The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-04-20 CPC Packeti r Ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA March 18, 1987 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1987 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET. Ar.FNnA Approval of Minutes - March 23, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Case No. V/87-15 - Variance request for construction of a duplex on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot (10,000 sq. ft. required) in the RB Two Family Residential District at 623 W. Anderson St., Bernard G. Harvieux, Applicant. 2. Case No. SUP/87-16 - Special Use Permit for a nine bedroom 18 guest Bed and Breakfast in RCM Multi -Family Residential District at 306 West Olive Street, Charles and Judith Dougherty, Applicants. Case No. V/87-17 - Variance request for more than one nameplate sign and one business sign per lot frontage at River Heights Plaza, 1570 Frontage Road West, in IP-C Industrial Park Commercial District. Robert Scott Development, Applicants. 4. Case No. SUB/87-18 - Minor land division subdividing a 15,000 sq. ft. lot into two lots of 7,500 sq. ft. each at 418 West Maple Street in the RB Duplex District. Steve and Nancy Hesse, Applicants. 5. Case No. SUP/V/87-19 - Special Use Permit for locating a Caboose kitchen and decking with variance to the rear yard setback requirements at the Freight House Restaurant, 305 South Water Street in the CA General Commercial District. Jim Williams, Applicant. 6. Case No. SUP/87-20 - Special Use Permit for a local retail use directly North of 1635 South Greeley Street in the RA single Family Residential District. Dennis and Connie Strohkirch, Applicants. OTHER BUSINESS: Zoning amendment discussion: 1. Garage setback in RA/RB Districts. 2. Lot size requirements for non sewered parcels. 3. Definition of developable land for new development. Highway 36 Bridge Location Report. Discussion of Downtown Work Program. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 1987 TIME: 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman Judy Curtis Dean Miller Don Valsvik Nancy Putz Jay Kimble Mark Ehlenz Steve Russel, City Planner MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Hamlin and Jean Jacobson The meeting was called to order by Gerald Fontaine at 7 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 23, 1987 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CASE No. V/87-10 Variance request for a seven foot variance to the side yard setback requirement for construction of a three season parch at 1206 North Broadway in the RB Residential Duplex District. Marge Knowlton, applicant. Dick Zappa, Sussel Company, described the property at 1208 North Broadway and presented a letter in support of the application, contingent upon a provision that the existing shrubs and trees riot be disturbed. Discussion followed without audience comment or, objections. Dean Miller motion to approve, conditional upon the existing trees not be disturbed. Don Valsvik seconded. Gerald Fontaine opposed. Motion approved. CASE No. , SUB/87-11 Minor Subdivision of a 2.39 acre lot into two lots of .93 and 1.4E acres at 1819 North Fourth Street in the RA Single, Family Residential District. Robert Troyer and Satu SuOminen-Troyer, applicants. Applicants explained the subdivision and the location of the existing residence. The new lot could gain access from North FOurth or - West Poplar and would have to pass a perk test before the final plat is approved. Discussion followed without comments from the audience. Motion to approve the subdivision, Don Valsvik. Dean Miller second. Unanimously approved. 1 CASE No. CUP/V/97-14 Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 30 ft. tall Carriage House/Garage with dwelling unit above, with a rear yard variance of 6 feet, 25 inches required at 206 South Fifth Street in the RC-M Multi -family Residential District. Ronald Gullickson, Applicant. Applicant presented drawings and explained plans for the construction of a carriage house dwelling, to be situated over a three -car garage. Lengthy audience discussion followed. John Ertle expressed disapproval over the size of the lot and property values in the area, along with the need for another dwelling in the existing neighborhood. Jerry Brine, 201 S. Sixth St., was opposed toy the obstruction of view from a 30 ft. high structure. Mary Webber, owner of a fourplex in the neighborhood, expressed concerns over the parking of additional cars in the. area. Cindy Brine objected to the addition of more rental units in the neighborhood and possible property value declines. Barb Flow, 225 W. Chestnut, opposed additional rental units and the size of the proposed structure. Discussion followed. Nancy Putz motion to deny the variance and conditional use. Mark Eh1enz seconded. Unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING Brick Pond/South Greeley/Forest Hills, Frontage Read, Street and Land Use Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was held on the land use plan as ar, anieridment to the Comprehensive Plan. Steve Russell, Community Development Director, presented three possible land use alternatives for discussion. Following presentations, discussion followed on various issues surrounding sewer and water, street location, drainage, zoning, land dedications and buffer zones. Mr. Moore presented information on adequate water pressure and drainage. Residents of forest hills expressed revisions to petitions submitted to Commission. Jack Lux representing property owners in the area questioned the basis for road assessments and wondered who would pay for the meighborhood park/open area. It was indicated the future assessment would be based on benefit and that the City has a park dedication requirement that would provide some parkland. 3 Dean Miller motion to approve the upgraded design subject to the above conditions of review. Seconded by Don Valsvik. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of request by Freighthouse to locate a caboose adjacent to deck in front of Restaurant was presented to members. A variance and a Special Use Permit will be needed and possible parking changes, depending upon addition of more seating. Members discussed the proposal and applicant will present needed information at the meeting next month. MOTION TO ADJOURN by Judy Curtis, seconded by Don Valsvik., at 11 :3D P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Karen L. Mawhorter, Planning Commission Secretary 5 Planning Review Case No. V/87-15 Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 1987 Project Location: 623 West Anderson Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Duplex Zoning District: RB Duplex Applicant's Name: Bernard Harvieux Type of Application: Variance Project Description: Variance to construct a duplex on substandard sized lot. Discussion: The application is to construct a duplex on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. The requirement for the district is 10,000 sq. ft. An existing residence would be removed and new duplex constructed. The setback requirements for the new structure are front 30 ft., side 10 ft., corner side 20 ft minimum and rear yard 25 ft. If those setbacks are not met, variances would be required. It is difficult to determine the setback for the proposal from the site plan submitted. The applicant owns lot 7 to the rear of lot 6 and lots 4 and 5. By resubdividing lot 7, adding the West portion to lot 6 and the East portion to Lots 4 and 5, the lot size requirements for a duplex would be met for lot 6. Recommendation: Denial. Findings: The proposal is not consistent with the lot size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and density requirement of the General City Plan. Attachment: Applicant's Plans. PAC 103 Case Number _ V 01-7 -7- /� Fee Paid ----s:Z.: moo__-- Date Filed 2 1 19T'I PLANKING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM street Location of Property:_ j_J�� '=�" -- - trr` � .. `� ri tion of Property; = Legal Description : "L A42 p p y � -� Owner: Name cN4 r -�.--- _------------------ Address _. - -..1 ., ` � Phone: _ �_� =-� -/- Applicant (if other than owner): Name '------- _--------------- Address ____'-� .,___- ___- -_ Phone ----------------- Type of Request: ___ Rezoning ___ Approval, of Preliminary Plat ___ pecial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat _ _ Variance Other _--- _..___ ______ l• ' �_ Description of Request: Ll."IIZ -t --'� p _ o22 Signature of A nlicant:4 � ,Z - =' P, � Date of Public Hearing: ..___-_--____________________-___ _w�� ----- NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn •on ,beck of this form or at- tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. •- "' 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. •^ r_ ,;; 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed. structure. �. = 5. Street names. `��• M . 