HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-12 CPC Packetr
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
October 7, 1987
THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1987 AT
7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET.
AGENDA
Approval of Minutes - September 14, 1987.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Case No. V/87-42 - Variance request for construction of an in ground
swimming pool with a five foot side yard setback at 2675 Interlachen Court
in the Single Family Residential R-A District. Richard Minday, Applicant.
(Continued Hearing from September 7th meeting)
2. Case No. SUP/87-47 - Special Use Permit for a 14 child Group Family Day
Care Home at 1316 South Fifth Street in the Residential Duplex R-B
District. Geraldine Revoir, Applicant.
3. Case No. SUP/87-48 - Special Use Permit for new sign program for Davian
Building at 110 South Greeley Street in the Residential Duplex R-B
District. Judd E. Orff, Applicant.
4. Case No. V/87-49 - Variance and Special Use Permit to convert a single
family residence located at 116 South Sixth Street to a duplex. The lot is
72 feet wide (75 feet required) containing 15,932 square feet in the
Multi -Family Residential RCM and Duplex Residential RB District. Wayne
Stephenson, Applicant.
5. Consideration of Amendment to Tax Increment District #1 for consistency
with Comprehensive Plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Date: September 14, 1987
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman
Judy Curtis Dean Miller
Mark Ehlenz Nancy Putz
Jean Jacobson Don Valsvik
Steve Russell, Comm. Dev. Director
Members Absent: Rob Hamlin Jay Kimble
Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of August 10, 1987 are amended as follows: Case No.
SUP/87-35 was approved with a vote of 5-1, with Don Valsvik
indicating opposition.
Motion by Nancy Putz, seconded by Dean Miller to approve the
minutes of August 10, 1987 as amended.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 5UP/87--41 - Special Use Permit for construction of
laundry addition to Greeley Healthcare Center.
James Forberg, Architect for Beverly Enterprises, presented the
request and the Commission viewed the plans for an approximately
500 sq. ft. addition to the existing facility. A neighbor, John
Jewell, 415 S. William, asked to view the plans but had no
objection to the project.
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve the
request with the condition that new curb, gutter and sidewalk
shall be constructed where the old driveway was located. Approved
6-0.
QasQ No. - - Variance to construct an in ground 18x36'
swimming pool in side and front yard at 2675 Interlachen Court.
Richard M. Minday, owner of the property, presented the request.
Due to the steep elevation and heavy vegetation of the rear yard,
he is requesting a variance to construct the pool in the front -
side yard. Marilyn Karr, property owner south of the Minday's
expressed concern about the view from the entrance to the Court,
and that the redwood vertical fence would obstruct the view from
her home. A representative of Pacific Pools was present to
support Mr. Minday's request and answered questions from the
Commission.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1987
The Commission expressed concern with the pool and fence being
too- close to the property line and suggested that the pool be
turned so it is at an angle to the property, or that it be moved
to the side yard, which would sacrifice a part of the deck which
is presently located there.
Motion by Dean Miller, seconded by Nancy Putz to deny the
request as presented. 6-0 in favor of denying the request. Mr.
Minday requested the item be continued to the Commission 10-12-87
meeting. The Commission agreed to the request.
Case No. 5UP/87-43 - Special Use Permit for three room Bed and
Breakfast.
Barbara Schotl and Bernard Rappa, owners, presented the request.
A previous Special Use Permit was approved for the structure for
two rooms. Currently, only one room is being used; the second and
third rooms are under renovation, to be ready for use next
spring. The owners are aware of the 11 conditions of approval
as presented in the staff report and have no objections.
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve the
request with conditions. Approved-6-0.
Case No. V/87-44 - Variance for sign program for Oasis building.
Clark Nyberg presented the planned sign program which requires a
variance because of the number of signs and sign setback from
South Greeley Street. Four conditions of approval are to be met:
(1) A maximum of one sign other than free standing sign shall be
allowed for each tenant. (2) The existing signs on the building
shall be removed consistent with the sign program. (3) The free
standing sign shall be a maximum of 25 ft. with a 9 ft clearance.
(4) Any exception to this sign program shall require a variance
permit.
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Mark Ehlenz to grant the
request for a sign variance with conditions. Approved 6-0.
