back
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.
n, moo"
oy 'tip kr�``
t\y - .
•
morat-
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on (date)
subject to the following conditions:
r
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on subject to the
following conditions:
Comments: (Use other side),
P r Pose 1,1,0
.1:a S Ftr
•? LUMBER COMPANY J...� jT,t a.y
'11'�"r. 00.!: .. l�rf�►•.�.r..�K'-• s-r r it a.-+....r.e+' ,�^V'��.4•-+ae� w^++++c-�. a+-
seoprjr
mommbstratis
r.
2e
{
1 Z
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/93-36
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 14, 1993
PROJECT LOCATION: 507 West Maple Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
APPLICANT'S NAME: Forrest Cole
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Special Use Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A Special Use Permit for operation of a painting business out of a residence
at 507 West Maple Street.
DISCUSSION:
The request is to conduct a painting business out of a home at 507 West Maple
Street. At the time of this written report, the applicant has not given a
written description of how he would be conducting his business, if customers
would be corning to his home, or if he will be storing paint or other type of
materials at this residence.
The structure does not have a garage or any type of storage shed on the
property.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The Fire Department shall inspect any storage areas on the property
related to the paint business. A report shall be filed with this
case.
2. No signage identifying the business is allowed.
3. No paint customers are allowed at the residence.
4. No more than three deliveries (UPS or related) are allowed per week.
Findings:
The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attachments:
- Application Form.
Casa Numbor_SC14, 3 G
Fee Paid ____2'0
CASE NUMBER Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
<5° 1 > >f tom' /�SG z.z:"
Street Location of Proper;
occi Description �
L �`�J,,QDd/1i �
Ption of Property:
yi
Owner: Name
Address��'S
Phone;
.� t 1 1 I D /� G+C,I
Aoplica,,, (if other than owner): Name __.1��-
-cam_';-c�SrGI
Address '? 16% // >'z.(-
Type of Request ___ Rezoning
___ Special Use Permit
___ Variance
Description of Request:
/62
O//)) £ /
%mac%/1%c .
Phone: z'�' .- 76,sea%
___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
Approval .of Final Plat
Other
Signature of Applicant:<'�"'`'_�_� �r
Date of Public Hearing:
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on
tached, showing the following:
1. North direction.
c f -nr r r tract'. cn lot.
3. Dirnensions 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
subject to the following conditions:
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on
on
back of this for:-n or at-
1- 1920
n A c.J�
Lam. A993 `
G plt`1° of w, � };.
G`' co LWA�. rF1' ;/
MI
subje
ct to the
following conditions: _.
•
Comments: (Use other side),
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/93-37
Planning Commission Meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: 1023 North Broadway
Comprehensive Plan District: Duplex Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name:
Robert McGarry
Type of Application: Minor Subdivision
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The request is to resubdivide seven lots into
to the subdivision requirements regarding access
DISCUSSION:
The request is to resubdivide seven existing sites into three lots (see Map
#1). The existing lots contain three approximate areas:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
11,250 square
11,250 square
33,750 square
22,500 square
17,500 square
8,000 square
6,000 square
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
The proposed lot contains the following areas :
GROSS
Lot A 22,500 square feet
Lot B 51,408 square feet
Lot C 28,314 square feet
three lots with a modification
by a private street.
NET
15,000
35,000
15,000
DEVELOPABLE
square feet
square feet
square feet
The site includes two old quarry areas and steeply sloped area along Broadway
and toward the east along Highway 95 (see Map #2).
The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum lot area requirement be in slopes of
less than 30%. It is estimated that Lot 1 contains 15,000 square feet of
developable area, Lot 2 contains 35,000 square feet and Lot 3 contains 15,000
square feet. The zoning requirements to the Residential Duplex District
requires 10,000 square feet for a duplex lot and 7,500 square feet for a
single family lot. If city sewer services are not available, 20,000 square
feet are required to approve the proposed subdivision. City sewer service will
have to be provided to the resubdivided lots. The City code also requires
sewer service be provided to existing residences when it is available. Sewer
and water services for the property are available at Wilkins and First Street.
1
Individual public street access is not provided to the three proposed sites as
required by the Subdivision Ordinance. To provide access to the site, the
applicant is proposing to construct a private road entering the site at Parcel
A over a 25 foot driveway utility easement and continuing to the south 225
feet to provide access to Parcel C. Based on zoning and the developable area,
as many as 13 residential units could be built on the site. The Zoning
Ordinance requires that a public street be constructed to provide access to
more than one lot. To allow a private street, the number of residential units
should be limited. It is recommended because of the site constraints and
access proposal, that a maximum of three residential units, one on each lot,
be allowed. A 25 foot right-of-way could accommodate a possible 24 foot wide
driveway. If development is desired beyond the three units is desired, then a
public street meeting City standards should be provided.
Because of the irregular nature of the site and steeply sloped areas and City
policy to preserve natural areas, it is recommended that a 25 foot setback be
required for new development along the bluffline. The existing residence is
setback 45 feet.
Recommendation:
Approval with conditions.
2
Conditions of Approval:
1. The sanitary sewer line shall be extended to Wilkins and Braodway
before building permits are issued for any new development.
2. The existing residence shall be connected to City sanitary sewer system
before resubdivision is approved.
3. Development on Lots A and C shall connect to City sanitary sewer line
at Wilkins and Broadway.
4. The driveway providing access to Lots A, B, and C shall be paved to a
width of 12 feet as shown on the proposed plat.
5. All new development on Lots A, B, and C shall be setback 25 feet from
the bluffline.
6. Development on Lots A, B, and C shall be limited to one single family
residence per lot unless a standard public street is constructed.
Attachments:
- Application
- Certificate of Survey.
3
PAC 13
CASE NUMBER
Case Numborae,C�?=
Fee Paid
Date Filed
15o.00
5/20/93
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
Street Location of Property: 1023 No. Broadway, Stillwater, MN 55082
Lots 24-30 inclusive, that part of lots 14-19 inclusive,
Legal Description of Property: _ j3lock 7„ Carli ?t_Schulenbeu2 s addition
Owner: Name Robert W. and Glenice J. McGarry
Address
1023 N. Broadway, Stillwater, MN Phone: 439-6251
55082
Applicant (if other than owner): Name
Address Phone:
Typo of Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
___ Variance :.I. Other
Description of Request: Minor land subdivision and approval of easements for
access and utilities.
*NOTICE: ENGINEEING FEES MAY BE BILLED TO APPLICA
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.
fr
c G� �W�' '
MAN. c 1
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission o =C3X' ___ (dote)
subject to the following conditions:
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on subject to the
following conditions:
Comments: (Use other side),
/ ,
/020
.9270— 294 0
2
9270- 296.0
z
a
O
902,
CERTIFICATE
of SURVEY
Survey For.
BOB McGARRY
1023 N. BROADWAY ST.
STIL.I.WATER, MN 55082
V I
°v
R.35.39 --
.'93°54.29'`--
L=27.12
E. WILKINS
cy(s++.• Let 29 and
read _J_Lo+28 8.21-'
A
R"50.00 LT 2'I .12
O
IA y
=r'..- DETAIL \
i. eh -sled 'a" 1,
„ J h r sc le \ `
Mef31 pla+e
7. 3�e\ /
\ •y�.�. T I.'
BRUCE A. FOLZ & ASSOCIATES
LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING
1815 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE
STILLWATER. MN. 55082 16121 439-8833
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DRAWING IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION
OF THIS SURVEY AND ALL MONUMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE
GROUND AS SHOWN. THIS SURVEY OR PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWSS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
/HA y ZB /993
BRUCE A. FOLZ MINN. REG NO. 9232 DATE
SEE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
�09•.' • so °21'32 f
9a.. a Or;
,ye - ay
.Op
89°2P32
,a
71r,
4RsA.
SD
M
of
W
to -
U1 u2•
N a1
s0
N N89.21'
-7s
N81.
•
r Oy'49`W 1
SCALE
I inch. 50 feet
:Dr DENOTES DOWNWARD SLOPE° 25 50
I— OF LAND 118% OR GREATER, OR VERT. WALL)
0--DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT
kIj^
k INSCRIBED 'BLS 9232", UNLESS NOTED
SET AND MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP
ca OTHERWISE.
I40
+I� DISTANCES SHOWN TO FEET ((0, 30, ETC.)
ARE EXACT EXTRINSIC VALUES.
I3f
�^ ca los h-t- 7 U j. £i.74..,
2—
T •- DENOTE T S ST STEEL
F) ENCE POST
(W2"E
BEARINGS ARE ON AN ASSUMED DATUM
C w.
W.$+ AS.** reef
..f L-+14
N
3- K)
— O W<s+I:ne T.H.95 R/w
easfer(y eriens ..on o-C+he 50Y.#l,
N 8Tine of I.+ 29 ad +he nor+I•I I;ne
9°21'32"E o F Lo+ 28
42.36 M
1`-
3—a ° ISoicectoe>st
—Line f Lot —�
0,1 —r
tn.* h
r 0 A
n W 7• 3
0 ' All
ff'
\ 'D
9 voi
Y�1
ti
—
t
N U
CI
y, 1.P. lnphce
R.L.S. a 13,74
C. 5. Static)
N
J
/.n..f></�<
Se..AA /S.00 {«t
of Lai /e
•
East 1lne<„- - ye
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/93-35
Planning Commission meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: 311 East Burlington
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: Edna Andrewsen
Type of Application: Subdivision
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Minor subdivision of Lots 17, 18, and 19 (303 East Burlington) Churchill and
Nelson's Second Addition by adding a 5 ft. parcel to Lots 6, 7 and 8,
Churchill and Nelson's Second Addition (311 East Burlington).
DISCUSSION
The request is to subdivide a five foot wide parcel (750 square feet) from Lot
17, 18 and 19 to Lots 6, 7 and 8 (311 East Burlington). A home is presently
being built on Lots 17, 18 and 19 (303 East Burlington). The structure meets
the five foot setback minimum for an attached garage but may not meet the
fifteen foot minimum from the existing house at 311 East Burlington. A
variance may be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
FINDINGS:
The proposed land division is consistent with the use and lot size
requirements of the RB, Two Family Residential District and Comprehensive
Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Survey
- House Site Plan
- Application Form
♦VU
CASE NUMBER
Cuso Number
Fee Paid
Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
Street Location of Property: 311 East Burlington Street
Lots 17, 18 & 19, Block 1, Churchill
Legal Description of Proporty: and Nelson's 2nd Addition to Stillwater
Owner: Name Edna Andrewsen
Address 311 East Burlington Street Phone: (612) 439-6097
Applicant (if other than owner): Name N/A
Address Phone:
Typo of Request:. ___ Rozoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
Spocial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
___ Variance _X_ Other Minor Subdivision
Description of Request:
*NOTICE: ENGINEEING FEES MAY BE BILLED TO APPLICA
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 (date)
subject to the following conditions:
r
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on subject to the
following conditions:
ci
Comments: (Use other side),
LAW OFFICES OF
ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF a VIERLING
1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
LYLE J. ECKBERG
JAMES F. LAMMERS
ROBERT G. BRIGGS
PAUL A. WOLFF
MARK J. VIERLING
GREGORY G, GALLER
KEVIN K. SHOEBERG
THOMAS J. WEIDNER
SUSAN D. OLSON
Mr. Steve Russell
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
April 30, 1993
(612) 439-2878
FAX (612) 439-2923
In Re: Edna Andrewsen Minor Subdivision
Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 1, Churchill &
Nelson's Second Addition
Dear Steve:
Regarding the above -entitled matter, enclosed please find
an Application for a Minor Subdivision, a check for filing in the
amount of $50.00, and a Certificate of Survey prepared by Barry
Stack. I represent Edna Andrewsen, who presently is the owner of
the West Half of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and Lots 17, 18, and 19, except
the West 64 feet thereof, all in Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter's
Second Addition.