6. Location of adjacent e%isting buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved _ Denied _-_ by the'Planning Commission on ----------- (date) subject to the following conditions: __-. ______________________________ ---------------------- 7------------------------------------------- Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the following conditions: Comments: (Use other side), CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ARTHUR M. HOLM LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA Minnesota Reg•istert-d Land Surveyor No. 7447 iiisennaia Registered Land Surveyor No. S-845 , . S FILE N0. 7646 GUli-VEYMADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: .. )tr. Bernie Harvi euz, 1018 So. 'nth •, - •r >, 6tillwcter, kinne note 55C82 `• { -DESCRIPTION., A Boundpry Survey of Lots 4 thru 7, incluAive, of Block 16 of -Bolcaa3e't► J.dd, to the City of Stillwater.*ota ire. r � / r0 . AK ' (Z7- 1 0 P�d- = ffbT 1 c ' I hereby certify that I surveyed' rthe property 4escnbed. .- above and that the above is a true and correct plat of raid survey.: Date:.._.. TaX� �� 5. �jZi? ..... �' • ti . 4 `. Scale: I inch. 5-0 :.:feet. R 6, s •.' i o Indicates Irons, :•��'j. • w �Ly .air r � Y .y; a y '•!� f j ��'yj `..7era6�..=yny`a:•�.,•�.. •tr: �=.5•"�'y,.- "-F'- v �rEW Jam- ]I +• .f• r �� r 4 Ill 11 � . 1.,, � 4� }/fjF � �� "# ,E•`, '�+ �.. �. ' ur .=.."T�r S�� ^� �• I III .,, ..,. � � I u�l Innnll•�u uilll xatllxwn _Llrluit f F��!' � � rl}` �•, � ' �, � 1 ��' A Bi-level duplex with the foyer on the corner provides a unique look to the Morrison. This floor plan works well and is especially attractive with the optional garage. Compare these standard features: 2" x 6" exterior walls with 6" of R-19 insulation* 12" of R38 ceiling insulation* Flat ceilings and interior walls are gypsum board Horizontal hardboard exterior siding - standard; Rough -sawn contemporary or rustic - optional . Fireplace optional Quality bath fixtures in your choice of three colors . Prefinished wood kitchen cabinets by Connor . All countertops and floor covering . Light fixtures by Thomas Wood windows with storm and screen combination Electric heat . Insulated metal -clad entrance door A complete home, painted, stained and carpeted. *According to the insulation manufacturer, the respective thickness of insulation specified will yield the respective R value specified. Style: Contemporary Im :��, I L=, rl BEDROOM 7 D ' COUNT" [min ••+- SLAW GAGE El-10 1 n-4 A-1 4 tl A BEDROOM 1 LIVING ROOM 10-101I1-4 12-11111-1 _ x DM5 Upper Level LL BEDROOM 1 < p � � COUNTRY, [TCO x•2�Ii-1 4uR �_•� 14-IIt 11-4 BEDROOM 1a3 HYING BOOM t1 t1� a-4 12-n n-1 " Lower Leve LENGTH-------- e0 Ft, w/Opt. Garage DEPTH--------- 2 4 Ft. LIVING AREA--- 994 Sq. Ft. Ea. Unit YOUR WAUSAU HOME IS A THERMAL CRAFTEDTm HOME! Computerized energy design technology from Owens-Corning Fibergias aC[Ually evaluates your home's energy efficiency to help provide lower 4 heating and cooling costs. It also means greater protection against rising energy costs, higher resale value potential and greater personal comfort. (!Nil Welcome Home. TO a'J4q 50.000 FAMILIES McNENRY Style: Rustic r-, = of BEDROOM 1 � BATH i W, COUNTRY KITCHEN 9-2 1 11-4 — ' 14-11 It 11-4 I I Two cozy, two bedroom units in a small package, the McHenry provides a lot of return for your investment dollar. Country oilII kitchens with washer/dryer spaces provide for all a small family or couple's needs. BEDROOM 1 = LIVING ROOM Upper 10-10111-4 _ 13-5111-4 up Compare these standard features: Level _ l4° . 2" x 6" exterior walls with 6" of R-19 insulation* . 12" of R38 ceiling insulation* . Flat ceilings and interior walls are gypsum board �i arA . Horizontal hardboard exterior siding - BEDROOM 2 < y BATH— � 3 I COUNTRY KITCHEN .•,. standard; Rough -sawn contemporary or 9-2 x 11-4 —-' ` 14-11 x 11-4 rustic -optional / j . Fireplace optional�� . Quality bath fixtures in your choice of three colors } I . Prefinished wood kitchen cabinets by Connor . All countertops and floor covering . Light fixtures by Thomas BEDROOM 1 77 — " LIVING ROOM . Wood windows with storm and Lower 10-10ill-4 13-5x11-4 screen combination = . Electric heat Level . Insulated metal -clad entrance door = . A complete home, painted, stained and carpeted. *According to the insulation manufacturer, the LENOTH-------- 36 Ft� .� DM4 respective thickness of insulation specified will DEPTH--------- 24 Ft. yield the respective R value specified. LIVING AREA--- 844 8q. Ft. E■. Unit YOUR WAUSAU HOME IS A THERMAL CRAFTEDW HOME! ft- ( W �. �� o Welcome Home. TO OVER 50,000 FAMILIES LAW OFFICES OF ECK9ERG, I-AMMERS, BRIGGS 126 SOUTH SECOND STREET P. 0. BOX 40 STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55OB2 488-2878 LYLE J. ECKBERG JAMES F. LAMMERS ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A. WOLFF November 18, 1981 MARK J. VIERLING Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Harvieux 619 Anderson Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 8& WOLFF Re: Vacation of a portion of South Harriet Street Dear Mr. and Mrs. Harvieux: As you were apparently notified by the City of Stillwater, a hearing was held on Tuesday, November 17, 1981,_for the purpose of considering your Petition to vacate a portion of Harriet Street. Dave Magnuson, the City Attorney, called me on November 17th to advise that the City had agreed to vacate the Easterly ten feet of Harriet Street as it abutts your property, and that the City was not willing to vacate the entire street because of the apparent objection of the McKnights. The Council's action was based on the condition that you arrange to have the ten foot area to be vacated staked. Should you have any objections to this condition or should you have any questions regarding the above, I would appreciate you giving me a call. Mr. Magnuson indicated that he would prepare a resolution vacating the ten foot strip and would forward the same to me. Yours very truly, JaMes F. Lamfners JFL:kf Planning Application Review: Case No. CUP/87-16 Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 1987 Project Location: 306 West Olive Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family/Duplex Zoning District: RCM Applicant's Name: Charles and Judith Dougherty Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit Project Description: Conditional Use Permit request for a 9 room 18 guest Bed and Breakfast. Discussion: The application is to continue the existing Bed and Breakfast use under new ownership. The Conditional Use Permit granted November 5, 1986 by the Council indicates that the permit issued to the Andersons is not transferable and that new owner-s receive approval by applying for a new Conditional Use Permit. A new application for this permit has been submitted by the Dougherty's. The request modifies the previous Conditions of Approval in the following ways: (Proposed and existing Conditions of Approval are attached.) Condition #4 - The number of rooms has been increased to nine and guests to 18 from 8 and 16. Condition #6 - This condition has been changed to allow the owner to provide but not sell alcoholic beverages to guests. Condition #8 - Breakfast only has been changed to meals. Condition #9 - Allows commercial uses or functions, such as weddings, receptions and business meetings for guests. The existing condition does not allow such uses. Condition #11 - This condition regarding additional external lighting has been removed. Discussion of request: Condition #4 is to increase the rooms from eight to nine and guests accordingly. Based on the past discussion and impact of the commercial use on the residential area, the Commission may want to consider allowing for the eight rooms at present with possibility to increase to nine rooms based on the -1- level of activity and area impact at some time in the future. If nine rooms are approved, a floor plan showing the guest rooms and on site owner's quarters should be reviewed. Condition #6 would allow the applicant to provide alcoholic beverages to guests. This is a common practice in some Bed and Breakfasts. This condition would allow alcoholic beverages at weddings, receptions or other social events if Condition #9 is modified. Condition #8 allows meals, breakfast, lunch or dinner to be served to guests. Currently only breakfast can be served. Condition #9 allows social gatherings such as weddings, receptions, business meetings for guests of the Bed and Breakfast. The existing Conditional Use Permit does not allow this. Conditions 8 and 9 expand the meeting, meal service activity of the Use. There are standard conditions for other Bed and Breakfasts in Stillwater. The condition does limit meetings or meals to guests only which may be difficult to monitor. Condition #11 is regarding external lighting. This condition proposed conditions. It is recommended to keep the condition lighting and use does not adversely impact the neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval with conditions as previously approved. Attachment: Application. was not in the so that outside -2- 1,.