Case_ No. SUP/87/45 - Special Use Permit to construct an
aquatic/therapy facility.
Craig Rafferty, Rafferty, Rafferty & Mitkutowski & Associates,
presented the proposal for Courage St. Croix, an aquatic/therapy
facility to be operated by Courage Center. The conditions of
approval are: (1) A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer. (2) The lighted free standing sign shall be
set back 25 ft. from the front property line. (3) The trash area
shall be enclosed in the building or screened using a structure
of compatible design. (4) The three lots shall be combined into
one before the building is finalized for occupancy. Mr. Rafferty
stated that the drainage plan has been submitted to Mr. Russell,
2
Stillwater Planning Commission
September 14, 1987
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Dean Miller to approve the
request for a Special Use Permit. Approved 6-0.
OTHER ITEMS
City Coordinator Nile Kriesel met with the Commission to review
and discuss the Surface Water Management Plan developed by the
Brown's Creek Watershed Management Organization. The plan states
that any future development within 1000 feet of any wetland must
be reviewed by the Soil and Water Conservation District before
approval.
The Planning Commission agreed to continue to meet on the second
Monday of each month.
The Commission discussed a possible amendment to the sign
ordinance. Steve Russell will draft an amendment and present it
at the next meeting.
Mike Weis, downtown business owner, presented proposed plans for
a gift shop to be located on the west side of Highway 5. That
area is currently zoned CA, Banking or Professional Office. The
Commission suggested that he write a letter to the City Council
explaining his plans and the conditions o.f development.
Motion by Dean Miller, seconded -by Jean Jacobson to adjourn the
meeting at 8:45 p.m. All in favor.
Submitted by
Shelly Schaubach
Recording Secretary
3
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DA: OCTOBER 6, 1987
RE: INTERSTATE BRIDGE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
The HPC Commission has met twice since their new formation are very anxious
and excited to begin studing Historic Stillwater. As the first order of
business, the Commission would like to submit the Stillwater-Houlton
Interstate Bridge to the National Register of Historic Places. MnDot has done
inventory work from an engineering standpoint on the bridge and completed a
National Register Nomination Form (attached). From this, the State of
Minnesota has considered it eligible for nomination in their study of bridge
alternatives. The Commission feels that more research needs to be done on its
historical significance and bridge designated on the National Register to
ensure maximum protection.
Recommendation
Review and comment on National Register Nomination Form and recommend Council
approval of submittal of the nomination.
NPS Forth 10-900
ae21
oMe Na 1024-Oo16
E:p.10-J1-84
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service--
lational Register of Historic Places
Inventory —Domination Form
See instructions In How to Complete National Register Forms
Type all entries —complete applicable sections
1. dame
historic Stillwater-Houlton Interstate Bridge
and or common Stillwater Bridge, Houlton Bridge
2. Location
For NPS use only
=7._ -.
date entered
street iS number State Trunk Highway over St. Croix River not for publication
city, town Stillwater _vicinity of (see continuation sheet)
state Minnesota code
county
Washington
code
3. Classification
Category Ownership
Status
Present Use
district X public
— occupied
_ agriculture
_ museum
_ building(s) — private
— unoccupied
_ commercial
— park
x structure _ both
— work in progress
— educational
_ private residence
_ site Public Acquisition '
Accessible
— entertainment
— religious
__object — in process
yes: restricted
— government
scientific
being considered
_X yes: unrestricted
— industrial
X transportation
no
— military
— other:
4. owner of Property
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation
name State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Transportation Building, John Ireland Boulevard
street b number
St. Paul, Minnesota
city, town — vicinity of state
5. Location of Legal Description
courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Washington County Courthouse/St. Croix County Courthouse
street & number 216 North Fourth Street/911 Fourth Street
eity,'town Stillwater/Hudson state Minnesota/Wisconsin
6. Representation in Existing Surveys
Historical Reconstruction of the Riverfront: X
title Stillwater, Minnesota has this property been determined eligible? _ yes — nc
July, 1985
date
Xfederal — state _ county — local
deposltoryfor survey records Stillwater Public Library*
Minnesota
Stillwater state
city, town -- --
r avai a e rom t e rmy Corps o ngineers, au 7s rtc
-1-
7. Description
Condition Check one Check one
excellent — deteriorated —X unaltered _ X original site
X _ good — ruins _ altered _ moved date
fair _ unexposed
Describe tho present and original (if known) physical appearance
The Stillwater-Houlton Interstate Bridge crosses the St. Croix river at milepoint 23.4, north of the con-
fluence with the Mississippi River. The bridge connects Stillwater, Minnesota on the west with Houlton,
Wisconsin,on the east. It is a vertical lift drawbridge having main spans of Parker through -truss design.