My client's homestead is located on Lots 6, 7 and 8, and
Lots 17, 18 and 19 are presently undeveloped. My client proposes
to sell Lots 17, 18 and 19. However, she desires to retain the
easterly 5 feet of Lots 17, 18 and 19 as a part of her homestead
because there are utility lines located in this area which serve
her homestead. In addition, she would propose that the new owner
of Lots 17, 18 and 19 grant a 5 foot easement so that there would
be a total of 10 feet available in the event of a need for repair
or replacement of the utility lines.
I would appreciate your processing this Application, and
should you have any questions or should you need any additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours',
James F. Lammers
JFL:dmr
Enclosure
c: Edna Andrewsen
Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets PROPOSED ANDREWSEN MINOR SUBD.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
JOB NO: None
BARRETT M. STACK
STILLWATER, MINN. 55082
MINNESOTA REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR
Tel. No. 439-5630
SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: Mrs. Edna Andrewsen, 311 East Burlington St.
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
l)ESCItIP'I'ION: Proposed Utility Easement Description:
(To be added to Parcel A and Parcel B Desc. on Sheet 1)
* an easement for utility purposes over, under and
across all that part of the West 5.00 feet of the East 10.00 feet of
Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, Churchill and Nelson's 2nd Addition to
Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, which lies northerly of a
line drawn parallel with and 66.00 feet southerly of the northerly
line of said Lot 19.
* Parcel A add "Together with"
* Parcel B add "Subject to"
PROPOSED COMBINED ANDREWSEN PARCEL DESCRIPTION:
The West Half of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Churchill and Nelson's
2nd Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota.
and
The East 5.00 •feet of Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 1, Churchill and
Nelson's 2nd Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota.
Together with (add the above utility easement description)
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Date April 22, 1993 Rcg.No 13774
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
PROPOSED ANDREWSEN MINOR SUBDIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
BARRETT M. STACK
STILLWATER, MINN. 55082
MINNESOTA REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR
Tel. No. 439-5630
JOHNO; None
SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELYFOR, Mrs. Edna Andrewsen, 311 East Burlington St., Stillwater, MN.
DESCRIPTION, PROPOSED PARCEL A DESCRIPTION:
The East 5.00 feet of Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 1, Churchill and Nelson's 2nd Addition to
Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Containing 750 sq. ft., more or less. Subject
to and together with any other valid easements, reservations or restrictions.
PROPOSED PARCEL B DESCRIPTION: (together with utility easement on Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets)
All that part of Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 1, Churchill and Nelson's 2nd Addition to
Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the East 5.00 feet thereof.
EXCEPTING therefrom the West 64.00 feet thereof. Containing 9825 q. ft., more or less.
Subject to and together with any other valid easements, reservations or restrictions.
NOTES: (subject to utility easement described on Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets)
This proposed subdivision is subject to approval by the City of Stillwater.
o Indicates 1/2" I.D. iron pipe set marked by a plastic plug inscribed RLS 13774.
Orientation of this bearing system is assumed.
"M" Indicates measured value. "R" Indicates recorded value.
Existing overall parcel is described in Book 155 of Deeds, Page 495, Wash. Co records.
Underground or overhead public or private utilities on or adjacent the parcel were not
located in conjunction with this survey.
E. Burlington St. Created by deed as noted hereon.
4-22-93 Revision Note: La
Added Sheet 2 of
sheets, proposed
utility easement
on Parcel 8.
BMS
2
/h- 47iv tEEO
n L9U�L/,1/G T''A/
BOAS Z' of OfEOS PAGE 5-9/
N
I
F'
"1 �a1
I
til NI a au
I\ V hh
• I
a
A/$ r02,.103,0,s /3a. s/
La
4—-
E. Live
w. La
few-
7o.s,
T.
L 9.5/
fier
/9
/7
L 5:42
L 4.00
70 az
— - - 589' az a3 "{Y /3 ¢ 4Z — —
,�ri
II
k
5.O/
it
4
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, of repnn oas
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and drat
1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the loss of
the Statte of Minnesota.
/
/"=3a'
Date Apri 1 21, 1993 Rcg.No...1 3774
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUB/93-38
Planning Commission Meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: 229 North Everett Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: Elizabeth Swanson
Type of Application: Minor Subdivision
Project Description:
The request is to subtract a 10 ft. by 125 ft. parcel off Lot 4 and to add the
parcel to Lot 6. (See attached Certificate of Survey.)
Discussion:
The proposal results in Lot 6 with the addition having 7,500 square ft. of
land area which is the required land area for the RB Duplex Residential
District. The remaining parcel, Lot 4, would meet zoning setback requirements
and land area requirements.
Recommendation:
Approval.
Attachment:
Application and Certificate of Survey.
CASE NUMBER
Case Number, LJ�� _ 3
Fee Paid
Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
Street Location of Property: % / •
Legal Description of Property: LA0T ..2u1C,lC .3r_Z .ttP_'a_.36Rc Ee_4.T /1aa./
l ` �d ADD r-/ d,i/ / J 1,, CC
Owner: Name _k l- /7: ;3C 7`/� C - ��ct; /� 4/•5 o ✓tom.( ) /WA/.
Address ✓t L t! '
Phone:
/3c — 3 7 7V
Applicant (if other than owner): Name
Address
Typo of Request:. ___ Rezoning
___ Special Uso Permit
___ Variance
Description of
_,�21JT1�_I _.fe 0 t La7- ` 42___ _ 3
Phone:
___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
___ Approval of Final Plat
_ Other _ �� Y1siew • - cHA-Arz. i_a7--
L.ice.
Request:
.a1 J �, K_f_.� t _ _ Q�v ✓�S_ _ rr _ 0�1�`./Q _ �§..N • Ca, 61/V
e.
Signature of Applicant:
Date of Public Hearing:
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn
Cached, 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.
.on back of this fcra..a-at-
1
Ems, MP( �pe�
co of ii-TILIA4:1°
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on (dote)
subject to the following conditions:
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on subject to the
following conditions:
Comments: (Uso other side),
PROPOSED SWANSON MINOR SUBDIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
BARRETT M.STACK
SIILLWATER, MINN. 55082
MINNESOTA REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR
Tel. No. 439-5630
JOD NO; None
SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: Mrs. Betty Swanson, 229 No. Everett St., Stil!water, MN 55082
DESCRIPTION, PROPOSED PARCEL A DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2 and all that part of Lot 4 lying northerly of the South 10.00 feet of said Lot 4, all
in Block 3, Thompson, Parker and Mower's 2nd Addition, Washington County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED PARCEL B DESCRIPTION:
The South 10.00 feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 6, Block 3, Thompson, Parker and Mower's
2nd Addition, Washington County, Minnesota.
NOTES:
o Indicates 1/2" I. D. iron pipe set marked with a plastic plug inscribed RLS 13774.
• Indicates survey monument found inplace as noted.
"M" Indicates measured value. "R" Indicates recorded value.
Orientation of this bearing system is assumed.
Note encroachments as shown.
Underground or overhead public or private utilities on or adjacent the parcels were
not located in conjunction with this survey, unless noted otherwise.
This proposed Minor Subdivision is subject to the approval of the City of Stillwater.
EXISTING PARCEL DESC'S.
Krahn: Lots 2 and 4,
Block 3, of
Thompson, Parker and
Mower's 2nd Add., Wash.
Co., Minn. Recorded in
Book 148 of Deeds, Page
157, Wash. Go. Records.
Swanson: Lot 6, Block
3, Thompson,
Parker and Mower's 2nd
Addition, Wash. Co.,
Minn. Recorded in Book _
157 of Deeds, Page 581.
WEST
6O
/1%UL oz"/e'/e-' ST.
/Z. /za'
__ ___£'sr M. /ZS$9-_
•
C NL.
I �
1 v.
a41
`4:Lki
I :
3 A
O ' V
0 ' 2
% A A
o
, \t •
' 1
I \
60
PA,e cE,c
NA A
/Y
ik /4, G7,9 So.Fi -'
A/o. L..vs
So. /o
iCLr
o So. /0
\ ewsr.
-i-p-
OM 7S74
F"N SS.?,Ci. S
A,w
Al,
As Coe
I
(✓OLL
�Foto
0
z
4
500'SZ •/G "E
/1S.. 90
/9FET '0
Oltn
Los 1 4
L..vs J
6 ,
O✓roe pr.
Los Lws
(r"✓i) \
\.\...�.w'
`F O/N6
•
O
V
/./:. 6.oe4s.'
/"-30'
--Seg.' 5-4 "E
3
M. /Z5.9/— —
/L/ZG
Q 1_.
I hereby certify that this survey, plat , nr report .vas
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lases of
the State of Minnesota.
Date May 21, 1993 Reg.No 13774
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/V/93-39
Planning Commission Meeting: June 14, 1993
Project Location: 1306 South Third Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family Residential
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: John G. and Elizabeth Hilpisch
Type of Application: Special Use Permit and Variance
Project Description:
A Special Use Permit to conduct a four guest room Bed and Breakfast out of a
residential structure at 1306 South Third Street.
Discussion:
The request is to conduct a four bedroom Bed and Breakfast. The home, known as
the Lammers House, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The
home is a fine example of a Queen Anne home and was constructed in 1889 (it
is over one hundred years old).
This application has been submitted because the home has been on the market
for over a year. The owner/applicant has indicated the home should be sold
with the option that the new buyers could conduct a Bed and Breakfast.
According to the amended Bed and Breakfast Ordinance, a home must be at least
3,499 square feet, the lot must be at least 10,000 square feet and the home
must have at least five bedrooms (additional for children) in order to provide
for a four bedroom Bed and Breakfast. The Heritage Preservation Commission
reviewed and determined the home could accommodate four bedrooms for this type
of use at their regular meeting on June 7, 1993. This review and determination
was done as outlined in the Ordinance. The home has seven bedrooms and it
appears the second floor bedrooms are original to the home. The lot as
outl ined is approximately 17,152 square feet. A parking area could be
constructed as shown in order to accommodate parking for the use.
Another Bed and Breakfast is located approximately two blocks from the home.
The Heirloom Inn is located at 1103 South Third Street. The Ordinance
specifically states another Bed and Breakfast must be at least three blocks
(900 feet) from another Bed and Breakfast.
The swimming pool is a concern. The pool would have to be removed or brought
up to commercial standards as regulated by the Health Department. Additional
insurance will also need to be provided if the pool will be used.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
See attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
Uenial.
1
FINDINGS:
Another Bed and Breakfast is located within three blocks (900 feet) from
another Bed and Breakfast. This is stated in the Ordinance so residential
neighborhoods are not impacted by Bed and Breakfasts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application package.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. SUP/V/93-39
1. The Special Use Permit is not transferable. New property owners/
managers shall require a new Special Use Permit.
2. The manager of the residence shall live on the site.
3. Before use as a Bed and Breakfast, the building and cooking facilities
shall be approved by the County Health Officer, Fire Marshall and City
Building Official and a Certificate of Occupancy received by the Community
Development Director.
4. A parking lot shall be constructed on -site. One parking space for each
guest room shall be set aside and marked "FOR GUESTS ONLY". Additional
spaces shall be available for owners use.
5. If provided, dining facilities for breakfast shall be available to
registered guests only (not available to the general public).
6. No liquor shall be sold on the premises.
7. One four square foot sign is allowed on -site consistent with the
architectural character of the building (maximum height four feet).
8. Adequate pedestrian scale lighting shall be provided between the inn and
parking area.
9. No general external lighting of the site that may impact the surrounding
residential area is allowed.
10. The Bed and Breakfast use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning
Commission and City Council for revocation if complaints regarding the Bed
and Breakfast use are received by the Community Development Director.
11. Any modifications to the home, including additional bathrooms, shall be
reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission upon receipt of plans by
the Stillwater Building Official.
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE WO. SUP/V/93-39
Project Location: 1306 South Third Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Two Family
Zoning District: RB
Applicant's Name: John G. and Elizabeth Hilpisch
Type of Application: Variance and Special Use Permit
Project Description:
A Variance and Special Use Permit to conduct a five guest room Bed and
Breakfast.