-. F CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. 676 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BED AND BREAKFAST AT 306 WEST OLIVE STREET 1. This Conditional Use Permit Is issued to the current property owner, Richard J. Anderson, and shall not be transferred, assigned or conveyed to any other firm, person or successive owner. 2. That either a member of the Anderson Family, or a comparable person, shall be on site at all times for the purpose of managing the .facility. 3. The permitter shall comply with all Health, Fire and Safety rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota and City of Stillwater. 4. That a maximum of eight (8) bedrooms and sixteen (16) guests per day shall be accomodated at the facility at any one time. 5. No bedrooms other than those used by the owner or approved manager shall be used for permanent residence. 6. No alcholic beverages are to be sold or otherwise provided by the owners to the guest on the premises. 7. No pets of guests shall be allowed at the facility. 8. Breakfast shall be served only and only to guests of the facility. 9. No other commercial uses or functions, such as weddings, receptions or business meetings are permitted. 10. That all guest parking shall be provided on site with assigned parking for each guest room and owner/managers. 11. There shall be no additional external lighting of the site or residence. 12. The existing Rivertown Inn sign is approved with no additional signage or change in signage allowed without City approval. 13. This premises shall not be used as a rooming house, boarding house, hotel or motel. 14. Complaints regarding non-compliance with the Special Use Permit Conditions as determined well founded by the Planning Director, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Decision by the Planning Director regarding the validity of complaints are appealable to the City Council. 15. No alteration to the exterior of the Carriage House shall be made without City Council approval. YA V 100 Case Number ---- � : Fee Paid Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property: _ 306 West_Oliv__a_5.tjrjg___________________ Legal Description of Property: __ Lots Owner: Name __Andersons-------- _------------------------- Address------------------------------ Phone: 430_ 1778 ------- Allicant ________________________ ___-----______---- __ _—_.._. - Signature of o ' G g A i:cant. _--____-� _-- -- r, Date of Public Hearing: ------------------------------- _________ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn .on -kick o this�forss or at- tached, showing the following: fry �,� �4 1. North direction.;Go 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. ,h' 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs, `a ' RJ 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. 6, Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. C ther information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- (date) .subject to the following conditions: __________________.._________------__ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on _____ _ subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------------------- �`• ,`_______________i __.�_..___..____.._________ Comments: (Use other side) .. Rt 10 Garver Road Mansfield, Ohio 44903 April 6, 1987 Mr. Stephen S. Russell Community Development Director City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Russell, As a way of introduction, my wife Judy was born and raised in Plainview, Minnesota. She then attended Augsburg College and has a Bachelor of Arts in Education. I was born and raised in Buchanan, Michigan. I went on to attend South Dakota State University and have a Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Man- agement. We are now living in Mansfield, Ohio and are in the process of relocating in Minnesota. Enclosed is our request for the Conditional Use Permit to continue operation of a bed and breakfast at the Rivertown Inn located at 306 West Olive Street. We are requesting some minor changes to the conditions under which the Andersons are now operating the establishment. These changes, we feel, are neces- sary to -make:'.it-'a more . viable business , --but in no way :change .the character of the Inn. As of now our only plans for the Carriage House are to restore and preserve the structure. I am moving to Stillwater the week of April 6th and will be residing at the Rivertown Inn. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me there. Sincerely yo , li Charles R. ough t CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BED AND BREAKFAST AT 306 WEST OLIVE STREET 1. This Conditional Use Permit is issued to the current property owner, Charles R. and Judith A. Dougherty, and shall not be transferred, assigned or conveyed to any other firm, person or successive owner. 2. That either a member of the Dougherty Family, or a comparable person, shall be on site at all times for the purpose of managing the facility. 3. The permitter shall comply with all Health, Fire and Safety rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota and City of Stillwater. 4. That a maximum of nine (9) bedrooms and eighteen (18) per day shall be accomodated at the house at any one time. 5. No bedrooms other than those used by the owner or approved manager shall be used for permanent residence. 6. No alcholic beverages are to be sold by the owners to the guest on the premises. 7. No pets of guests shall be allowed at the facility. 8. Meals shall be served only to guests of the facility. 9. Other commercial uses or functions, such as weddings, receptions or business meetings are permitted for guests only. 10. That all guest parking shall be provided on site with assigned parking for each guest room and owner/managers. 11. The jexisting Rivertown Inn sign is approved with no additional signage orcha.nge in signage allowed without City approval. 12. This premises shall not be used as a rooming house, boarding house, hotel or motel. 13. Complaints regarding non-compliance with the Special Use Permit Conditions as determined well founded by the Planning Director, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Decision by the Planning Director regarding the validity of complaints are appealable to the City Council. 14. No alteration to the exterior of the Carrige House shall be made without City Council approval. Planning Application Case No. V/87-17 Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 1987 Project Location: 1570 Frontage Road West Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park Zoning District: IP-C Applicant's Name: Robert Scott Development Type of Application: Variance Project Description: Variance for sign program including pylon free standing, mall entry sign and tenant signs. Discussion• The proposal is for a sign program for the River Heights Commercial Development. The sign program includes a 60 sq. ft. free standing "RIVER HEIGHTS PLAZA" sign, a 9 ft. x 12 ft. area for signage over the mall entry way and thirty individual 16 ft x 2 ft. tenant signs located on the Frontage Road and Northwestern Avenue sides of the building. The sign area is within the sign area limit for the district. Analysis: The free standing pylon sign must be set back ten feet from the front property line to meet the setback requirements. The sign over the entry to the mall area can be 100 sq. ft. maximum. According to the Sign Ordinance, these two signs are permitted. The Ordinance did not contemplate multi -use centers with individual tenant signage. The sign criteria and building elevations specify locations and size of signage. The criteria # 8 & 10 are not consistent with the plans. Staff mentioned this to the applicant and have developed a tenant signage program. The length of the signage is from 30 to 16 feet dependent on location and building design. The height of all tenant signage area with the exception of the West end, is 24 inches. The West end business because of location have a 48 inch sign height maximum. Recommendation: Approval as conditioned. Conditions of Approval: 1. All signs shall meet the River Heights sign criteria of April 13, 1987 with the exception of #8 and 10. 2. The attached tenant signage list shall indicate the maximum size signage allowed on the center. 