A tower -and -cable lift span provides vertical clearance for river traffic at the designated navigation
channel.
Ash -Howard -Needles and Tammen, Consulting Engineers, designed the bridge, and it was fabricated by the
American Bridge Company, The bridge was constructed during 1930 and 1931 by Peppard and Fulton, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, at a cost of $440,000. The bridge was opened to traffic on July 1, 1931.
The superstructure consists of seven steel, riveted Parker through -truss spans, and three shorter concrete
slab spans. West to east, they are: 1-2) approach concrete slab spans, 47 feet total, 3) fixed span,
141.46 feet, 4) lift span, 143.58 feet, 5) fixed span, 141.29 feet, 6-8) three fixed spans, each 142.16
feet, 9) fixed span, 140 feet, and 10) approach concrete slab span, 13.17 feet, for a total bridge length
of 1052.98 feet. The lift towers rise 81 feet from the top of the piers. (See Exhibit 1.)
The river at the bridge site is approximately 1800 feet wide. To reduce materials and fabrication costs
and to minimize the grade across the bridge structure, a causeway was built out from the Wisconsin shore.
This earthen dike is approximately 760 feet long; thus the bridge structure itself spans somewhat over
half the width of the river.
The concrete roadway is 23 feet wide, with a 12.7 foot maximum vertical clearance. (See Exhibit 2 for
cross -sectional view of the superstructure.) The bridge features a 0.25% grade rise, from west to east,
which results in an' approximate 2.5 foot increase. of freeboard distance at the east shore. The bridge
was redecked in 1973. The east concrete slab approach span was rebuilt in 1979.
The lift was gasoline engine powered until it was replaced in early 1980 with an Eaton Corporation 25 horse-
power electric motor. Vertical navigation clearance with the lift span in the raised position is 57 feet
at normal pool elevation. Horizontal navigation clearance is 135 feet. The lift span rises 48 feet, and
has an additional three feet of lift available for emergencies. The counterweights consist of 470,000
pounds of reinforced concrete. An operator's house is located on the northerly side of the lift span,
outside the roadway truss. An electric light and sound warning and traffic control system was installed
in 1954. The control system consists of two automatic roadway and sidewalk gates located at pier two and
pier five. Platforms were also added to the bridge superstructure in 1954 to support these electro mechani-
cal modifications. The Minnesota Department of Transportation provides personnel to operate the lift span
from May 15 to October 15.
A 7.5 foot truss supported sidewalk with ornamental railings is located on the southerly side of the bridge,
outside the roadway truss. Ornamental street lights have. been removed from their newel posts along the
sidewalk, and the resulting holes have been covered with steel plate welded in place. The ornamental rail-
ings and light posts used three different metals in their construction: cast iron, wrought iron, and mild
steel.
The substructure consists of concrete cast -in -place abutments and solid concrete piers placed on untreated
timber piling. The river piers have rounded upstream and downstream edges that are battered at a rate
of one-half inch per foot. The upstream edge has no additional ice -breaking provisions.
-iginal construction plans are on file at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, District Nine office.
- 2 -
' S. Significance
Period
Areas of Significance ---Check and justify below
prehistoric
archeofogy-prehistoric
_ community planning
___ landscape architecture._
religion
_ 1400-1499
_ archeology -historic
conservation
law
_ 1500-1599
_ agriculture
_w economics
literature
_ science
_ sculpture
1600-1699
__ architecture
education
military
social'
— 1700-1799
_ art
X_ engineering
w music
_ _
humanitarian
— 1800-1899
_ commerce
exploration settlement
__ philosophy
theater
X 1900—
_ communications
industry
politics govemment
transportation
— _ --
invention
other (specity)
Specific dates
^ Builder Architect
Statement of Significance (in one paragraph)
The Stillwater-Houlton Interstate Bridge is, but for some necessary functional modifications and repairs
over the years, an unaltered structure. Its original integrity of design is preserved. Integrity of loca-
tion is not broken, as the bridge remains on its original site. The bridge is associated with events which
have made a substantial contribution to the broad patterns of regional history, and embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a given style of construction.