Discussion:
The request is to conduct a four guest room Bed and Breakfast according to the
Bed and Breakfast Ordinance. The Heritage Preservation Commission must review
and determine the number of guest rooms allowed in a structure according to
the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance. Based on review of the existing floor plan of
the home, four bedrooms could be accommodated. Mr. Hilpisch believes the
second floor bedrooms are original to the home and that no alterations would
need to be made in order to provide for a bed and breakfast use.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Any modifications to the home, including additional bathrooms, shall be
reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission upon receipt of the
Stillwater Building Official.
Request:
Review and determination of four bedrooms aS the appropriate rooms allowed for
this structure.
Attachments:
- Packet.
Heritage Preservation Commission Determination:
The home can accommodate a four bedroom Bed and Breakfast use.
ORDINANCE NO. 768
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE,
SECTION 31.01, SUBDIVISION 4 (9) BED AND BREAKFAST
AND SUBDIVISION 25 (F) BED AND BREAKFAST
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN:
I. Amending.
1. Section 31.01, Subdivision 4 (9) of the Stillwater City Code is
amended to hereafter read as follows:
"31.01, Subdivision 4 (9) DEFINITIONS
9. Bed and Breakfast. An owner occupied historic residential
structure used as a lodging establishment where a guest room
or rooms are rented on a nightly basis and which only
breakfast is included as part of the basic compensation."
2. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 (f) of the Stillwater City Code
is amended to hereafter read as follows:
"31.01, Subdivision 25 (f)
Bed and Breakfast. PURPOSE
The City of Stillwater recognizes that Bed and Breakfasts are
an asset to the community for the preservation of our historic
homes. It is the intention of the City to limit Bed and
Breakfast uses to those homes whereby a special use would
benefit the City and surrounding area by allowing appropriate
adaptive reuse for such dwellings. Allowing Bed and
Breakfasts is in recognition that the expense of owning and
maintaining historic homes has made them less suitable for
single-family dwellings.
Bed and Breakfasts are allowed by a Special Use Permit in RB
and RCM zoning districts as regulated in Section 31.01 of the
Stillwater City Code, Subdivision 13 (2) (d) and Subdivision
15 (1) (c) subject to the following conditions:"
3. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 (f) 3 of the Stillwater City Code
is amended to hereafter read as follows:
"31.01, Subdivision 25 (f)
Bed and Breakfast uses in residential areas shall be located
at least nine hundred (900) feet apart (approximately three
blocks)."
4. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 (f) 4 of the Stillwater City Code
is amended to hereafter read as follows:
"31.01 Subdivision 25 (f)
4. No liquor shall be sold on premises. If wine is served, a
wine license must be obtained from the City of Stillwater."
5. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 (f) 8 of the Stillwater City Code
is amended to hereafter read as follows:
"31.01 Subdivision 25 (f)
8. The maximum of five (5) Bed and Breakfast guest rooms may be
established in a residential Bed and Breakfast structure. The
following lot and structure size criteria determines the
number of guest rooms allowed in a Bed and Breakfast.
Maximum Number
Guest Rooms
Permitted
1
2
3
4
5
Original
Number of
Bedrooms
2
3
4
5
6
Maximum Gross
House Size Not
Including Basement
In Square Feet
Up to 2,499
2,500 - 2,999
3,000 - 3,499
3,500 - 4,999
5,000 up
Minimum Zoning
Lot Size in
Square Feet
7,500
10,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Maximum Gross House Size is determined by using the total square
footage of habitable living space within the structure.
The number of original bedrooms in the structure will determine the
number of guest rooms that will be allowed. This shall be reviewed
and determined by the Heritage Preservation Commission. In the
case of a family with children, the family's bedroom use shall be
determined before the number of permitted guest rooms are
determined, and no family member shall be displaced for a guest
room."
6. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 (f) 11 of the Stillwater City
Code is amended to hereafter read as follows:
"31.01, Subdivision 25 (f)
11.
A Bed and Breakfast establishment shall show proof of City
building, fire and planning inspections, proof of operation
licenses by Washington County and shall submit the State sales
and use tax number for their business to the Community
Development Department."
7. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 of the Stillwater City Code is
amended by adding (f) 12 which shall hereafter read as follows:
"31.01, Subdivision 25 (f)
12. Restoration or additions to a Bed and Breakfast shall meet the
Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation."
8. Section 31.01, Subdivision 25 of the Stillwater City Code is
amended by adding (f) 13 which shall hereafter read as follows:
"31.01, Subdivision 25 (f)
13. All Bed and Breakfast Special Use Permits shall be reviewed
annually by the Community Development Department. A report
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council, during November of each year."
II. Saving. In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall
remain in full force and effect.
III. Publication and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in
full force and effect from and after its passage and publication
according to law.
Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of October 1992.
/7/2g
Wall
ATTEST:
Mary Lois Johnson, erk
Published: November 19, 1992
Abrahamson, Mayor
PAC 100
Caso Number s1 4..J 3 y
Fee Paid $70.00
G
CASE NUMBER Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM
Street Location of Property: ___L5 0 ..,CA f-A Tin
Legal Description of Property; Lo LI op ect-, rt y 4 Lt D i TU2 S PcAi
Owner: Name __10 I -I N
Address 13[C . c
C� �-(icFisc
y- C±
Applicant (if other than owner): Name
Address Phone:
Typo of Request:. ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
__✓Spocial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
_ ✓ Variance ___ Other
6_ rc,st ,
Description of Request; c(11 / -
130, SU.
*NOTICE: ENGINEERING FEES MAY BE BILLED TO APPLICAN11
Signature of Applicant: __
Date of Public Hearing:
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back
Cached, 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
subject to the following conditions:
Pi (Pit(
of this form or
a t-
\234s
Sub 1.
tvi
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on subject to the
following conditions:
di)
Comments: (Use other side),
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO CONVERT 1306 THIRD ST. S. (THE LAMMERS HOME)
TO A BED AND BREAKFAST
This home was built in 1889 by Albert Lammers, one of Stillwaters leading lumber barons,
and because of its historic significance, has been placed on the National Register of Historic
Homes. The description from the National Register document reads "the house is the best
articulated example of the Queen Anne style in Stillwater". Since they purchased the home
in 1990, Dr. & Mrs.John Hilpisch have invested time & money into restoring the original
character of this home, much to the delight of the community. The local trolley tour has included
this home on its tour, large tour buses make regular stops in front and people make a special
trip to Stillwater to view this home during each holiday. Christmas, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th
of July and especially Halloween all bear special exterior decorations in observance of each day.
Each Halloween this home receives well over one thousand people, quite often adult couples!
This draw from the public adds to the potential this home would have as a Bed & Breakfast.
The house is set up for a family of eight, as such it falls within a very small range of buyers
looking for a single family residence of this square footage. (Total interior square feet: 3800+)
However, due to the size of their family and the responsibilities, both financial and time manage-
ment, the present owners have found that they no longer can maintain this home in the manner
they wish, and that the home deserves.
The difficult decision was made to place their home on the market with the intent of finding a
large home in the country that would require less responsibility in maintenance. Linda J. Besk,
an agent for Edina Realty in Stillwater was contracted to list their home. Due to the high demand
in Stillwater for historic homes, Linda felt that a normal market time of six months would be more
than adequate to find a suitable, qualified buyer. The home was listed for six months in 1992,
then was taken off the market for repairs deemed necesary by feedback, and was placed back
on the market in March of 1993. The home at this time has been heavily marketed for over a
year.
Linda Besk notes there have been over 50 qualified parties who have viewed this home, most
of whom felt that the size and maintenance was overwhelming, or were intimidated by the
cultural responsibility of the homes status on the National Register. The remaining buyers
were interested in the home only if it could be considered for a Bed and Breakfast. We have
had a few buyers that have contacted the City for information regarding the special use permit
and variance, but due to red tape and discouragement, have fallen by the wayside. Thus, our
application to the City of Stillwater to hopefully achieve a means of selling and maintaining
the integrity of this fine residence.
Our desire is to see this historic home preserved rather than return to the allowable option of
once again becoming a multi -family dwelling due to functional obsolesence. Would the
neighborhood rather see this structure converted into a Bed and Breakfast or to an apartment
house?
The purpose of our application for a special use permit is already clearly defined in "31.01,
Subdivision 25 (f); as follows: (Please not underlined portions depicting our intent)
Bed and Breakfast PURPOSE
The City of Stillwater recognizes that Bed and Breakfasts are an asset to the community
for the preservation of our lame, historic homes. It is the intention of the City to limit Bed
and Breakfast uses to those jaruer homes whereby g special use would benefit the City and
surrounding area by allowing appropriate adaptive reuse for such dwellings. Allowing Bed
and Breakfasts is in recognition that the expense of owning and maintaining larger historic
homes has made them less suitable for single-family dwellings.
COMPLIANCE WITH BED AND BREAKFAST ORDINANCE
Except for the fact that the home is located within 900 feet of a 2 guest room Bed and
Breakfast, it meets all the conditions required for a Bed and Breakfast:
1) At least two off-street parking spaces for owner/manager and one space for each rented
room. (Exhibit A -site plan) Existing garage provides owner/manager spaces. Parking
space for rented rooms shown to be feasible on either north side of home, or the Tess
desirable and most costly alternative of filling in the pool to create parking space.
2) Dining facilities to be used exclusively by the registered guests, not open to public.
3) The location of another Bed and Breakfast use within (3) three blocks, or 900 feet is
prohibited.
4) No liquor will be sold on the premises.
5) Bed and Breakfast identification sign not to exceed four square feet & match architecture.
6) A Bed and Breakfast is permitted in RCM or RB zoning only.
7) The Bed and Breakfast structure will be at least 100 years old and/or will show proof of
historic significance to the character of the city.
8) The maximum of five Bed and Breakfast bedroom units may be established within structure.
9) Adequate lighting must be provided between structure & parking areas for safety.
10)Additional external lighting is prohibited.
11)A Bed and Breakfast shall show proof of inspection/proper operating license by state/county
IN REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS
3) As noted above, a variance is needed because of this homes proximity to the Heirloom Inn.
7) This home is 104 years old, (Exhibit B-documentation of status on the National Register of
Historic Homes) This residence also has proof of historic significance regarding the
character of Stillwater. More importantly, because of its age, historic and architectural
value, and notoriety, it meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance also.
8) The maximum of five guest rooms would be complied with. Realistically, four bedrooms
would be achieved based on our aprx. square footage of 3800+, with six current bedrooms.
The 3rd level apartment with two bedrooms would serve as owner/manager quarters.
DOCUMENTATION OF HARDSHIP IN SELLING A LARGER HISTORIC HOME
NOT SUITABLE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST
Subject Property
102597 BR- 6 BA- 3/010 2.STORY CD 5310,000
INFORMATION DEEMED 11,1IABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED
•
A { F
•
WAT CONNECT
SEW CONNECT
FPL L,M AIR N
ILEA IIW ! GAS
EXT WOO
SSM F
FY GAR 2.D,Y
B87 N M97 Y
501 834 SDP 430.8340 ES2 1500 AGE 3800 BGF 0 FSF 3800
AG I LINDA J. BESK 430.7520 BB Y • 3.15 SA 3.15 ER
OF ICE EDINA REALTY INC. l0 8417 PH 430-3200 APT 430-3200
TAX $M96 193:F
TWA 1 5144
A58 5647 ASP N
HS FOR 1994 iF
1308 3RD ST S MAP 10 - 218
MUY STILLWATER ZIP 55082
AR 727 SUB 6 0114 1 COU WASH
LOT 128X134 ACR 0
0,R HWY 36,N ON OSG000, R ON ORLEANS, L ON 3RD
A NATIONAL REGISTER HIS TORTIC HOME - ONE OF FINEST QUEEN
ANNE VICTORIANS! THIS MASTERPIECE HAS TOWERS, BALCONIES, A
PARADE PORCH, HUGE WRAP -A -ROUND PORCH, GINGERBREAD. CURVED
WINDOWS, 3RD FLOOR APT AND A POOL
LGL LOT 4 CO AUDITORS PLAT 4
PIO 09328-2300
l APROX L AFROX
LA
CA
FR
X7
BL 1889 N
040356
M
M
M
M
1A
15%14 1B
16/(15 28
15X15 38
17X14 48
10X TO S7
u
U
U
U
17 X 14
15X 14
11X 10
13X9
143(15
REF,RNG.OWS,DSP
MPH, WSH,DRY, D/P,POR,PBG •
TAM CON.ASM
M1G 123000 IN1 9.5
EXF CON,GO 013 8/86 ASM Y
PIN 1 1083 2MC N 7R41 N
THE FOLLOWING HISTORIC HOMES WERE SOLD WITH THE POTENTIAL, OR WERE
ESTABLISHED BED & BREAKFASTS.