3. The pylon sign shall be set back 10 ft. from the front property line. 4. The mall center neon sign shall be a maximum of 100 sq. ft. 5. No signage other than signage for deliveries shall be on the exterior North or East elevations. Attachments• River Heights Sign Criteria - April 13, 1987 Building Elevations. TENANT SIGNAGE (MAXIMUM) (1) West End (2) 144 ft. Sign Area (2) South Elevation (2) 30x2 ft. Sign Area West of Entry (1) 20x2 ft. Sign Area (3) South Elevation (6) 20x2 ft. Sign Area East of Entry (1) 30x2 ft. Sign Area (4) East Strip (2) 20x2 ft. Sign Area Elevation (5) South Strip (8) 16x2 ft. Sign Area Elevation (1) 21x2 ft. Sign Area (6) West Strip (2) 20x2 ft. Sign Area Elevation (1) 21x2 ft. Sign Area (7) South End (2) 19x2 ft. Sign Area Elevation (1) 16x2 ft. Sign Area brr�c�8 knusmhkacM RIVER HEIGHTS SIGN CRITERIA REVISED APRIL 13, 1987 1. Exterior tenant signage at the River Heights Plaza shall consist of store identification only, and copy shall be restricted to the tenant's proper name and major project or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices shall be permitted provided they are confined within signage panels. 2. The signs shall be located in the designated sign band area furnished by landlord. 3. Tenants are allowed use of individual illuminated letters only with a minimum height of 10" to a maximum height of 24". No other sign types will be allowed. The neon is to be double -row for even illumination and must have 60 M.A. transformers. 4. Letters must be U.L. approved, fabricated of 3/16" plexiglass faces. Color choice by tenant. - 5. Tenants or sign manufacturer shall submit drawings for all its proposed sign work to the landlord for approval. Three (3) sets of drawings will be required. The drawing shall clearly show sign details and colors. The landlord shall return one (1) set of drawings, as soon as possible, to the tenant. 6. Signs, sign supports and sign lighting will be furnished and installed by Tenant and will be properly maintained by the Tenant. 7. The following is not permitted and is expressly prohibited: a. Signs with exposed neon, fluorescent tubing or exposed lamps. b. Signs with flashing, blinking, moving, flickering, animated or audible effects or type. C. Printed signs on storefronts or windows. d. Paper signs, stickers, banners or flags. e. Exposed raceways, ballast boxes or electrical transformers. 1128 Harmon Place / Suite 308 / Minneapolis / Minnesota / 55403 / (612) 332-8000 River heights Plaza Page 2 f. Exposed sign illumination or illuminated sign cabinets or modules. g. Painted signs on the exterior surface of any building. h. Signs located at or on the side or rear of any building except where the Premises contains a customer service entrance opening directly onto parking areas and except for small identifying signs to faciliat-e deliveries, in accordance with Landlord's standard sign format for rear and service corridor doors. No other signs will be permitted. i. Roof top signs. j. Sign boxes. k. Exterior illumination of signs from mall ceilings. 8. Exterior signs on the strip portion of the mall from Grid 10 to Grid 20 shall be limited to 2' x 40' maximum. Maximum area 80 square feet. See Exhibit 1. 9. Int-erior signs shall be limited to 2' x 50' maximum. Maximum area 100 square feet. See Exhibit 2. 10. Exterior signs on the enclosed mall, Phase ]. and Spaces 11,1,2,3 and G. They shall be limited to 2' x 30 ' maximum. Length to be determined by Owner or Owners representative. 11. Exterior signage may not• be available to all tenants in Phase l.or Spaces 11,1,2,3, or G. This will be determined by the Owner or the Owners representative. 12. Any variations to the above reference standards shall be approved by the owner and architect prior to any action by the tenant. l' I I N E(. N 1 v it I I 3 NEB fvt-&r.-- r,,u'P'QOV r q -f9I M CA P . I �; SIGN FACIA I � ,� ��5u1t1�[�+.� 1►NCHoR . 711 10� 10T ` N07' TV zz z m y� .. ° a A ■ ~ N N �aCDCr u � n Cl) - ZCD CLI p...+ c� o ° cn v — CL j..l . CL � N ow LAW -� • O (D 0 G ~ `-° 3 a N CDcD A O 0 N • �_ U:) to to O C A r- m m v D m C GJ O N .A• --' V — Cn —� N —• O 00 Q) cm r* CD n m .. cn W r m to � N• r+ n CD I� -00 s S C w ' I � C L a !ice -k l-13� 3h TI jl 3�U P z i to16 I I all 1 , 9 I Planning Review Case No. SUB/87-18 Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 1987 Project Location: 418 West Maple Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family/Duplex Zoning District: R-B Applicant's Name: Steven and Nancy Hesse Type of Application: Minor Subdivision Project Description: Split existing 15,000 sq. ft. lot into two lots of 7,500 sq. ft. each. Discussion: The application is to subdivide an existing 15,024 sq. ft. lot into two single family lots of 7,512 sq. ft. each. The 50x150 ft. lots meet the minimum. Single family lot requirements for the RB District. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The subdivision meets the density and lot size requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Application Certificate of Survey. PAC 100 Case Number Fee Paid Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE IVE FORM C�Cwu � Property:�.�.'c ,----------•-------------- Logal Description of Property: i_EzI e 1�_34_Srt, APL_ 5 A 0 D k-Tio1J T() 5Tl LJ_0f4T-(5�- Owner: Name �L:!IL=C� 1V� 4� C _ 1�1 _55 L------------------------- Address �% 9� ��1 _`_�r� fi1�_� t�.I Phone. Applicant (if other than owner): ► ame_____---------------------------- Address ------------------------------ Phone: --------------- Type of Request: ___ Rezoning Approval of Preliminary Plat ___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance _ Other - ________________ Description of Request: It h 1-1 �u�F_ N LO"[`� f N IlyJoul_P Ll� 9 11 OC puc? 1L�� i-.1.SD ram`-CLgs_LN!T� -------------------------- Signature of Applicant.�4_C Date of Public Hearing: --------------------------------------------- NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on zxn or at- tached, showing the following: ��•�`'3' 'ram f 1. North direction. r- 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. �� Z 5. Street names. w� G7 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. ,S`n �! 7. Other information as may be requested. ^ 7 4k' •�.. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ----------- (date) subject to the following conditions: ------------------__-_-_-_____--- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the following conditions• Comments: (Use other side), Planning Review Case No. SUP/V/87-19 Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 1987 Project Location: 305 South Water Street Comprehensive Plan District: Commercial Zoning District: CA Applicant's Name: Jim Williams Type of Application: Variance and Special Use Permit Project Description: Special Use Permit to locate a Caboose kitchen next to an extended new deck at the Freighthouse Restaurant and a variance to the property setback requirements for the Caboose. Discussion: The application is to permanently locate a Caboose on existing tracks next to the Freighthouse Restaurant. The new structure requires a Special Use Permit. A ten ft. setback is required, two feet are provided. The proposal will result in 2,000 sq. ft. of new decking. The applicant indicates in the letter of application that ten additional tables and 40 seats will be added to the seating capacity of the restaurant. For restaurants in the CA District, parking requirements are as determined by the Council. 40 additional seats could generate a parking demand for 16 (according to the City's parking requirements for Industrial Park District). 41 spaces are currently provided by the restaurant. The additional decking and Caboose will result in the volley ball area being moved further to the North. A rubbish area is indicated next to the stairs to the deck on the North side of the building. Any trash should be screened from public view. The Caboose adds interest to the deck area and will not block public view of the river. The use is compatible with the restaurant, a permitted use in the CA Zone District. The Caboose -is located in the Flood Fringe District. The flood elevation of the river at this elevation is 692.5 ft. The finished floor elevation of the Caboose is 693.7 ft. according to the application. 1 Conditions of Approval: 1. The finished floor elevation of the Caboose shall be above the 693.5 f t. level. 2. The rubbish area shall be located and screened from public view. 3. The applicant shall work with the City on providing for parking demand of the restaurant and the area generally. Recommendation: Approval. 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 Ordinance. Attachments: Project Plan. Application. M PAL; i0J �;L5e--r� Case 'n17Qi� J . Fee Paid -------- Data Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property; Legal Description of Property, ..-____________.._____________.._____--____ Owner: Name _ fC4A s �b�� I -_._________ ---------------- Address --- QS--- S2,, ,�I , .��_5-r Phone: --------------- Applicant Of other than owner): Name Address ------------- Phone: _ Type of of Request:- ___ Rezoning Approval of Preliminary Plat Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat 4 Variance ___ Other ------------------- Description of Request. ____ Signature of Applicant: _ Date of Public Hearing: ----------------- _� _....