The Stillwater-Houlton bridge is located at a traditional and major crossing site of the St. Croix River,
dating to the mid -nineteenth century. The earliest crossings were by means of,a toll ferry, located approxi-
mately 900 feet upstream of the present bridge (see Exhibit 3). In 1876 the City of Stillwater, with the
consent of the Minnesota Legislature, but without due consent of the U.S. Congress, opened a wooden pontoon
toll drawbridge located immediately south of the present bridge (see Exhibit 3). This structure featured
wooden pontoon center sections and fixed end sections adjustable as to height. The draw was a 300 foot
long box section, one end of which could be let loose so that the draw could be floated out of the way
by the current. This bridge provided access for west central Wisconsin farmers to markets in Stillwater
and beyond in the St. Paul and Minneapolis area. The river crossing promoted farming activities and farm
iwth in west central Wisconsin, while farmers became dependent upon it for market access west of the
..ver. In addition, the bridge served interstate pedestrian, horse drawn and later, motorized vehicular
traffic. The pontoon draw accommodated the passage of logs, during Stillwater's booming lumber days, and
of packet sternwheelers carrying goods and passengers upriver.
In 1925 jurisdiction of this bridge passed to the State of Minnesota. Maintained by the Minnesota Highway
Department, it became a free bridge. By that time the river crossing had come to be considered part of
a major interstate corridor of national importance. A number of navigational accidents, ice pressure and
a major fire had taken their toll on the old bridge. It was considered unsafe and pressure by Wisconsin
farmers and others was brought to bear for a new bridge. On February 13, 1929 an Act of Congress was secured
authorizing the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin to construct a new free highway bridge at this location.
A low level, movable bridge design, suited to the low lying topography at Stillwater, was selected.
The Stillwater-Houlton bridge stands as a distinctive example of the vertical lift truss drawbridges built
in the earlier part of the, twentieth century. Within the two states, it is one of three extant tower -and -
cable highway lift bridges which feature truss spans. The other two are located at Prescott, Wisconsin
and at the Duluth Harbor, Lake Superior. The Prescott to Point Douglas, Minnesota bridge over the St.
Croix River is of Parker through -truss design, as is the Stillwater-Houlton bridge. It is scheduled to
be replaced in 1991. The Duluth aerial lift bridge connects a strip of land called Minnesota Point to
the City of Duluth proper. This bridge was originally built ca. 1905 as a truss span which supported a
hanging ferry car. It was rei)uilt in the late 1930s as a tower -and -cable through truss lift bridge. The
City of. Kaukauna, Wisconsin boasts a modern, single span vertical lift highway bridge, opened in 1984.
Known as the Island Street Bridge, it spans the U.S. Canal, which parallels the Fox River. All operating
machinery is enclosed within the tower legs and a long strut spanning between the tops of the towers. It
replaced an older vertical lift deck girder structure with a long truss -style strut again spanning between
the tops of the towers.
In consideration of the history of the Duluth aerial lift bridge, the future replacement of the Prescott
bridge and the design style of the new bridge at Kaukauna, the Stillwater-Houlton bridge will become the
only remaining original tower -and -cable, through -truss highway drawbridge in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
- 3 -
9. -Major Bibliographical references
(see continuation sheet)
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of nominated property Less than one
Stillwater, Minnesota -Wisconsin Quadrangle scale 1:24000
quadrangle name 9
UT M References
A 1 11 51 1 51 1 5 41 5 0 4 191 819 0 1010 B 1 5 1511 1 517 14 1 0 4 1.9 1 8.1..9.] 112 10
Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing
IJI I l I I I I I I a tl 1 I J., l I I
F ! V l I 1 L-J ���I I € F W f J I � t 1
c �LI i H LJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I t l
Verbal boundary description and justification
(see continuation sheet)
List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries
state Minnesota code county Washington code
state Wisconsin code county St. Croix code
a f. Form Prepared By
nameitltle Michael R. Louis/Robert Hopkins _
Minnesota Department of Transportation
organization District Nine Office date March, 1986
street It number 3485 Hadley Avenue North telephone 779-1100
city or town Oakdale state Minnesota
12. State Historic Preservation officer Certification
The evaluated significance of this property within the state Is:
national -- state — local
As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-
665), 1 hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated
according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service.