Note minimal days on the market in comparison to subject property.
The Ann Bean House
Days on market: 2
#02371 08R-8 #8A-8/0/0 STY-2 + ST CONV 1-5225.900
03/27/90 2 DAYS PTS-0 SO.84I7 0LP-S225.900 5-5220,000
u1
319 PINE S T W
MUN STILLWATER ZIP 55082
AR 727 SUB 8 COU WASH
LOT 140X145 ACR 0
DIR GREELEY TO PINE EAST TO HOME ON RIGHT CORNER
SOLO BEFORE PRINT
TAX 54675 /90/ N
TWA 54675
A585 0 ASP N
115 FOR 1990 / N
MAP218 -1A
LAKE
Y8l 1864
1.GL IN OFFICE
PIO 09305-8280 WAT CONN INCI REF,RNO
l APROX L APROX SEW CONN MPH.POR.HWF
lR 18 FPL AR W 1ERM1IS CON,CIN-SPC
08 78 IRA FA / GAS M1G 50 INl 0 %
R3 30 EX( OTHER EXi C/0 000 ASIAN
K T 48 BSM F PtN S0 24IC N 2MA N
FR GAR 0 N
F520
• 881 Y MB7 Y ESF 0 SON 834 SDP 439,5150 0050530
AG 4 KATHERWE 8 FRANCIS 1301717 8BY SA7.8 L1Y8R
EOWA REMIT INC. 5417 MPH 43n.'” n •5/ 41n,11nn
James A. Mulvey Inn
Days on market: 0
X01963 #9R-4 09A-1/1/1 STY-2 ST CONY L-5162,000
06/09/90 0 DAYS PTS-0 SO-8417 OLP-5162.000 54162,000
622 CHURCHILL W
A'UN STILLWATER
AR 717 SUB 1
l01 150 X 155
ZIP 55082
COU WA
ACR 0
C'R 000
TAX S1122 :90'F
TWA 1.90
ASKS F ASP N
16 FOR 1991 ;F
MAP 21A •5B
LAKE
l(l LOTS7.0818 8. HOLCOMB 5 ADDITION TO 571111VA 1ER,15T
PIO 9895-4450 t':41 CONY AC( RNG.OWS.OSP, W 5O
L 4PR0X 1 APROX SE(Y CONN MPH
L9 IB FFt, Y AR? w T715 7 CON.CIN
P? 28 r1E4 NW - FIE 111G 50 PM 0 -.•
It) 38 ENI W000 E11 CON Ono 45.41
X, AR B5,3 W PIN 30 NC N 25 0 N
TR GAR 3,0
_ /521529
N 891 1491 Y IS/ 2800 Sor; 831 SZP 439 5160 3593290
AG 1 SALTY OF VIII SCSI 892 3831 88 Y SA 3.15 In ER
COIOWELL BANKER 3197 mu 135 3353 APT 435 3353
The Overlook Inn
Days on market: 81
801980 8BR- 7 1t8A-2/2/1 STY-2 ST OTHR L-S299,900
08/09/90 81 DAYS PTS-0 SO-8417 OLP•8299.900 S4305,000
210 LAUREL ST E
MUN STILLWATER ZIP 55082
AR 727 SU8 8 C0U WASH
LOT 1.9 OCR 1.9
DIR 2ND ST NORTH TO LAUREL ST TAKE RIGHT
A RARE JEWEL.8Y FAR THE MOST MAJESTIC VIEW IN STILLWATER
THIS STATELY VICTORIAN FEATURES UNUSUAL ARCHITECTURE AND SIT
S PROUDLY ATOP 2ND ST HILL NEXT TO HISTORIC PIONEER PARK
PRIVACY AWAITS YOU WITH 1.9 ACRES OF MANICURED GROUNDS AND
TAX S5952 /89/ N
TWA S0
ASKS 0 ASP N
H5 FOR 1990 / N
La LONG LEGAL IN FILE
Pro 10690-2350 W4T CONN.W INC. REF.RNGDWS.F/H
L APROX SEW PRIV SEC.SUN.POR.HWF
LR M 26X14 18 PPL2 AIRN
DR M 17X15 28 HE4 FA• / GAS
t0 38 ExT W000
K1 18X13 48 BSMF
FR 15X12 GAR2.0
FSZ 4000
887 N 1181 Y FSF 6400 SON 831 SDP 439-5880 1875498
AGN KATHERINE B FRANCIS 430.1777 88 Y SA 2.8 LIT ER
ED1NA REALTY INC. 8417 OE N 430-3200 APT 430-3200
MAP 218 -1A
LAKE RVIE W
YBL 1859
M11
N
M
M
U
U
APROX
11%18
21X15
11XI3
13%13
William Sauntry Mansion
Days on market: 12
p04464 0BR- 0 #BA-3/0/0 S-2 ST CONV 1-5184.900
02/09/B8 12 DAYS L8.8026 S13-8314 LA.0.00 INT- 0.00
PTS-0.00 S-S181,000 TYPE- OLP-$184.900
6 64TH STN
NUN ST1 ZIP
D15T 727 SUB 6 COUNTY WASH
LTS 175X 150 AC
DIR
TAX S4390 Y
LAX WAS S
A80 PEND
HS FOR 19 /
MAP 21 A --5
tAKE
YR8L 7 1884
10690.2700 APPROVED BY CITY FOR BED & BREAKFAST. 1 PLEX NOW.
Ut110UE HISTORIC PROP. ORNATE fIREPLACES, LOIS OF ORIGINAL W
DODWORK & FANTASY! STAINED GLASSGREAT IHVEST.OWN YORU OWN MA
NSION.
LEGAL
P10 10690. 1700 CW CW CO NCI
t APROX l APROX CS CS -CO BUS,POR.HOF
lR 14X21 1B 12X13 FPI Y AIR TERMS CON.OTH
OR 16X20 213 12X16 HEAT 11W GAS M1G S0 INT % 0.00
ID 30 9X10 ExT TYPE CONY CO ASM
K1 10%30 48 X 0 8SMTP W0 P41 S0 214/CD ASM
FR 18813 GAR 3 GO
F5 2500
8SM1 8A K15 R 81 0 IF 7800 SO 999 PH 125513'
AG .PIT AM BLICII SLOT/439 3458 S 2.4 T
BIICHFELDT REAL Y 8025 OFPH 439.3458 APT
TERMS CON.OTH
ATM 10 INT0 X
Heirloom Inn
Days on market: 13
004404 DBR-4 pen-2/0/1 S-2 ST ARAM L4135.000
04/01/88 13 DAYS 10.8314 SB•8314 LA-0 INT-0
PIS S-S132.500 TYPE-CONV OLP-9129.900
1103 3110 ST 50
MUN STILLWATER ITV 55082
DIST 727 5U8 8 COUNTY WASH
LIS 0X0 AC 0
DIR NON 3664TH TO ORLEAN R TO 3110 4 MS FROM ORLEANS
TAX 51307 87 F
1AX W/AS S I307
AO PENON
HS FOR 1988 / F
MAP 218 •18
TAKE
YRBL7 /900
THIS PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY USED AS A B & 8. WELL MAINTAINED
VICTORIAN ON DOUBLE LOT. NATURAL WOODWORK. MAGNIFICENT OPEN
STAIRWAY. PARKAY FLOORS. FIREPLACE INFORMAL PARLOR. A REAL
GEM.
LEGAL LOTS 17624 003 CHURCHILL & NELSONS 2ND ADDITION 1ST W.
P109196-4400 CW CW.CO
l APROX L APRO%
18 M 16%15 18
EXI CLR 00 Et ASIA N DR
PIN S0 ?MC N 2MA N 1D
KT
ER
ON
M
M
Al
16X15 28
38
I7X14 48
11X10
U
U
U
0
SX14
4X12
2X15
XII
CS CSC0
FELT AIR W
NEAT FA GAS
EXT WOOD
BSMT C WV
GAR 2 GO
FS 1300
INCL ➢EF.RNG.DWS.OSP.FAN
MPH. W5H,D8Y.8U5.➢OR.HOF
TERMS FHA ,VA.CON ,CIN
M1G S0 IN1 'G0
T/PE CONY 00 0
POI SO 2M/CD
ASM N
ASIA N
851,11 BAN 5/5 R 80N 181917 50834 PH 439.5160 , 514832
AG1/PN JAYNE F SMITH/439-5447 S 2.4 TER
STILLWATER REALTY 8314 CM 439.8033 APT 439-8033
Battle Hollow Bed & Breakfast
Days on market: 17
S44127 9160,000 DS 3/23/87
$169.900
7 II rs. j:•
1 r ice' 1 • �•
..; t•as -dlA
•
8 / t
903 4TH ST NO STI/WASH 218Y2
Ls 206X206 TF 3,800 TX 2296.80/87/Y
RL
I5X18
o I3X18
K 15X13
r I4X16
o I4XI
I U18X91177
2
3 t5X10
4
A
14X15
15X14
me $47,000
EF CONV
IR 9.00':
PI $704
DA
SR TIBLIA
JR STIL
EL STIL
Ps
PQj
STYL 2 STORY
E%TR WO/C SHAY
FINLTRM
2
CONV CO-IREFR
CASH
R/O
OWSH DK/P
eATH NFU/ /
FRPL LIV
95LT FUL/
HT HW/GS Ac
a/su CITY/CITY
ETIU
PRCH HR0
HISTORIC HOME ON AN ACRE LOT
RESTORED 8 BEAUTIFUL. MUCH
UPDATING -NEW FURNACE, ROOF.OAK
E NATURAL WOODWRK.
ORIGINAL STENCILING ON WALLS
TS CONV s9 RWPJ PIS
GREATLY
8 PIN
VIEWS 0
pon 17
CAROL WEBER/644-2592 Ban 4 SIM 2.5
1 A R• TY 1 .-
j 1
i 1 11, I
;1ij
1
r ii i
PAirt
RY
; ; ;
, I
i I RCA/ ! ! 1i
1
44
R qt. 1
j-}-
i I
I I I 21
1 I i
1
j 1 I 1+ 1 I
1
r ,�:
1 s
I
,- '.
__ 1
1
i
I elI
1
!
I 1 I I
1
1
I I '
;
1 I
I
1
T
1 1
1
1(0I•RP
t
1
j
1
i
! i j
"rl N
N
i
N
I
al
o',
.1
1 1
i!1iiI''
larliMill
ovs'illkl
- aline
is
.-
1
I
I
3
(4k
0
4
-
�1-•
I
L
i t
t
I
1
I
Ii
1
Ir411
1 _.IRAR1!
I I
I
IFORIIYItv,
11
I 1
!
I
1 44
f i
Di Al1
�(
l/
VV\
r~
1 1 I.