____________...___..__ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn -on back of thisjorm or at- tached, showing the following: 6 1. North direction. .� ` 191 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs.??',. J r� 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. `d' ca 5. Street names. �•i,• `u� cs 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested.;] Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on ate) subject to the following conditions: ____________________________________ DESCON ASSOCIATES, INC. ouncil on ________________ subject to the ------------------------------------ 634 MENpELSSQHN AVE. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - KIM R. JACOBSEN °^ PRINCIPAL 612.593.0304 April 1, 1987 Mr. Steve Russell Community Development Director City Hall, 216 N. Fourth Stillwater, Minn. 55082 Dr. Mr. Russell: I am requesting a Special Use Permit for the ,Caboose I now have on my property. Also, I will need a"variance in regards to its location on my property. As far as additional seating goes, I beleive that after studying my plans, I will be increasing my tables fr6m a total of 90 to 100 tables. Thus increasing seating capacity by about forty people. Serely, dim Williams, Gen. Manager Freighthouse Restaurant 305 So. Water St. Stillwater, Minn. 55082 JW:dmk Planning Application Review: Case No. SUP/87-20 Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 1987 Project Location: North of 1635 South Greeley Street. Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial Park Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Dennis and Connie Strohkirch Type of Application: Special Use Permit Project Description: Special Use Permit for a commercial building for laundromat and office use. Discussion: The application is for a commercial use in the R-A Single Family Residential District. The site to the South is zoned Industrial. A provision in the Zoning Ordinance allows lots in Residential Zones adjacent to business or industrial zones to use the use requirements of the next least restrictive residential zone. In this case, the RB Duplex use requirements apply. In the RB District "Local retail businesses, of the corner store variety, normally required for the daily needs of the residents of the locality, such as establishments for the sale of dairy products, delicatessen, fruits, vegetables, groceries, meats and other convenience items, provided that provision be made for loading space." are allowed with a Special Use Permit. A laundry/office use could come under the local retail business definition. The development requirements of the R-A District however apply to the site. The proposal is for a 5,508 sq. ft. building with partial basement. The basement will be used as a utility storage area accessory to the office/laundry use only. The parking requirements for the building is 28 spaces. Two parking areas are provided totaling 36 spaces. The parking lot to the South of the building is of some concern because of backing out into the private drive of the 40 unit apartment complex to the rear. Also, the parking lot would not provide as good a transition as a landscaped area from the industrial development to the residential area. The building location on the plot plan shows a 30 ft. front yard setback and 15 ft. rear yard setback. The required rear yard setback in the R-A District is 25 ft. The setback will have to be met or a variance requested. The site plan shows a 14 ft. setback for the parking lot. The 14 ft. will be landscaped. It is suggested that the 14 ft. be bermed and grass planted or a hedge be planted. that will grow to 24 to 36" tall to help conceal the parking lot. It is suggested that additional trees be added along the sloped area behind the parking lot to help buffer the use from the apartments to the rear. If the South side parking is removed, additional trees and grass or ground cover could be planted in that area. A 5 1/2 ft. high monument directory sign is proposed to name the building tenants. No other signage is proposed. Recommendation: Approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. The building shall have a 25 ft. rear yard setback. 2. The South parking lot shall be removed and planted with three trees and grass. 3. The landscape plan shall be modified to indicate shrubs or berm and grass in the 14 ft. area between the parking lot and front property line. Additional trees and ground cover shall be planted behind the parking lot. 4. The basement shall be used exclusively for storage and utilities accessory to the office or laundromat use. 5. The monument directory sign shall be the only building signage 6. Any exterior lightings shall be low profile and directed away from the residences to the East and North as approved by the Community Development Director. 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 this Ordinance. Attachments: Application and Project Plans. PAGAN Case Number Le 5tZ_ a Fee Paid ^�v Data 7--- PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM J4 _�___ Street Location of Property: _�`�-__________ e -�� Lagol Description of P-�rfo�perftyt____..___________________________________ Owner: Name ----�r!.�,�C --_--__------- � n Address !2_21 _ �fE� � _ -------------- P„one:. `.� Y_ & _� Applicant (if other than owner): Name Z,� Address/_��_.�ll_�_ �Sf •J ,rf�, Phone: Type of Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat �C Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance ___ Other ___________________ Descr ip;ion of Request: __.., __ ..--- -_- �''---'�•�=---�17G,1 __----_---__------_-___-__-__------ Signature of Applicant: 2�.'J Date of Public Hearing: -------- NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on df this) Arm or at- tached, showing the following:. cY°, 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. `,�� 3- .4 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. -• �.� 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission an ----------- (date) subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------- P, A proved Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the following conditions:_________________.�_____-M______----_-_____-_____ Comments: (Use other side), Reference is made to the Purchase Agreement dated February 20, 1987 between Dennis Strohkirch and John K. Ogren for the real estate on Greeley Street, Stillwater, Minnesota, described as follows: ADDENDUM #1 All that part of Lots One (1), Two (2) and Three (3), Block Six (6) of Ramsey and Carter's Addition to the City of Stillwater and all that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW4 of SW;) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Thirty (30), Range Twenty (20), lying within Block Two (2) of Ramsey and Carter's Addition to the City of Stillwater (vacated) except the North One hundred eighty (180) feet of said Block Two (2) vacated lying easterly of South Greley Street being the public highway nn the Westerly boundary thereof including any vacated streets accruing thereto by reason of any vacation. The conditions which are a part of this agreement !are as follows: Contingent upon annexation by June 1, 1987. Contingent upon buyer obtaining permission to erect building of choice. Buyer will remove existing building and debris at buyer's expense. Buyer to set corner posts according to legal and correct survey at buyer's expense. Seller t� ��r grer n Dated r, �I Buyer Dennisrstrohkirch rri n •� m n 31 r .. GervE Ar -- M DO D { p x, .. _ --- -- 13 C) I rn c O :0 I 0CD 1{- I (n r a7 p I ° o o 0) Z r rrl,.� .:o- tsr :+ � rr..�,.� �' •'-f.ie F"3i ID �i'9�Y." l'.NLT?d 'E .!�!'. i..4::;_'V ' =ors '.. i_$!.i • ^ '.� - 47 il'11cr- '� T �:;, t'':.:kA- sx Mv�r•-y. 2v ..R -- n.i' - - _ .� . O �.• .::K..,y: -'.r -`_' - ''.I mow. a:-w-;,�L•z.. .:L.:t;� - l`Q r. �•k tee. •-s„I. f; SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. 41fAim-, - �.A-4 t 17 4- P&A. tit. to -F -A -V03 ioocwip TVA r r, + gl -7- y--w p4m T- h.-..1..-�.j..- �^_- 1 _ I ...i -t_._�._-_ { _...� --_y_ 1 -_i-.. 1 ... 1,-T-; .�'__-_� ...y._..-...i-_. � _ • ...-... _.,•- •-- _...._ • .. w.- . . DATE - FILE NO. PREP. BY .00-10 15 SHEET OF SHEET-e i m raw I M I T 4 A� 4 t 4f 31VOS 31V0 As 03)403HO uisuoos!AA 'spud umeddit4o - uloseuuiV4 'Ind 'IS 31VG A13 031VInDIVO siaoulBU3 Bulilnsuoo .40 'ON 133HS -oul 'UOSM31JPUGH-1101113-IJ04S ---m -1101 OTHER BUSINESS: Zoning Amendment Discussion - 1. Garage setbacks in the RA/RB District - The Council has asked that the Commission look at the current setback requirements for garages attached to houses. The current requirement is five feet or ten feet as indicated below. Side Yard. When there is an attached garage on one side of a dwelling and there is not living space including covered decks, porches or the like a ov,, to the front or to the rear of said garage, a side yard o five (5) feet may be maintained (otherwise 10 ft. is required). Side and Rear Yard. An accessory structure located entirely in the side or rear yard at least six (6) feet from the main building shall have a minimum side and rear yard setback of five (5) feet. The Commission can discuss a five or ten foot requirement and the living space provision for recommendation to the City Council. 