State Historic Preservation Officer signature
tttte date
For N PS use on iy
1 hereby certify that this property Is Included In the National Register
date
KeeW of the National Register
Attest: date
Chief of Registration
D.S. GOVE3WKMT PRINTING OFFICE : 1983 0 - 419-311
-4-
MT8 Farm 1p40D-4
04z1
OMe NO. 1024-=a
Esp.10-31-64
United States Department of the Interior
Natkonal Parr Service
National Register of Historic
Inventory —Nomination Form
Places
Continuation sheet
Location Item number 2 page 1
Minnesota Trunk Highway 36 and Wisconsin State Trunk Highway 64 over the St. Croix River, between Stillwater,
Minnesota and Houlton, Wisconsin. Section 28, T30N, R20W in Minnesota and Section 27, T30N, R20W in
Wisconsin.
a�a
U6ite4" States Department of the Interior
National Paris Service
National Register of Historic Places
Irventory—Nomination Form �>✓:K:..�Y.: -
Continuation street Major Bibliographical References Item number 9 Page 4
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Record Center. Files for Bridge No. 4654.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, District Nine Office. Copy of original bridge plans.
Stillwater Public Library, Minnesota Room. File of newspaper clippings and data for the St. Croix Valley
area.
Minnesota Historical Society, Library Reference Room. Vertical File of Newspaper Clippings: Bridges
(uncatalogued).
U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Coast Guard. Bridges over Navigable Waters of the Unite States_,
Gulf Coast and Mississippi River System. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1984.
Hardesty, Egbert R. et al., "Fifty -Year History of Movable Bridge Construction - Part I." American Society
of Civil Engineers, Construction Division, Journal of the Construction D;vision, Vol. 101, No. 3, Sept. 1975.
Continuation sheet Geographical Data: Verbal Boundary Description Item number 10 Page 4
..e proDrrty is bounded on the north (upstream) by a line parallel to, and 13.4 feet from, the bridge center
line, and on the south (downstream) by a line parallel to, and 20.6 feet from, the bridge center line.
It is bounded on the west by the face of the west abutment, and on the east by the face of the east abutment,
so as to encompass all ten spans, which total 1053 feet, and the supporting piers.
MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION
A LLEY LETTER
THIRD EDITION
Dear St. Croix Resident:
This is the third newsletter in a
series that is devoted to keeping
you informed about the Stillwater-
Houlton River Crossing Studies.
The last issue (July) concentrated
on what you have told us through
written comments that have been
received since the informational
meetings held in January and
February of this year.
This issue will be devoted to what
we are learning from the
environmental impact studies that
have been completed to -date.. If
you remember, the purpose of the
previous environmental process
document (Final 5ludv OutlinQZ
Scopina Dec i_s_t ) "was: 1. to
identify alternatives that will be
analyzed during the Draft
Environmental impaot Statement
(DEIS), and 2. Identify -potential
environmental impacts, relevant
issues and local concerns of
special interest that will be used
as comparison criteria in
determining which alternative
represents the best overall
solution.
From number 2. above, the
potential impacts, issues and
special concerns were organized
into eight "special studies."
This edition will focus on Enerav
Use-Im-pacts, Threatened and
Endangered Species Impacts, andNatural RaaQurce Impacts.
-
The process of completing these
studies starts with the
preparation of a draft report
which is put together by Mn/DOT
SEPTEMBER, 1987
and Wis/DOT environmental
specialists. Then, the reports
are reviewed by the. Stillwater-
Houlton River Crossing Task Force,
and by agencies and organizations
that have review and/or approval
responsibilities. I will be
summarizing the results of the
studies after the Task Force
review is completed.