)4/
I1,
� 1
I
i �oR.C11siA1.1q
h,t
I
i i
I L
1 1 /YlUCIC
Roc6,
i I? i
i
i
(ORi
4i4-W
6,�
I
1
1 I
1
'
i.),,r
h
26,,o,)
,
i
I I
I•
!
i
i
Ji
t?i001( d4k P
CI.os'E
! '
i
FOYER- i'J LOR
I!;
/616 "x /81 , I
xl 1
\,
;
'S.•
I
1 t
= Slims v PocN # L_ _suepLw_k_axctf_oa 1
— - - 6L"X1S' G'b"r13'
Z11
q 8404
09'x ll'' xl/
.5 D Roam ++
rl'Y2 x
-ru
8'‘'Y8
J µ '
10'x 1,1
BE DRDoci t
_WAD f_fcry
a Woo/ /30(0 �� 3g? •c.
T
Soler-� i 3reo; 5,� EY
1
i 1
+ I ! I I ; I ; , I
-
Tr--dnr
,5i bt uy4di
I
; i I �
II
I I
( i I ( i I 1
1 1,!
I I I'
-+--
i, I
G -.
-.-
i
I 1 i---1
I 1
1 I
1
i 1
i ' ,
i 1
i
1 I i
i
i
1 I
, 1
I 1 i i,
T--
—�-;
d osep
b r�F S'tRCd t 1
..i ,
i
Kf
K'146
1306 Er.)
_ :4.
! i i t
'
;
i!
i! 1
l
j
1
1 I i I I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
i I 1
T
it
I !
1
1
j ;
i
i i � I I
i 1
I ' i;
r
!
I
;--'
I! r I
I
I
I; I
I
i I i
-y
ti„�.
1 1 I
t I I
I
j I
!
1
,
! I
i
r-
1
I
"*.b
I i ! 1 I
!
1
{ {
I i
! I
^^'
' I I ! I 1
1
I j
i
I
I
! I 0 I
�!
'`,J I
�""r
py�, i I '
�' ! I. I
i 1
r
I 1
I , I ?
I I ! i I
`.,'i
�: 1 I I I 1 I
I
i�
1 1
I 1 1
I
i 1
t
i i
r
! I
!
i
I
1 i I
t
i f ! '< i , I
I
I i
I
i i
1 I I I
I
I
•
' I
I I i
j
1 I
:._... .44.4
1
I
i �
j � ;
' i y7
M
`
: PAiK
i ,
-
, 1 ! i 1 I
! i
1_
♦I
-1--1 I
I i 1
i�
(::_ // i 7 /y
I •
I
1
_..::.27.,.w.-,
Stillwater did herself up proud for this street
fair in 1901. This photograph looks north on
Main Street.
63
One prominent lumberman, Edward Lammers, built his
"Nonsuch" masterpiece (an architectual style named for Henry VIII's
Nonsuch Palace in Surrey), the great green Victorian house at 1306 South
Third, on Stillwater's South Hill. A three-story monument to a gilded
age, it is carpenter's frenzy at its best, a flurry of superbly worked
original detail proudly topped with improbable Viking ornaments.
William Sauntry, who had added iron ore speculation to his
lumber interests, outdid Lammers by building a dazzling Moorish
gymnasium behind his own mansion at 626 North Fourth on the
opposing North Hill. Styled after the Spanish Alhambra, brightly painted
and sumptuously appointed, its mirrored and columned ballroom was
flanked by a reflective pool and a bowling alley. Sauntry also seems to
have had the only tennis court in town.
Downtown, business blocks in brick and stone replaced earlier
wooden frame structures and diversity was again the keynote. Wolf's
Brewery, made of limestone dug in a Stilhvater quarry, guarded the
south end of town. A stranger might have taken it for a castle or
fortress. Across the street, the three-story brick Grand Opera House
went up where the Simonet Furniture Company now stands. Trimmed
with Kasota stone, and definitely Queen Anne in spirit, a contemporary
historian called it "the pride of the city and the finest opera house in the
north-west." Kolliner's (imen's and women's clothing) now occupies the
ground floor of the Staples block, a stoic Romanesque structure much in
keeping with the tastes of the man vho built it.
Isaac Staples guided the town's fortunes for fifty years, making
sure that Stilhvater lived up to its potential. The mastermind of a
lumbering empire, he owned huge tracts of prime pinelands to feed his
sawmills. 1-lis large farms near Stilhvater supplied his logging camps. He
owned flour mills and retail stores. 1-le was also president of the
Lumberman's National Bank in Stilhvater. While he prospered, so did
Stilhvater. When he died in his eighties in 1898, a boom era was ending.
A Guide to the
Architecture
of Minnesota
Much of the social and economic history of
the state is revealed in this fascinating guide
to the architecture of Minnesota. The authors
trace the development of the environment
and buildings in all parts of the state from
territorial days to the present and give
detailed information, with illustrations,
about Minnesota's architectural inheritance.-._
Using the book as a guide, Minnesotans and
visitors may take architectural tours of the
cities and towns, seeing the landmarks with
an understanding of their significance in
local and architectural history.
Following the general discussion, the book
is divided in sections covering points of
interest in eight regions of the state:
Metropolitan, St. Croix Valley, Central,
Arrowhead and Iron Range, Northwest
Lakes, Minnesota River Valley, Southeast,
and Southwest. In all, nearly 300 towns and
cities are represented in the pictures and
text.. A photohistory showing 175 years of
Minnesota architecture is included.
$16.95
University of Minnesota Press
Printed in U.S.A.
The IDS Center. Minneapolis, completed in 1973. Philip
Johnson, John Burger, and Edward F. Baker, architects.
ISBN 0-8166-0775-3
90000>
9 7808
rr r't T_ n
A Guide to the
Architecture
of Minnesota
David Gebhard
Tom Martinson
Foreword
This book was conceived from its incep-
tion to supplement and augment the
Bicentennial exhibition, The Art and
Architecture of Minnesota, organized
and presented by the University Gallery
in conjunction with the Minnesota So-
ciety of Architects. The exhibition was
more than three years in the planning
stages, and at every step our desire was
to publish something other than an ex-
hibition catalogue — something at once
less ephemeral and more comprehensive
yet not boring that ubiquitous person,
the "interested layman," with heavily
erudite prose. In the end we decided to
publish A Guide to the Architecture of
Minnesota. Long a priority of the Min-
nesota Society of Architects, such a
guide seemed to us to be the sort of pub-
lication which would most nearly meet
our needs.
We offer the fervent hope that this vol-
ume will help Minnesotans to see things
and buildings never truly perceived be-
fore — and will encourage them to
think more than once before bulldozing
the past and near -past away. For exam-
ple, a few buildings described in the text
have been razed since the manuscript
for the guide was completed. (By the
time the information reached us, the
production of the guide was well under
way, and we were unable to modify the
text to indicate which buildings had
been destroyed.) All that is past is not
gold, but neither is it dross simply be-
cause it has been poorly maintained or
has gone out of fashion. We have not
been able to provide a town -by -town.
street -by -street guide, but we have in-
cluded the broadest possible selection of
interesting houses, public buildings,
and landmarks from the various regions
of the state. The guide contains succinct
but vital information, and it is our hope
that with this volume in hand the
weekend traveler will be able to explore
a new facet of Minnesota's cultural
heritage.
Have buildings of interest been over-
looked? We welcome letters from
readers who wish to call our attention to
important omissions or to any errors in
the text. 'I'he information and sugges-
tions supplied by readers will be kept on
file and reviewed for possible inclusion
in a subsequent edition of the guide.
This undertaking could not have come
to fruition without the dedicated help of
the Historic Resources Committee of the
Minnesota Society of Architects. Among
students at the university our special
thanks go to Terry Pfoutz and to Peter
Petzling, a researcher extraordinaire
whose enthusiasm never flagged, even
in the face of the most tedious detailed
tasks. Of the University Gallery staff,
Lyndel King, assistant director and act-
ing director, and Susan Brown, curator
and editor, demonstrated their abilities
as museum professionals of the highest
caliber, coping with daily crises with
aplomb. Finally, we would like to thank
Mrs. Georgia DeCoster, architecture
coordinator of the Minnesota State Arts
Council at the beginning of our project
and later executive director of the St.
Paul -Ramsey Bicentennial Commission,
fir her unstinting help and support.
A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota
serves as a companion volume to Rena
Coen's Painting and Sculpture in Min-
nesota. 1820-1914, which was also pub-
lished in conjunction with the Bicen-
tennial exhibition. We hope that to-
gether these books will initiate a new
awareness and reassessment of Min-
nesota's cultural heritage.
Barbara Shissler
Director
University Gallery
Uniye rsity of 11-Iinnesota
Daniel J. Sheridan
Executive Director
Minnesota Society of Architects
ix
SCV-7
36 House, 1867
610 Broadway S
A Greek Revival house with end gables
and a side -hall plan.
37 House, c. 1870s
657 Broadway S
An assertive French Second Empire
house.
38 Tozer House, 1870
704 3rd Street S
A hrick ltalianate house, now painted.
Note the cast-iron fence.
39 Nelson Public School, 1895
Southwest corner 1st Street S and
Hancock Street E
Classical gentility at an early date.
40 "Gramma Bean's Playhouse"
1224 3rd Street S
An Eastlake pavilion with a strong em-
phasis on the vertical.
41 Lammers House, c. 1889
1306 3rd Street S
The Queen Anne at its fullest with a
seashell balcony and horseshoe arches.
41 Lammers House.
42 House, c. 1895
1312 4th Street 8
A Queen Anne dwelling with a round
bay -tower on the left, a recessed porch on
the second floor. and an unusual cut -in
corner staircase window enclosed in lacy
ornamentation of sawed wood.
43 Stuccy House, c. late 187Os
West of town on highway 96 (north side),
before Mendel Road
The Eastlake Style employed in a tow-
ered ltalianate house.
44 Lyman House, pre-18511
North of Stillwater on Highway 95 to Ar-
cola Trail, northeast to Arcola Lane, and
southeast to house
A white clapboard Greek Revival house.
Scv
S1. CROIX R/VEF
�y^ � .r�•� T1r^T
sass.. r
oAK sr -
Yr.+rk'.� i... L'.i2r•iL.L=. PINE SZ.-'•
r.
x �W
r [ •r`
i.r:.
•
1 •
``
T
(LARD ST •� _ r L. ' `n• [7: i
s
a• • •
\iEStw� o
•
! -.•Y ti
�e• � � .E 5t .�' .. ate•-'
a
-;.tk'§'? ll; u
+.j 1,
CHURCNILL ST "77-
N o
am
'''• 44!�-w`.^ .
j� ' ce. :; :. i:.
M NANCOCK ST .- r`.. ''"-*' '.39• " ''
i :40• !
t MARSH ST ''..`--.
4z•�r-.,'•m� �': �'-:--rnt' --
, Mi
t •„
• •
. a } n('.• •jj n] zr. _ a o[�r.
'• eC..iJi.-..1L':• t1.iLL i t.t:• il.i:F.L��.v 6.e'.. W
ORLEANS ST
146
tftyytL
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 7, 1993
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE REGULATIONS LIMITING AND REQUIREMENT
SETBACK FOR STEEPLY SLOPED AREAS.
Background:
Last year the Community Development Department prepared a Stillwater St. Croix
River View Study in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources. The
study identified issues and actions the City could take to minimize view and
environmental impacts.
Later last year, community residents approached the City regarding the
protection of ravines. (See attached memo.) The Planning Commission reviewed
the View Study and discussed the ravine issues, and changes to City
requirements to protect views and ravines. The Draft Conservation Regulation
would protect slopes of greater than 30% 1:3 foot slope by eliminating
development on them and requiring a 20 foot setback. The purpose of the Draft
Ordinance indicates the benefits of the regulation.
Recommendation:
Review of Stillwater St. Croix River View Study and Draft Conservation
Regulation for discussion and possible action.