2. Lot size requirements for unsewered lots - Currently there is no difference in the lot size requirements for sewered or unsewered lots. An unsewered single family lot could be 7,500 sq. ft. or 10,000 sq. ft. in the RB or RA District. It is suggested that a larger lot size be considered. For example, 20,000 sq. ft. for unsewered lot to accommodate the sewage drainfield and in many cases a well location. When developed the building could be located so that when"sewer service is available, the lot could be split into two lots. Current City regulations in the Bluffland/Shoreland District require unsewered lots to be one acre. 3. Definition of Developable land for new development - Current regulations define lot area as land not included for easements for streets flowage easements or public waters. There is no mention of steeply sloped lands. It is suggested that the Commission consider excluding steeply sloped lands from the calculation of required lot area. water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 16, 1987 SUBJECT: HIGHWAY 36 BRIDGE LOCATION AND DOWNTOWN PLAN WORK PROGRAM REPORTS. Attached are two reports recently discussed by the City Council. They are given to the Commission for information and discussion. The Council has established a Downtown Plan Committee to work with Staff and Consultants over the next year in developing a Downtown Plan. The Planning Commission will have two representatives on the Committee. The Commission can appoint two members at this time. The Downtown Plan Committee could meet two to four times per month for approximately one year. Attachments CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 '96 HORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. 4W4,_ e-Gl 3-may-07 MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE RUSSELL . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF STILLWATER FROM: GLEN VAN WORMER DATE: MARCH 19, 1987 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP NEW RIVER BRIDGE CROSSING, ST. CROIX RIVER The City of Stillwater has been discussing a new river bridge for 20 years or more. Finally, last year Mn/DOT started- the major project development process which will ultimately culminate in construction of the new river bridge. The process involves a considerable amount of citizen input opportunities, a number of hearings and meetings, and formation of a task force to help guide the process. The process, according to a handout which is attached, takes 99 months until the time the road is open. However, an alternate alignment is chosen. after 27 months, which appears to virtually tie down the final alignment and crossing. We are nearing that point in the St. Croix Raver Bridge crossing. As best we can forecast, Mn/DOT expects to have a draft environmental, impact statement complete on July 1 of this year. The location public hearing will be held in mid -September and the alternative location decision should be made approximately January 1, 1988• We therefore feel it is very important that the City Council be fully aware of and informed about the various alternatives, the impacts and advantages. The City will have to have a voice in the final decision. For that reason, we are in total agreement that a workshop should be held with the City Council to assist in developing the level of knowledge of the alternatives which will be necessary in making the final decision and recommendation from the city. We would propose that the workshop be broken into faux sections. First we would provide a background on the process including the programs; public hearings, timetables and especially the specific decisions and approximate dates that those decisions will be made. 200 GOPHER BUILDING o 222 FAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 ■ PHONE (612) 48 -0272 City of Stillwater March 19, 1987 Page 2 The second section will be of most interest. This portion will provide brief descriptions of the three basic corridor alignments and some of the variations possible within each. We would like to try to provide some information relative to some of the advantages and disadvantages of each. However, we feel that this workshop meeting should be primarily to inform them of general information, advantages and disadvantages and let the council members determine what additional information they may need in their decision making process. The third section of the workshop would be to discuss some of the specific impacts on the City of Stillwater created by construction of the new bridge at any location or some of the specific impacts created by a specific location. Finally, the workshop should outline the decision making process and timetable by which the council has to structure its work. To help assist in preparation for the meeting, we have obtained some information and handouts from the Department of Transportation. A number of copies are attached so they may be sent to each council member and staff member. Council members probably have already acquired a considerable amount of knowledge based on newspaper articles, handouts which they have already obtained, comments from citizens and groups, as well as the years of experience and knowledge of the Stillwater area, which they possess. We have also obtained maps from the Department of Transportation relative to more details of two of the corridors. This may help answer a few questions of the council and will definitely alert them to some of the advantages and disadvantages of specific alternates. Our goal at this meeting should not be to decide where the bridge should go but instead to set up a system of evaluating alternatives, receiving public input and reaching a final position of the City of Stillwater relative to the bridge location. It is absolutely necessary that this decision be made adequately in advance of the alternative location decision to be made by the Wisconsin and Minnesota Department of Transportation. GWd : j ms Attachments jk- JA ia Ml C) 14 0 0 0 m z < m 0 z 0 M >0 33 m Z r- m > r 000 a > o C: Z 33 0 00 0 om � 0 0 >zm Z m 4 X > m m M Z Z ZOMO -j � 0 AA 0 m 0 Zzo m =1 z > > C) cl) m 0 0 0 rr 0 M ow m z > m m m m m :E m C) z > 0 T m 11 K 0 m . vi a m r0 T m 0 > , M > m cooL3 0 A 0 0 0 =1 0 > < m-0 m m mwz 0 m (n 0 U) L. 5 D m U) U) m (n (n z rj) m To: Mayor and City Council From: Community Development Director Date: March 5, 1987 Subject: Description of Downtown Plan Preparation Process for Council Workshop BACKGROUND: In this years planning work program, the City Council approved the preparation of a Downtown Area Plan. Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) was budgeted for the project and a request for an additional $25,000 Metropolitan Council Planning Assistance loan was authorized. The Metropolitan Council will act on the request March 26, 1987. DISCUSSION: At a previous meeting, the Council received a brief overview of the areas that will be considered in the Downtown Area Plan. The purpose of this workshop is to present a more detailed description of the plan preparation process including community involvement, plan contents, likely results, scheduling and staffing requirements. Also, the Council requested additional information on the Downtown Infra Structure and how it will be considered or coordinated with plan preparation. A memo from Duane Elliott is included that discusses the Downtown Infra Structure and recommends steps to identify their condition and need for improvement. The issues and study recommendations are included in the streets and utilities section of the plan. Once the Downtown Area Plan is approved by the City Council, it will become a part of the City Comprehensive Plan and provide a guide for public and private improvements in the Downtown Area. The plan preparation process and contents are presented below for your review to make sure concerns for the Downtown that you feel need to be addressed are addressed in the Plan. Comments or additions can be made at the workshop or later during plan preparation. PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS The Plan Preparation process as proposed in comprised of three stages and will take approximately eighteen months. The first stage is Issue identification and Data Collection. During this stage problems and issues facing -the Downtown will be identified through a review of previous plans and