Before we move on to the special
studies summary, I would like to
re-aquaint you with our Task
Force. Each of the eleven
communities that could be affected
by a new highway facility
appointed a representative and at
least one alternate to work with
the transportation agencies in the
development of transportation and
environmental studies. From, this
group, we have twelve members who
are working on the document review
team.. The emphasis is on
"working", and no, we don't refer
to them as the "dirty dozen." -
The "delightful dozen" are: Sally
Evert, Chair (Washington County),
Les Schwallen and Richard O'Brien
(Bayport), Joe Carufel (Oak Park
Heights), John Jewell
(Stillwater), -Doug Schwartz (Grant
Township), Dave Murphy (Stillwater
Township), Milt Meinke and Bob
Draxler (St. Croix County), Howard
LaVenture (Houlton), Ben George
(St. Joseph Township), and Lon
Navis (Somerset Township).
The time they have spent working
with us over the past three years
has been considerable. Their
efforts and contributions are
greatly appreciated.
2
Energy Use Impacts
Energy (fuel use) analyses were
conducted for each alternative
bridge and tunnel location being
evaluated in the DEIS. The
analyses estimated the potential
changes in fuel consumption by
vehicles which would use, or be
affected by a new bridge or
tunnel. Increases or decreases in
fuel consumption represent direct
costs or savings to the driving
public. They are presented as
comparisons to what the -fuel use
would be under a No -Build
assumption (20 years in the future
with no improvements).
From the following table, it can
be seen that constructing a bridge
in the SOUTH CORRIDOR and
retaining the existing bridge
results in the largest fuel
savings--285,000 gallons/year.
The construction -of a tunnel in
the NORTH CORRIDOR and removing -
the existing bridge results in the
greatest fuel use
increase--1,884,000 gallons/year
more than No -Build:
Gals/Yr
1.
NORTH CORRIDOR:
New Bridge + retain
existing Bridge
-11,000
2.
NORTH CORRIDOR:
New Bridge + remove
existing Bridge
+84,000
3.
NORTH CORRIDOR:
Tunnel + retain
existing Bridge
+1,011,800
4.
NORTH CORRIDOR:
Tunnel + remove
existing Bridge
+1,884,000
5.
CENTRAL CORRIDOR:
New Bridge + retain
existing Bridge
-197,000
6. CENTRAL CORRIDOR:
New Bridge + remove
existing Bridge-172,000
7. SOUTH CORRIDOR:
,New Bridge + retain
existing Bridge-285,000
8. SOUTH CORRIDOR:
New Bridge + remove
existing Bridge-237,000
9. SOUTH CORRIDOR:
Tunnel + retain
existing Bridge +835,600
10. SOUTH CORRIDOR:
Tunnel + remove
existing Bridge +1,173,000
As noted in the tables, all of the
alternatives involving the
construction of a tunnel increase
fuel use -by more than one million
gallons/year. This is because of
the steep grades required by
tunneling beneath the river, and
because of the operational costs
involved in the ventilation and
lighting systems when compared to
a bridge.
The remaining options under the
No -Build alternatives
(Transportation Systems Management
and Replacement on Site) offer`
negligible fuel use savings, and
therefore are considered as being
not significant.
THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Species of special concern are
those that are not common across
Minnesota or Wisconsin.
Assignment of a species to one of
these categories indicates that
the continued existence of that
species is in danger. A species
in danger of extinction in our
states may be abundant in some
other state, but a species
considered endangered by the
federal government is in danger
all across the United States.
This study addresses both federal
and state classifications:
FEDERAL
Peregrine Falcon
The study area is within the
breeding range of this
endangered species. Consultation
with United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) :.
biologists have concluded that
none of the Build alternatives
would adversely affect.any known
Peregrine Falcon nesting sites.--
2. Ba
Mn/DOT biologists, after -
consultation with the USFWS have
concluded that the study area is
within the breeding range of the -
American Bald Eagle. A nest is
located about four miles upstream.
The study corridors are not within
the critical range of this nest.
The construction of a Build
alternative is not anticipated to
have -harmful effects on this or
any other Bald Eagle nest.
3. Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel
The only federally listed species
which could potentially be
impacted by a Build alternative
is this endangered species of
clam. It has been historically
been reported from the major
tributaries of the upper
Mississippi River. It has been
reported in the St. Croix River,
recently near Prescott, Wisconsin,
and near the railroad bridge at
Hudson, Wisconsin.
This study addresses
both state and federal
classifications.
In August, a malcologist under
contract with Mn/DOT, conducted a
preliminary survey of the
potential.crossing areas for the
bridge and tunnel alternatives.