Attachment:
Stillwater St. Croix River View Study
Draft Conservation Ordinance
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STTT,T,WATER
PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES
Conservation Regulations
Purpose. The purpose and intent of the conservation regulations is to protect
the pubic health, safety and community welfare and to otherwise preserve the
natural environmental resources of the City of Stillwater in areas having
significant and critical environmental characteristics. The conservation
regulations have been developed in general accord with the policies and
principles of the Comprehensive Plan as specified in the Middle River and Brown's
Creek Watershed Management Plans and the Bluffland/Shoreland Regulations and any
adopted area or specific plans. it is furthermore intended that the conservation
regulations accomplish the following:
1. Minimize cut, fill, earth moving, grading operations and other such
manmade effects on the natural terrain;
2. Minimize water runoff and soil erosion caused by human modifications
to the natural terrain;
3. Minimize fire hazard and risks associated with landslides and
unstable slops by regulating development in areas of steep slopes
and potential land slide areas.
4. Preserve riparian areas and other natural habitat by controlling
development near the edge of ponds, streams or rivers.
5. Encourage developments which use the desireable, existing features
of land such as natural vegetation, climatic characteristics,
viewsheds, possible geologic and archaeological features and other
features which preserve a land's identity.
6. Maintain and improve to the extent feasible existing water quality
by regulating the quantity and quality of runoff entering local water
courses.
General Provisions
Applicability. The conservation regulations apply to every zoning district
within the City except as specifically provided herein. Where conflict in
regulations occurs, the regulations set forth in this part shall apply.
Relationship to Minor Land Division and Subdivisions. To the greatest extent
feasible no minor land division or subdivision shall create lots which would
necessitate exceptions to these regulations. Where a division of land would
require an exception to these regulations, precise building envelopes shall be
specified on parcel and tentative maps so that maximum feasible conformance with
the part can be attained.
Slope Regulations
Applicability and Purpose. The following regulations are enacted to minimize
the risks associated with project developemnt in areas characterized by
vegetation and steep and/or unstable slopes. Such areas include ravines,
blufflands and shorelands. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of
height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on steep slope.
a. Building permit applications for new structures on slopes of 12
percent or greater shall include an accurate topographic map. The
map shall contain contours of two -foot (2') intervals for slopes of
12 percent or greater. Slopes over 30 percent shall be clearly
marked.
b. Slopes 30 percent or greater shall not be considered in the density
determination of a property.
c. Parcels with a portion of the area in slopes of 30 percent or greater
shall require the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district
in slopes of less than 30 percent. The area in slopes of less than
30 percent must be contiguous to the proposed building site.
d. No structure shall be located on a slope of greater than 30 percent
or within 20 feet of a 30 percent or greater slope.
Driveway Design Standards
a. Driveways shall be designed to conform with existing contours to the
maximum extent feasible.
b. Driveways shall enter public/private streets in such a manner as to
maintain adequate line of sight.
c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 10 percent.
0o -ft
1 �rrf= 'Ll
J J
•
� L� , I" ,� .--•1 "'`.77 1. :aNi,�� i xt'.'•1 ��t' 7 ��."C ;,4;j't tc
zljn
— �, _ if = - - 2Zr=A-,-�``,�''ti'=—=ems=2s`_'* :
= i— _
1
-ter
Stillwater St. Croix
River View Study
March 1992
Stillwater Comrnunit1y Dee1opment1
Departrnent.
STILLWATER ST. CROIX RIVER VIEW STUDY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to analyze land within the City of Stillwater's
jurisdiction outside of the official riverway land use district that has a
significant impact on the riverway view corridor and study the efficacy of
adopting zoning provisions which will preserve the appearance of the City's river
face.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following is a visual inventory of the City of Stillwater as seen from the
St. Croix River in August of 1991. The riverside areas are described from south
to north based on their appearance from the river.
South Stillwater
Viewing Stillwater from its south boundary; looking west, you first notice the
bluffs rising 200 feet above the river. Natural vegetation frames and envelopes
steeply sloped rock out croppings. The vegetation consists of Aspen, Birch, Elm,
Maple with some Pine. Scattered along the bluff overlooking the river, sit large
residences built in the 1950s to 1960s. Most of these residences have flat or
minimally pitched roofs and are white, brown, blue or gold in color.
As you travel north and approach the downtown area of Stillwater, homes become
older and roof lines steeper. These older homes, with one exception, were built
during the Lumber Era of 1860 - 1910. The exception is a large grey with white
trim, victorian style home built in 1989.
Highway 95, a two lane highway, parallels the river below the bluffline. Cars
traveling along this stretch of highway can be seen at various points partially
screened by vegetation. The shoreline in this area is tree lined with trees and
bushes overhanging the river. There are two distinct breaks in the natural
shoreline. One is the Aiple Barge Offices, a boat located at rivers edge. The
other is a fertilizer warehouse and loading dock. The Oasis restaurant and bait
shop on the inland side of Highway 95 can be seen just south of the warehouse.
Downtown Stillwater
Traveling north from south Stillwater the Historic Stillwater Lift Bridge,
connecting Minnesota with Wisconsin, dominates the view. To the west, Historic
Downtown Stillwater rests in a pamaramic bowl framed by bluff top trees and
houses. Church steeples, Victorian peeked roofed homes and a newer high-rise
apartment building punctuate downtown views. The appearance of downtown has
remained relatively unchanged for over 100 years.
Historic Downtown Stillwater buildings provide a striking contrast to the natural
beauty of the upper reaches of the lower St. Croix. The downtown buildings
create a town or village image in contrast to the natural riverway of the St.
Croix River above Stillwater. The contrast of shoreland development and riverway
natural beauty complement each other and provide a unique setting. The Dock
1
Cafe, Lowell Park retaining wall and gazebo, the lift bridge, Mulberry Point and
the Stillwater Yacht Club provide a mixture of manmade features and urban open
spaces. The concrete levee wall and gazebo define the rivers edge and separates
Lowell Park and the background buildings from the river.
There are many colors in the bowl of Downtown Stillwater. The Historic buildings
are brick red. The newer buildings range in color from white, cream and gold
to dark brown and green. Interspersed trees frame and block views of the town.
North Stillwater
Traveling north from Downtown Stillwater the shoreline returns to a narrow strip
of land. This steep bluffline covered with vegetation creates a natural wall
appearance. Vegetation in this area consists of Aspen, Spruce, Pine and Walnut.
There are large homes along the north end of the bluffline. These homes are
painted light colors, white and grey.
As one enters the Brown Creek Ravine area, another vista opens up. This one
smaller then the Downtown, has steeper side hills. Residential structures
peeking out from the trees and sidehill. The feeling in this area is not town
or village like downtown Stillwater nor natural/wild like the lower St. Croix
north of Stillwater but more riverside rural.
North from the Stillwater Yacht Club, the view from the river turns natural,
similar to south Stillwater. One break in this area is a single large residence
located at rivers edge. A boat and dock front the residence.
North of the single residence the Lakeside residential subdivision projects an
urban appearance. Most of the homes hover on the bluffline overlooking the
river approximately 30 feet below. These homes were built the late 1950s to
mid 1960s with minimal bluffline setbacks. The homes vary in height and color.
Lakeside residences have there own marina and docks at the base of the bluff.
Two marinas mark the north City limits. These marinas have scattered dockage
leading from an irregular shoreline. There are some residences located above
the marinas on the inland side of Highway 95.
The view of downtown Stillwater from the north channel is breathtaking. The
church steeples rise over the river, vegetation and blufflines. The building
outline remind one of a quaint New England town or a village along the Rhine.
PAST DEVELOPMENT
Since the 1970s the views from the river have not changed much in the south
Stillwater area. Activity at the barge operation has decreased while warehouse
operation continues to be seasonal with most activity in the spring.
The residential area on top of the bluffs overlooking the St. Croix has also not
changed much. Three houses that can be partially seen from the river have been
constructed and one site redeveloped with a new large Victorian style house.
The vegetation cover has remained about the same with some tree trimming for view
and maintenance along the railroad right-of-way and highway. Most of the trees
2
on the bank and sidehill slopes are volunteer native growth.
Downtown Stillwater has seen some growth in the past 20 years. A pair of light
colored similar in design three-story buildings were constructed at the corner
of Olive and Third Streets. More recently the Dock Cafe, a 200-seat restaurant,
at the foot of Nelson Street and further to the north across from Staples Mill
on Main Street the 15,000 square foot Desch Office Building was constructed.
A wood sided 35-foot tall dry boat storage building was constructed just north
of Laurel Street on the Stillwater Yacht Club grounds. During the '70s a 7-
story, 100-unit Section 8 Senior Housing building, Rivertown Commons, was
constructed just west of Second Street at Mulberry.
Other structural changes have occurred. A transit boat dock and docking for the
Andiamo charter excursion boats was constructed in the early '80s. The
Stillwater Yacht Club, formerly Muller Boat Works, was expanded with additional
slips and a restaurant with outside eating and awning.
Much of the riverside land north of Downtown Stillwater is in single ownership
or developed. The land directly north of the Stillwater Yacht Club is owned by
the owner of the large, single family residence. This site probably has the
greatest chance of river side development and river visual impact. In 1991, a
single family residence was constructed on the bluff overlooking the old
territorial prison site and river. Most of the remaining bluff top parcels are
developed or difficult to develop because of site condition; steep slopes, lack
of sewer service or road access. The Lakeside drive subdivision was constructed
before 1970. Some decks and patios have been added since that time with one
house increasing its height. Other houses have redeveloped to expand living
space and capture views. The Penthouse Acres area just north of Highway 95-96
intersections has developed since 1970. Bluff top residences can be seen from
the river.
Overall, the Stillwater viewshed area has experienced some growth and change of
views but the overall character of the area has remained that of a river town.
FUTURE VIEW AREA DEVELOPMENT
As previously discussed, most of the land in the City of Stillwater that can be
seen from the river is developed or owned by the City of Stillwater. The City
of Stillwater owns over 4,000 feet of shoreline from the south City boundary to
just south of the Dock Cafe. The barge company and fertilizer transport business
currently leases the property from the City. This lease is in effect until
1998. At that time, the City of Stillwater will retain possession of the
property for its own use. The Downtown Plan calls for a specific plan for the
site to be prepared when the City's possession is closer.
The Downtown area appears developed from the river. Although all of the
immediate shoreline from the Dock Cafe to Stillwater Yacht Club is owned by the
City, land north of Chestnut Street between Water Street and the railroad has
recently been purchased by the City from the railroad for future development.
The development of this area would change the town view from the river. One
other site north of the Desch office building will probably redevelop in time.
3
The north Stillwater area contains the largest riparian vacant site that could
impact river views. The site is located directly north of the Stillwater Yacht
Club and runs for about 3,000 feet to the Lakeside residential subdivision area.
The site is long and narrow between 150 and 250 feet in depth. The west side
of the site is bounded by the Minnesota Transportation Museum railroad right of
way and Highway 95 and on the east bounded by the river.
The bluffland is developed in large single family lots. There remain one or two
bluff top lots that could develop. All the lots in the Lakeside Drive area are
developed as are the lots in the Penthouse Acres area that can be viewed from
the river.
The color of homes will continue to change over time and accessory structures,
decks, patios or additions will probably continue to be added to existing
residencies to capture view of the river or add living space.
VIEWSHED DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
The river viewshed is partially in the riverway bluffland/shoreland zoning
district area although most of the viewshed is outside the district (refer to
Map 2). The bluffland/shoreland district area includes the land area between
the railroad right of way and river. The district is 100 to 300 feet wide and
2.5 miles long to the intersection of Highway 95 and 96, at that point the
boundary widens to include the City of Stillwater territory north and west of
the intersection although much of the area can not be seen from the river.
The broader viewshed varies in width dependent on topography. For the south
Stillwater area the viewshed generally includes the residential development on
the west side of the first public street west of the bluff. For the downtown
the viewshed widens to a one-half mile in depth due to topography. The north
Stillwater area with its characteristic steep bluff and bluff top residences is
similar to the south Stillwater area. For the bluffland/shoreland area special
development requirements are in effect due to the Wild and Scenic designation
of the river. The table below lists the special riverway regulations. For a
detailed description of the regulations the ordinance should be referred to.