studies and by talking with downtown businesses and property owners. A report will be prepared at the end of the process listing identified issues or problems and describing existing conditions regarding land use, parking and circulation, City design and economic conditions. The report will be presented to the various Downtown groups and public for review and comment. The Second Stage, Alternative Development and Review, will result in a report that describes ways to address the problems identified in the first stage. For example, if parking on South Main is an issue identified in First Stage and the analysis of parking demand, indicates 200 parking spaces are needed, -1- during the Second Stage ways of providing for the problems (possible parking structure, shuttle, clearer signage or other ideas) will be presented. During the Second Stage Staff will meet with the Downtown Plan Committee and present alternatives for dealing with the various problems and deciding on which alternative is best and should be included in the Final Plan. Stage Three is Final Plan preparation and adoption. Based on the results of the Second Stage, a Final Plan will be prepared. The plan will contain sections on land use and zoning, traffic and parking, the economic future of Downtown, design and public and private improvements and utilities. The plan will be a City policy document regarding the future development and improvement of Downtown. PLAN CONTENTS: The Downtown Plan will contain sections on land use and zoniaE, parkin , traffic, ublic and private desi n, street and utilities. A list of issues and concerns that have been identified to date is attached. At the workshop we will go over each area. The Plan will include an implementation pro ram that will list the various activities necessary to improve the Downtown. Such issues as Zoning Ordinance and Zoning map revisions. capital improvement project, City land acquisition, design review process and parking improvements may be part of the implementation program. Some of the implementation items can be accomplished by changing City regulations, others are dependent upon money being available through Tax Increment Financing or other sources. STAFFING: The Community Development Director will coordinate plan preparation with Consultant assistance in the areas of traffic and parking, streets and utilities, Downtown economics and design. Short, Elliott and Hendrickson, the City's Consulting Engineers will provide assistance in the traffic and parking and public facility areas. Other consultants will be selected, based on their familiarity with the area and experience in the areas of Economics and Urban Design and North Main Development. A consultant team and project budget will be presented to the Council approval in April. DOWNTOWN PLAN COMMITTEE: As a first step in the Plan preparation process it is recommended that a Downtown Plan Committee be established to coordinate community input and work with Staff and Consultants on plan preparation. The Committee would meet regularly throughout the development of the plan to review and comment on plan preparation activities and hold informational meetings to inform the public on plan progress. The Committee should be comprised of people that have an interest in the future of Downtown Stillwater, It is suggested that representatives from the existing Downtown business organizations, City Commissions charged with planning for the future of the Downtown and Downtown property owners along with the City Council make up the Downtown Plan Committee. A suggested composition of the Committee is listed below: -2- Downtown Business Association (1) Stillwater Development Corporation () ( Chamber of Commerce (2) IN Planning Commission -Heritage Preservation Commission (1) Property Owner or Business Person not represented by Downtown Group {2) City Council (2) ftow. ems, 0. If the Council feels this list is representative of the Downtown interests, the various organizations can be notified and asked to appoint a representative(s) to the Committee. The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled for May and run through next Summer. A final work program will be presented to the Council in April along with recommendations regarding Consultant assistance and final budget. Two Council Members will be on the Downtown Plan Committee and the full Council will receive periodic updates on plan progress. -3- /O 9 6 I I - FIfiLDj r ` ♦ ' • s • f i r r : _ ASP xa 1 1 u r I:ems �s 4 J {• r � o � ti tlr�-., • s ♦ ] Ol io y �81271 i Q _ in5 Pk o LLt ' I W . t t Si • , � 1 m r14 yI 6 /J ' x. f6 . s n I■ Y I I I yl 7 t S z� 2 f I of 24 f I J ` 1 /a v w _ Ix T '� r 1 ti T ,+ x I■ 8, •. 1 �+ ,Z _ I /� it OL4 XL 2 S' I 7 1 �• r L PT ST Ja is - r1 d m tr z "�' ��; r!L. ;-rPF• • 1 ST ,I a IU ; 0 9 s !• ! IIST it it • • ♦ 3 ]':_"r�... a 1 a 21 2 , I'" • to O .� - . ,: '9 i �• r J CIA r la 41 ,z , 2 S 1 � •� PINE la r r ' Q ■ " no �� 'j'�"�'"�� ;--ram • r r krl 1 7 V r r�� r-r 1 I I I I / I, r I R LAND/USE/ZONING ISSUES: - Permitted land uses in Downtown (IA,IB & CA) Zoning Districts. - Appropriations of existing zoning designations. - Height limits for new construction. - Setback and height limits for development along the St. Croix River. - Parking requirements for new development. . CTI InY - Land Use Study. - Parking Survey. - Economic Market Study. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: - Amend Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted uses, parking, building height. - Amend Zoning map designations. 1 DESIGN (PUBLIC) ISSUES: - Downtown Design Theme. - Streetscape (lighting, landscaping, surface treatment, signage). - Pedestrian way. - Parking lot appearance. - Railroad tracks appearance and separation of river from Downtown. - Overhead utilities. - Continuation of River Promenade and Lowell Park. - Addition park/open space areas along river. STUDY: Inventory public design features and identify needed or opportunity for - improvements. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: - Establish a streetscape design theme for Main Street and adjacent side streets. - Prepare a design plan that integrates river front with Downtown and surrounding environs. - Prepare a pedestrian circulation plan that connects key Downtown activity areas win in the Downtown and connects the Downtown with surrounding natural and historic areas. 3 SPECIAL AREA North Main Street Area - Prepare a conceptual plan including land use, traffic parking, open space/recreation, pedestrian circulation that is integrated with and complimentary to the Downtown Area. The plan will be used as the basis for future redevelopment of the area. DESIGN (PRIVATE) ISSUES: - Design of new buildings. - Design of additions to existing buildings. - Screening of offensive views, garbage areas/utilities. - Lighting. - Landscaping. STUDY: - Inventory of positive and negative design features. - Inventory of Historic Structures. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: - Develop design guidelines to use in reviewing new development. - Establish Historic Preservation District. - Establish a Special Design Review Processto review new development with design guidelines. 2 PARKING ISSN - Number of spaces for land use activity. boat trailer Employee parking. ark and ride commuters, - Special parking situations, RV's, p parking. - Tour bus drop off and parking. - Parking signage. - Parking meter rates. - Parking space management. - Day vs night demand. - Parking space distribution. STUDY: Parking survey - number of space available. Land -.-use survey - use of spaces, establish demand. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: provide for - Identify sites for additional parking lots or structure to p demand. ram for public parking spaces including Develop parking management program time limit rates and enforcement. Identify measures to provide for parking demand during peek demand times. - es of income to provide for parking improvements Identify possible sourc. 4 TRAFFIC ISSUES: - New bridge location - effect on Downtown traffic. - Old bridge disposition - effect on Downtown traffic. - Intersection problems - Myrtle/Main, Nelson/Main. - Cut through traffic during peek demand. - Route signage. - Pedestrian access from parking areas. - Truck traffic. STUDY: - Traffic counts. - Turning movement study. - Accident reports POSSIBLE_SOLUTIONS: - Street closing or one way streets. - Reconfigure traffic lanes/parking. - Traffic control measures - signage/signals. - Pedestrian access plans. 