Formal consultation with USFWS
will now occur. In the event that
a Build alternative is selected,
an additional in-depth survey will
be conducted along that proposed
river crossing alignment.
A tunnel would have the greatest
potential for significant impacts
to this or any other rare mussels
if populations occurred in the
construction area, or if they
occurred for some distance
downstream of the selected
construction area. -
Possible mitigation for impacts
would be to relocate mussel
populations containing species
covered by the Endangered Species
Act to areas where they would not
be impacted by construction. No
further impacts would be expected
following mitigation and
construction.
3
4
STATE'
A number of sites which provide
`rare habitats or support rare,
threatened or endangered species
have been located on both the
Minnesota and Wisconsin sides of
the river. Species of special
concern.on this study include:
Kittentails-endangered in
Minnesota and threatened in
Wisconsin; Button Brush -special
concern in Minnesota; and Dotted
Blazing Star -endangered in
Wisconsin. In addition to these
species there are rare habitats
near the study site including
Brown's Creek in Minnesota, a DNR
protected water and a designated
trout stream. Prairie habitat and
southern Dry Mesic Forest is found
on the Wisconsin side of the St.
Croix. There is also an important
sedimentary rock formation found
on the Minnesota side of the river
within the CENTRAL CORRIDOR.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
AFTER MITIGATION
A new river crossing is
anticipated to have few lasting
effects on threatened and
endangered species. Erosion
control measures will prevent silt
from entering wetlands along the
NORTHERN CORRIDOR. Any silt which
does enter wetlands should settle
out before the water enters
Brown's Creek. Therefore, the
trout population should not be
affected by construction.
Impacts to the Dotted Blazing
Stars found near the SOUTH
CORRIDOR will be minimized by
avoidance of this site. If these
flowers cannot be avoided, an
attempt will be made to transplant
the flowers to another suitable
\site. The selection of a Build
Alternative will,have no or very
little effect on threatened or
endangered species.
NATURAL
RESOURCE
IMPACTS
1. WETLANDS
Potential wetland impacts were
estimated by assuming that all
wetlands within each corridor
studied could be impacted by
construction. In reality, the
width of the study corridors is
substantially greater than the
limits of the right-of-way which
would be required for construction
within that corridor. Thus, the
impacts presented in the DEIS will
be overestimated, and represent a
worst case.
Impacts to wetlands were estimated
by multiplying the estimated
impacted acreage of each wetland
by a number reflecting its Habitat
Suitability'Index (HSI) value.
This product is referred to as a
Habitat Unit (HU), and forms the
basis for making impact
comparisons:
17
Acres
HSI
HU Loss
NORTH
Type 2 8
72
576
Type 2/6 15.1
75
1135.5
Type 3 3.3
92
303.6
TOTAL: 26.4
2015.1
CENTRAL
None
None
None
SOUTH
Type 2 .3
72
21.6
Type 2/3 3.7
92
340.4
TOTAL: 4.0
362
It is not, likely that
adequate mitigation could
be achieved on -site.
IMPACT SUMMARY
Wetland habitat losses for this
study area could vary from minor
to quite extensive. Selection of
a No -Build alternative will result
in no wetland impacts. If either
the CENTRAL or the SOUTHERN
;CORRIDORS is selected, wetland
impacts will be negligible. It is
unlikely that mitigation for these
impacts will take place away from
the construction area.
Wetland losses resulting from
construction within the NORTHERN°
CORRIDOR would be quite high. :A
number of large and small basins
could be impacted.- It is not
likely that adequate mitigation
could be achieved on -site. This
would result in wetland mitigation
taking place away from the
construction area.
2. FLOODPLAINS
NORTH CORRIDOR floodplains consist
of: Brown's Creek, North Twin
Lake, South Twin Lake, and the St.
Croix River. The CENTRAL and
SOUTH CORRIDOR floodplains
consists only of the St. Croix
River.
In addition to the above, all
roadway alignments would cross a
number of intermittent streams.
During detail design of the
roadway, further investigation for
flooding problems would occur.