Bluffland/Shoreland Area
Urban
District
Without UrbanDistrict
Sewer & with Public
Water Sewer & Water
1. Minimum lot size above ordinary high water mark. 1 acre 20.,000 sq. ft.
2. Lot width at building setback line 150 ft. 100 ft.
3. Lot width at water line 150 ft. 100 ft.
4. Structure setback from ordinary high water mark 100 ft. 100 ft.
5. Structure setback from bluffline 40 ft. 40 ft.
4
Urban
District --
Without UrbanDistrict
Sewer & with Public
Water Sewer & Water
6. On site sewage treatment system setback from
ordinary high water mark 100 ft.
7. On site sewage treatment system setback from
bluffline 40 ft.
8. Maximum structure height
35 ft. 35 ft.
9. Maximum total lot area covered by impervious
surface 20% (8,700 20% (4,000
sq. ft. sq. ft.
10. On slopes less than 12%, the controlled
vegetation cutting areas setback from:
Ordinary high water mark
Bluff lines
100 ft. 100 ft.
40 ft. 40 ft.
For the viewshed area outside of the bluffland/shoreland area, regulations are
different. The lot size requirements are smaller (7,500 square feet or 10,000
square feet for single family residence with utilities versus 20,000 square feet)
and taller buildings are allowed. Tree cutting is not regulated, bluffline
setbacks are not required and house color not controlled (with the exception of
the Downtown Historic District). The City's subdivision ordinance for all areas
of the City require minimum lot area to be with lands of slopes 30 percent or
less. Where urban sewer service are not available, a 20,000 square foot lot size
is required. The table below lists the residential duplex (RB) development
regulations.
Viewshed Outside of Bluffland/Shoreland Area
Area, Setbacks and Height Regulations:
PROVISION SINGLE FAMILY
1. Maximum Building Height:
Main Building
Accessory Building
2-1/2 stories and 35 feet
1 story - 20 feet
2. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. feet.
3. Minimum Lot Width 75 feet
4. Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet
5
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
6. Minimum Yard Requirements:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Corner Lot Street Side Yard
Rear Yard
7. Frontage Requirements
30%
30 feet
10 feet
30 feet
25 feet
At least 25 feet on an improved
public street.
For the Downtown area special design review guidelines are in effect to retain
and preserve the historic character of Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic
District. A nine block area in the downtown including the 60 year old Historic
Lift Bridge and Lowell Park are on the National Register of Historic Places.
(Refer to design review guidelines for specific guidelines.)
PERCEPTION OF RIVER VIEWSHED ISSUES
In the fall of 1991, a questionnaire was administered to the Stillwater City
Planning Commission to get there input on views from the St. Croix River and
development impact. Four open-ended questions were asked:
1. What are the most important scenic qualities of Stillwater as viewed from
the St. Croix River?
2. What is the most important natural beauty or views of historic buildings?
3. Is the Rousseau House more visually conspicuous from the river than the
homes that surround it?
4. What should be done to protect the scenic bluffline of Stillwater?
A video tape of the summer shoreline as viewed from the river channel was
presented and the questions discussed.
Commission members felt that views of the Stillwater area were special because
of the way the natural features, topography, cliffs, vegetation is interspersed
with the "core" of downtown buildings. One commissioner said it appears as
though Stillwater is enclosed and protected by the natural elements. Another
person thought the south and north Stillwater bluff top houses trimmed the
bluffline and provided a gradual transition and visual introduction to Downtown.
Question 2 responses ranged from calling out the historic and natural resources
as equally important to those who felt that what appears to be a natural bluffing
now is not natural at all but created when highway 95 was cut into the side of
the sandstone hills. Another person felt that nature and wilderness areas (such
as the Wild and Scenic St. Croix) has preference over structures.
The Commission felt that the changes made to the Rousseau House did not make it
more visually conspicuous as viewed from the river. They felt it was in
character with the surrounding residential district.
6
Ways that were suggested by the Planning Commission to better protect the scenic
bluffline and river views included:
1. Limit tree cutting and foliage removal.
2. Limit height of buildings.
3. Establish a tree planting requirement for new residences that can be seen
from the river.
4. Purchase key sites that are owned by private land owners where views are
critical.
5. Hillside development regulations (setbacks from bluff).
6. Increase City lot area requirements where no urban sewer service available.
METHODS TO PROTECT RIVER VIEWS
For purpose of this study, it is assumed that the bluffland/shoreland regulations
are adequate to protect those areas. This review will consider the upland
viewshed area that is not regulated by the riverway ordinance.
Action that could adversely effect river view include vegetation removal on
private property and infill development in the remaining vacant lots. Current
City zoning regulations allow building 35 feet in height (because of definition
of height building may actually appear as high as 45 feet). There is no
bluffline setback requirement and trees can be cut or trimmed at the property
owners discretion. The residential zoning of the area does not appear to be an
issue. But where City water and sewer services are not available existing City
requirements allow a 20,000 square foot lot area while the bluffland regulations
require a one -acre site for new subdivision. (Smaller lot sizes can be developed
if the lot is of record.)
The Downtown area is almost completely developed except for parking lots and
vacant lands recently purchased by the City for redevelopment. The views from
the river of Downtown are of a built-up village or town. The Central Business
District zoning regulations allow buildings of 4 stories or 50 feet maximum.
This height is equal to or less than the tallest buildings downtown. It does
not seem appropriate to try to change the Downtown into a natural area but to
recognize it as a historic town and allow it to continue and change as a built-
up settlement area. The Lower St. Croix Master Plan calls for the preservation
of the historic and cultural resources as well as the natural resources.
The City is currently preparing a plan for the reconstruction of the levee wall
and extension of Lowell Park to Mulberry Point. A landscape element will be part
of that plan.
Methods to reduce the visual impact of development as viewed from the river are
described below. The methods seem most appropriate for the south and north
Stillwater areas.
7
- Land Purchase - using federal, state or local funds to_purchase
key sites to preserve views from the river. Similar to outright
purchase view easements could be purchased for critical areas.
This method has been used north of Stillwater on the Lower St.
Croix and for Mulberry Point.
- Extend Riverway District - the riverway district could be
extended to more adequately include the viewshed. For example,
the boundary could be moved to the east side of the first public
road above the south (City limits to Main Street stairs) and
north blufflines (Elm Street to Highway 96). This approach
would apply more stringent tree cutting height, lot size and
setback regulations to the entire river viewshed except for
Downtown.
- Zoning Amendments - selective sections in the existing zoning
ordinance could be amended that would result in reduced view
impact. Possible zoning ordinance changes include:
Bluffline Setback. (Currently 40 feet setback required in the
riverway district none in other viewshed areas).
Height Limit. Reduce height limit by redefining height.
Currently residences 45 feet in height can be constructed in the
south Stillwater and north Stillwater areas.
Building Painting. Require all new houses to be painted earth tones
(green or brown).
Unsewered Areas. Require larger lot sizes for unsewered areas.
This would reduce the number of building sites and reduce
potential for ground water contamination and visual impact.
Transfer of Development Rights. Allow the transfer of
development rights from the viewshed to other areas in the City
that can better accommodate higher density development. (This
concept has been used for other purposes.)
- Tree Planting. Establish a tree planting program on public
lands and along highways and railroad right of ways in the
viewshed.
Some of the ways listed above can be implemented by a change in City zoning
regulations. Others require actions by other agencies.
8
illr
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
DATE: JUNE 4, 1992
SUBJECT: RAVINE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Recently, the Community has become aware of how important
the City's ravines are. This has led to a clean-up
campaign to clear out much of the garbage which has been
accumulating in these areas through the years.
The development of housing may also negatively impact
these ravines. Should we be concerned about this impact?
There are development regulations which can be placed on
the ravine areas to protect them. Staff will review such
policies at meeting time.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL
WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA, BY
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS
REQUIRING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351.
2. FINDINGS
The City of Stillwater hereby finds that uncontrolled and inadequately planned
use of wetlands, woodlands, natural habitat areas, areas subject to soil
erosion and areas containing restrictive soils adversely affects the public
health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality and contributing
to other environmental problems, creating nuisances, impairing other
beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the ability of the
City of Stillwater to provide adequate water, sewage, flood control, and other
community services. In addition, extraordinary public expenditures may be
required for the protection of persons and property in areas which may be
affected by unplanned land usage.
3. PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural
resources within the City of Stillwater and protect them from adverse effects
caused by poorly sited development or incompatible activities by regulating
land disturbing or development activities that would have an adverse and
potentially irreversible impact on water quality and unique and fragile
environmentally sensitive land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging
compatibility between land disturbing and development activities and water
qaulity and environmentally sensitive lands; and by requiring detailed review
standards and procedures for land disturbing or development activities
1
proposed for such areas, thereby achieving a balance between urban growth and
development and protection of water quality and natural areas:
4. SCOPE AND EFFECT
4.1 Applicability. Every applicant for subdivision Planned Unit Development or
a permit to allow land disturbing activities must submit a storm water
management plan to the Department of Community Development. No building
permit, subdivision approval, or perrnit to allow land disturbing
activities shall be issued until approval of the storm water management
plan or a waiver of the approval requirement has been obtained in strict
conformance with the provisions of this ordinance.
4.2 Exemptions. The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to:
a) Any part of a subdivision if a plat for the subdivision has been
approved by the City on or before the effective date of this
ordinance.
b) Any land disturbing activity for which plans have been approved by the
watershed management organization within six months prior to the
effective date of this ordinance.
c) A lot for which a building permit has been approved on or before the
effective date of this ordinance;
d) Installation of fence, sign telephone, and electric poles and other
kinds of posts or poles/ or
e) Emergency work to protect life, limb, or property.
5. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPROVAL PROCEDURES
2
5.1 Application. A written application for storm water management plan
approval, along with the proposed storm water management -plan, shall be
filed with the Department of Community Development and shall include a
statement indicating the grounds upon which the approval is requested,
that the proposed use is permitted by right or as an exception in the
underlying zoning district, and adequate evidence showing that the
proposed use will conform to the standards set forth in this ordinance.
Prior to applying for approval of a storm water management plan, an
applicant may have the storm water management plans reviewed by the City
Engineers.
5.2 Storm Water Managemnt Plan. At a minimum, the storm water management
plan shall contain the following information.
a) Existing site map. A map of existing site conditions showing the site
and immediately adjacent areas including:
1) The name and address of the applicant, the section, township and
range, north point, date and scale of drawing and number of
sheets;
2) Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to
clearly identify the location of the property and giving such
information as the states and numbers of adjoining roads,
railroads, utilities, subdivisions, towns and districts or other
landmarks;;
3) Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the
topography of the land but in no case having a contour interval
greater than 2 feet;
4) A delineation of all streams, rivers, public waters and wetlands
located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth
of water, a description of all vegetation which may be found in
the water, a statement of general water quality and any
3
4) A delineation of all streams, rivers, public waters and wetlands
located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth
of water, a description of all vegetation which may be found in
the water, a statement of general water quality and any
classification given to the water body or wetlands by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, and/or the United States Corps of
Engineers;
5) Location and dimensions of existing storm water drainage systems
and natural drainage patterns on and immediately adjacent to the
site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water
is conveyed from the site, identifying the receiving stream,
river, public water or wetland, and setting forth those areas of
the unaltered site where storm water collects;
6) A description of the soils of the site, including a map
indicating soil types of areas to be disturbed as well as a soil
report containing information on the suitability of the soils
for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage
disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken
by the developer to render the soils suitable.:
7) Vegetative cover and clearly delineating any vegetation proposed
for removal; and
8) 100 year floodplains, flood fringes and floodways.
b) Site construction plan. A site construction plan including:
1) Locations and dimensions of all proposed land disturbing
activities and any phasing of those activities;
2) Locations and dimensions of all temporary soils or dirt
stockpiles;
4
3) Locations and dimensions of all constructions site erosion
control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this
ordinance.