5 STREET AND UTILITIES ISSUES: - Sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration. - Age and condition water mains and related services. - Age of sanitary sewers and related services. - Lack of storm sewers on North -South Streets. - Condition of streets and sidewalks. - Street lighting. - Age of private utilities - gas, power, telephone, Cable TV. STUDY: - Inventory condition of streets, sidewalks and street lighting. - Inventory sewer service problems (Public Works televise sanitary sewer pipes). - Test water for leakage. - Inventory water mains and services. - Inventory condition of fire hydrants. - Define the need for storm sewers. - Discuss condition of private utilities and plans for renovation of services with providers. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: - Phased capital improvement program for streets, sidewalks, street lighting, sanitary sewer, water mains, storm sewers, fire hydrants and private utilities. 6 MEMORANDUM SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. TO: STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL FROM: DUANE ELLIOTT DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1987 PROJECT: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUNICIPALITY: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA SUBJECT: INFRASTRUCTURE (PUBLIC & PRIVATE) As applied to the Downtown Development Plan, infrastructure has reference to those public and private utilities, drainage facilities, streets and lighting which provide services to the area. Many of these facilities are out of sight and therefore out of mind but must be given consideration when giving consideration to a Downtown Development Plan (DDP). Of primary importance to the DDP are the marketing and economic issues. Surface or visible infrastructure items such as streets, sidewalks and lighting are important insofar as they may adversely affect the aesthetic conditions in the downtown area and therefore may result in marketing or economic issues. Underground infrastructure such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain are important when consideration may be given to investments in surface facilities such as new streets. It is then that it is of paramount importance that detailed inventories be done of underground facilities in order to identify deficiencies. Correction measures can then be undertaken before investments are made in surface facilities. The following are individual brief statements with respect to the city owned and privately owned facilities in the downtown area. 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 FAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484-0272 Streets, Sidewalks and Lighting The streets and sidewalks vary substantially through the downtown area. Using three terms of adequate, marginal and problem, one would have to classify most of the streets in the downtown area as adequate and problem. Adequate streets will need major maintenance and problem streets require reconstruction in the foreseeable future. Lighting varies substantially without any definite "theme". Trunk Highway 95 has old style trunk highway lighting. Other lighting throughout the downtown area is basically supported on Northern States Power poles. Sanitary Sewers In 1974, the city of Stillwater separated its combined sewer system. The sanitary sewers in the downtown area are vitrified clay pipe. These sewers were the subject of an SEH prepared inflow/infiltration (I/I) study in 1975. This study revealed that the downtown area and an adjacent area to the west have major I/I problems requiring attention, if for no other reason, to reduce the major cost of treating the clear water flows generated by I/I. The sanitary sewer pipes are approximately 100 years old. Only by closed circuit TV inspection will it be possible to identify the locations of infiltration and potential structural failures of the pipes such that remedial measures can be recommended. Watermain Similar to the sanitary sewers, the watermains in the downtown area are approximately 100 years old. The watermains are sand cast -cast iron pipe. The pipe joints are constructed of jute and lead. Hydrant flow tests by the Insurance Services office in recent years indicate that water flows are adequate for fire protection in the downtown area, but a number of hydrants are inadequate. Also, because of age those that do exist should be replaced. The degree to which the watermain joints leak is unknown. It is recommended that the city undertake leakage tests with the use of electronic leak detectors to establish the degree of leakage before any surface improvements are undertaken. Sanitary Sewer & Water Services The sanitary sewer and water services to individual structures are likewise very old. It is not possible to televise sanitary sewer services. A performance inventory would have to be made to determine which services may have been problem services over the years and therefore require replacement. Water services in the downtown area are galvanized pipe which have an average life of 40 years. Undoubtedly, the services in the downtown area are much older and would require =eplacement throughout the downtown area should surface improvements be considered. Fire Services Whenever a downtown plan is undertaken it is important to consider fire services to each building. When major building renovations are undertaken the installation of a sprinkler system in the building is virtually mandated by fire codes. Also, the "payback" for a sprinkler system and the fire service connection is usually very short term through insurance savings. Storm Sewers In 1971 storm sewers were constructed throughout the drainage district of which the downtown is a part. These major outlets to the St. Croix are on the east -west streets. Currently, there are no or limited storm sewers on the north -south streets. In order to facilitate the inflow problem referred to earlier under sanitary sewers, it will be necessary to construct storm sewers on most north -south streets. Construction of such storm sewers will permit connection of existing roof drains (which now drain into the sanitary sewer) into the storm sewer facility, thereby relieving a portion of the I/I problem. Private Utilities In the downtown area, private utilities of gas, overhead power and telephone exist. Also, cable TV currently exists or may be contemplated in the area. Past experience with respect to private utilities is that these facilities are in as much need as renovation as are the city utilities. In every case, given the opportunity, a private utility will renovate as a part of any redevelopment project because basically the opportunity is presented to save money since no street restoration is necessary. Consideration of renovation of private utilities is of equal importance to that of the public utilities since future excavations in the street, should it be improved, should be avoided by proper planning wherever possible. Overhead power presents a special problem because the power company expects the city to pay the cost of placing the lines underground. RECOMMENDATIONS Immediate steps that should be taken to begin establishing the degree of need in the downtown area are as follows: 1. Televise all sanitary sewers within the district identified as District No. 14 in the I/I report dated May 1, 1982. (Advance cleaning of sewers by city required.) 2. Begin defining the need for storm sewers to alleviate the inflow of problems in the downtown area. 3. The water department should inventory watermains and water services in the downtown area to establish need for replacement. 4. The public works department should inventory sewer service problem locations in the downtown area. 5. Dialog should be started with the private utilities to establish their plans of renovation and in the case of Northern States Power reveal their policies with respect to replacing overhead power lines underground and modification of building services. DWE/ j c j Preplanning (1) Issue ID & Data Coll. (2) A1.t.Devel. Review (3) Prepare Draft Plan (4) Review Draft Plan (51 Prepare Final Plan & Implement Progress (6) Plan Adoption (7) Plan Implement (8) DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN SCHEDULE r*_ 00 00 co ro a) ro 0-ra > > > (D U o to a) ra n. ro a) U o a) n 11 i cr S ,"1 f^ r1 r 7 1, r 2 ( a), 3 ( L.) - - C - - - - - (d) — — PLANN (a Lb-1 I Cd I 8 ING PRODUCTS: Issue ID and Existing Conditions Report. iemos/re.ports address-ing issues. )raft Plan. :final Plan. 1. Preplanning prepare Work Program, select Consultants, secure funds, select Downtown Plan Committee. 2. Issue Identification and Data Collection - Develop list of problems/issues for consideration, collect data necessary to define problems. 3. Develop Alternatives - From previous stage develop alternative solutions to identified problems. 4. Prepare Draft Plan = Prepare Draft Plan base on results from #3 above. +!•5. Draft Plan Review - Present Draft Plan to community groups and hold public hearing - make revisions as necessary. 6. Prepare -Final -Plan - Revise Plan for Final Public Hearing and adoption. 7. Plan Adoption - Hold Public Hearing on Final Plan.