4) Schedule of anticipated starting and completion date of each
land disturbing activity including the installation of
construction site erosion control measures needed to meet the
requirements of this ordinance; and
5) Provisions for maintenance of the construction site erosion
control measures during construction.
c) Plan of final site conditions. A plan of final site conditions on the
same scale as the existing site map showing the site changes
including:
1) Finished grading shown at contours at the same interval aS
provided above or as required to clearly indicate the
relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and
remaining features;
2) A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, including
dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and
description of all proposed landscape materials which will be
added to the site as part of the development.
3) A drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which
direction and at what rate storm water will be conveyed from the
site and setting forth the areas of the site where storm water
will be allowed to collect;
4) The proposed size, alignment, and intended use of any structures
to be erected on the site;
5
6) Any other information pertinent to the particular project which
in the opinion of the applicant is necessary for the review of
the project.
6. PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE
6.1 Process. Storm water management plans meeting the requirements of Section
5. shall be submitted bay the Community Development Director to the
Planning Commission for review in accordance with the standards of
Section 7.
6.2 Duration. Approval of a plan submitted under the provisions of this
ordinance shall expire one year after date of approval unless
construction has commenced in accordance with the plan. However, is prior
to the expiration of the approval, the applicant makes a written request
to the Community Development Director for an extension of time to
commence construction setting forth the reasons for the requested
extension, the Planning Department may grant one extension of not greater
than one single year. Receipt of any request for an extension shall be
acknowledged by the Department of Community Development within 15 days.
The Department of Community Development shall make a decision on the
extension within 30 days of receipt. Any plan may be revised in the same
manner as originally approved.
6.3 Conditions. A storm water management plan may be approve subject to
compliance with conditions reasonable and necessary to insure that the
requirements contained in this ordinance are met. Such conditions may,
among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed
development, require the construction of structures, drainage facilities,
storage basins and other facilities, require replacement of vegetation,
establish required monitoring procedures, stage the work over time,
require alteration of the site design to insure buffering, and require
the conveyance to the City of Stillwater or other public entity of
certain lands or interests therein.
6.4 Performance bond. Prior to approval of any storm water management plan,
the applicant may be required to submit an agreement to construct such
required physical improvements, to dedicate property or easements, or to
comply with such conditions as may have been agreed to. Such agreement
shall be accompanied by a bond to cover the amount of the established
cost of complying with the agreement. The agreement and bond shall
guarantee completion and compliance with conditions within a specific
time, which time may be extended in accordance with Section 6.2.
The adequacy, conditions and acceptability of any agreement and bond
shall be determined by the Community Development Director of the City of
Stillwater as may be designated by resolution of the City Council.
6.5 Fees. All applications for storm water management plan approval shall be
accompanied by a processing and approval fee of $50.00 and actual
engineering costs.
7. APPROVAL STANDARDS
7.1 No storm water management plan which fails to meet the standards
contained in this section shall be approved.
(COMMENTARY: Sections 7.2 through 7.16 area an example of how best
management practices for handling storm water runoff and design criteria
for detention ponds can be included within an ordinance. Additional best
management practices and design criteria can be found in the MPCA
publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas".
7.2 Site dewatering. Water pumped from the site shall be treated by temporary
sedimentation basins, grit chambers, sand filters, upflow chambers,
hyrdo-cycones, swirl concentrators or other appropriate controls aS
appropriate. Water may not be discharged in a manner that causes erosion
or flooding of the site or receiving channels or a wetland.
7.3 Waste and material disposal. All waste and unused building materials
(including garbage, debris, cleaning wastes, wastewater, toxic materials
7
7.3 Waste and material disposal. All waste and unused building materials
(including garbage, debris, cleaning wastes, wastewater, toxic materials
or hazardous materials) shall be properly disposed of off -site and not
allowed to be carried by runoff into a receiving channel or storm sewer
system.
7.4 Tracking. Each site shall have graveled roads, access drives and parking
areas of sufficient width and length to prevent sediment from being
tracked onto public or private roadways. Any sediment reaching a public
or private road shall be removed by street cleaning (not flushing) before
the end of each workday.
7.5 Drain inlet protection. All storm drain inlets shall be protected during
construction until control measures are in place with a straw bale, silt
fence or equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, standards
and specifications contained in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas".
7.6 Site erosion control. The following criterias (a.through d.) apply only
to construction activities that result in runoff leaving the site.
a) Channelized runoff form adjacent areas passing through the site
shall be diverted around disturbed areas, if practical. Otherwise,
the channel shall be protected as described below. Sheetflow runoff
from adjacent areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area shall
also be diverted around disturbed areas, unless shown to have
resultant runoff of less than 0.5 ft. 3/sec. across the disturbed
area for one year storm. Diverted runoff shall be conveyed in a
manner that will not erode the conveyance and receiving channels.
b) All activities on the site shall be conducted in a logical sequence
to minimize the area of bare soil at any one time.
c) Runoff from the entire disturbed area on the site shall be controlled
by meeting either subsections 1 and 2 or 1 and 3.
8
1) All disturbed ground left inactive for fourteen or more days
shall be stabilized by seeding or sodding (only available prior
to September 15) or by mulching or covering or other equivalent
control measure.
2) For sites with more than ten acres disturbed at one time, or if
a channel originates in the disturbed area, one or more
temporary or permanent sedimentation basins shall be
constructed. Each sedimentation basin shall have a surface area
of at least one percent of the area draining to the basin and at
least three feet of depth and constructed in accordance with
accepted design specifications. Sediment shall be removed to
maintain a depth of three feet. The basin discharge rate shall
also be sufficiently low as to not cause erosion along the
discharge channel or the receiving water.
3) For sites with less than ten acres disturbed at one time, silt
fences, straw bales or equivalent control measures shall be
placed along all sideslope and downslope sides of the site. If a
channel or area of concentrated runoff passes through the site,
silt fences shall be placed along the channel edges to reduce
sediment reaching the channel. the use of silt fences, straw
bales, or equivalent control measures must include a maintenance
and inspection schedule.
d. Any soil or dirt storage piles containing more than ten cubic yards of
material should not be located with a downslope drainage length of
less than 25 feet from the toe of the pile to a roadway or drainage
channel. If remaining for more than seven days, they shall be
stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps or other means.
Erosion from piles which will be in existence for less than seven days
shall be controlled by placing straw bales or silt barriers around the
pile. In -street utility repair or construction soil or dirt storage
piles located closer than 25 feet of a roadway or drainage channel
must be covered with tarps or suitable alternative control, if exposed
9
for more than seven days, and the stormdrain inlets must be protected
with straw bale or other appropriate filtering barrier's.
7.7 Storm water management criteria for permanent facilities.
a. An applicant shall install or construct, on or for the proposed land
disturbing or development activity, all storm water management
facilities necessary to manage increased runoff so that the two-year,
ten-year, and 100-year storm peak discharge rates existing before the
proposed development shall not be increased and accelerated channel
erosion will not occur as a result of the proposed land disturbing or
development activity. An applicant may also make an in -kind or
monetary contribution to the development and maintenance of community
storm water management facilities designed to serve multiple land
disturbing and development activities undertaken by one or more
persons, including the applicant.
b. The applicant shall give consideration to reducing the need for storm
water management facilities by incorporating the use of natural
topography and land cover such as wetlands, ponds, natural swales, and
depressions as they exist before development to the degree that they
can accommodate the additional flow of water without compromising the
integrity or quality of the wetland or pond.
c. The following storm water management practices shall be investigated
in developing a storm water management plan in the following
descending order of preference:
1) Infiltration of runoff on -site, if suitable soil conditions are
available for use;
2.) Flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural
depressions.
3) Storm water retention facilities; and
10
d. A combination of successive practices may be used to achieve the
applicable minimum control requirements specified in -subsection (a)
above. Justification shall be provided by the applicant for the method
selected.
7.8 Design Standards. Storm water detention facilities constructed in the
City of Stillwater shall be designed according to the most current
technology as reflected in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality
in Urban Areas", and shall contain, at a minimum, the following design
factors:
a) A permanent pond surface area equal to two percent of the impervious
area draining to the pond or one percent of the entire area draining
to the pond, whichever amount is greater;
b) An average permanent pool depth of four to ten feet;
(COMMENTARY: An alternative to subsections (a) and (b) would b e to
require that the volume of permanent pool be equal to or greater than
the runoff from a 2.0 inch rainfall for the fully developed site.)
c) A permanent pool length -to -width ratio of 3:1 or greater;
d) A minimum protective shelf extending ten feet into the permanent pool
with a slope of 10:1 beyond which slopes should not exceed 3:1;
e) A protective buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the permanent pool
at a minimum width of one rod (16.5 feet).
f) A11 storm water detention facilities shall have a device to keep oil,
grease, and other floatable material from moving downstream as a
result of normal operations;
g) Storm water detention facilities for new development must be
sufficient to limit peak flows in each subwatershed to those that
existed before the development for the 10 year storm event. Also
11
calculations and hydrologic models/information used in determining
peak flows shall be submitted along with storm water i nagement plan:
h) All storm water detention facilities must have a forebay to remove
coarse -grained particles prior to di scharge into a watercourse or
storage basin.
7.9 Wetlands.
a) Runoff shall not be discharged directly into wetlands without
presettlement of the runoff.
b) A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation at least one rod (16.5
feet) in width shall surround all wetlands.
c) Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholely or partially, unless
replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of a t least equal
public value. Replacement must be guided by the following principles
in descending order of priority:
1) Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may
destroy or diminish the wetland;
2) Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
wetland activity and its implementation.
3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, ore
restoring the affected wetland environment.
4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and
5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
wetland resources or environments. (Compensation, including the
replacement ratio and quality of replacement should be
consistent with the requirements outlined in the rules which
12
4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and
5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
wetland resources or environments. (Compensation, including the
replacement ratio and quality of replacement should be
consistent with the requirements outlined in the rules which
will be adopted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources to
implement the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.)
7.10 Steep slopes. No land disturbing or development activities shall e
allowed on slopes of 18 percent or more.
7.11 Catch basins. All newly installed and rehabilitated catch basins shall be
provided with a sump area for the collection of coarse -grained material.
Such basins shall be cleaned when they are half filled with material.
7.12 Drain leaders. All newly constructd and reconstructed buildings will
route drain leaders to pervious areas wherein the runoff can be allowed
to infiltrate. The flow ratio of water exiting the leaders shall be
controlled so no erosion occurs in the pervious areas.
7.13 Inspections and maintenance. All storm water management facilities shall
be designed to minimize the need of maintenance, to provide access for
maintenance pruposes and to be structurally sound. All storm water
management facilities shall have a plan of operation and maintenance that
assures continued effective removal of pollutants carried in storm water
runoff. The director public works, or designated representative, shall
inspect all storm water management facilities during construction, during
the first year of operation, and at least once every five years
thereafter. The inspection recordsd will be kept on file at the public
works department for a period of six years. It shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements or
other property interests to allow access to the storm water
management facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes.
13
7.14 Models/methodologies/computations. Hydrologic models and design
methodologies used for the determination of runoff and analysis of storm
water management structures shall be approved by the director public
works. Plans, specifications and computations for storm water management
facilities submitted for review shall be sealed and signed by a
registered professional engineer. All computations shall appear on the
plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approved by the director of
public works.
7.15 Watershed management plans/groundwater management plans. Storm water
management plans shall be consistent with adopted watershed management
plans and groundwater management plans prepared in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231 and 103B.255 respectively, and as
approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources in accordance
with state law.
7.16 Easements. If a storm water management plan involves direction of all
runoff of the site, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to
obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary easements or other
property interests concerning flowage of water.
9. OTHER CONTROLS
In event of any conflict between the provisions of this ordinance and other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the more restrictive standard prevails.
10. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any provision of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of applications of
this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or
application.
11. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall be effective the
day of , 19
14