NORTH CORRIDOR:
Brown's Creek
North Twin Lake
South Twin Lake
St. Croix River
SOUTH CORRIDOR:
St. Croix River
IMPACT SUMMARY
No significant floodplain impacts
are anticipated in any of the
three corridors for the following
reasons:
a. No significant potential
exists for interruption of a
transportation facility. All
roadway grade elevations will
be designed above the 100-year
flood elevations.
b. No significant increased risk
of flooding should occur. All
hydraulic structures will be
designed so that headwater and
tailwater elevations remain
essentially unchanged.
c. No significant impact on
natural.and benefical
floodplain ,should result.
d. A new river crossing should
not support incompatible
floodplain development.
5
G
3. FISHERIES RESOURCES/
WATER QUALITY
The section of the river near
Stillwater is more like a mildly
eutrophic lake than a river. The
river appears to undergo lake like
stratification as it comes under
the influence of water control
structures on the Mississippi
River.
A wide variety of life occurs in
the river. Algal phytoplankon is
represented by the three major
phyla and one minor phylum.
Periphyton is represented by
Diatoms (47 species and 16
general), Bluegreens (four
unidentified genera) and Greens
(eight general). Fish and
invertebrate species are diverse
and widely represented.
The only major community impacts
that may occur with construction
of a river crossing would be due
to construction and generally,
these would be transitory in
nature. The least impacts would
be associated with bridge
construction.
Tunnel construction may cause
significant degradation of water
clarity and significant increases
in suspended solids downstream of
the construction zone producing
secondary community impacts.
Also, the possibility exists for
long term effects to benthic
organisms (the little critters
that live in.the top layers of
the river bottom) near the
construction zone following
construction of a tunnel. Fish
are more mobile and would be
expected to.move from the
disturbed area. However,
secondary effects'on the fish
community from disruption of the
benthic community are possible.
Also, construction may -,,effect some
spawning activity during the
construction period. Assuming''
that there are no long term -
impacts on the benthic community,
no further impacts on,,fish.would
be expected following
construction.,-
4. WILDLIFE
Impacts to wildlife are measured
by or correlated to the loss of
and change to wildlife habitat.
Wildlife habitat is made up of the
components of the environment that
provide animals with the three key
factors necessary for survival:
food, water, and cover.
When grassy upland areas,
woodlands or even cropped fields
are impacted by construction,
wildlife habitat is affected.
Construction in the St. Croix
study area will affect upland
habitat in several ways: habitat
conversion to pavement, habitat
alteration which reduces ability
to support wildlife, decreased
attractiveness by noise and
activity, physical barrier of the
facility,.and an increase in the
number of wildlife/vehicle.
accidents.
NORTH CORRIDOR
Construction in the NORTHERN
CORRIDOR will result in a decline
in the population levels of
species requiring forest or brushy
habitat: Species of wildlife that
probably will decline in number
may include the gray squirrel, the
raccoon, the white footed mouse,
the cottontail rabbit, and the
brown thrasher.
CENTRRAUSOUTH
CORRIDORS
These corridors are largely
developed at the present time.
Some grassy and wooded land is
found near the St. Croix river
Construction in the CENTRAL or
SOUTH ._CORRIDOR will have minor
impacts to wildlife.
These corridors7,would affect
meadowlark habitat whenever
grassland habitat is affected.
Very little oak forest would be
affected by construction, and
minor adverse effect on gray
squirrels would occur.
IMPACT SUMMARY
Highway construction should not
cause the elimination of any
wildlife species now using the
corridor areas. However,
construction will permanently
remove preferred habitat and
displace wildlife.
All alternatives will likely have
some impact on wildlife
populations. Habitat impacts in
the CENTRAL and SOUTHERN CORRIDORS
will occur near the St. Croix
river. Wildlife impacts along the
NORTHERN CORRIDOR will be the
highest since much of this route
will be along new alignment. In
some cases, habitat along the
right-of-way will be used by a
particular wildlife species but
for the most part, right-of-way
habitat will not replace the
habitat lost to construction. -
Again, please note that the above
are brief summaries of the
environmental studies which are
being completed. Considerable
additional detail is contained in
the actual studies. The next
edition of the newsletter will
concentrate on additional studies
as they are completed for review.
Please direct comments or questions
concerning the Stillwater-Houlton
River Crossing studies to:
Michael Louis, Project Manager
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
3485 Hadley Avenue North -
Oakdale, Minnesota 55109
Phone: 6121779-1208
Sincerely,
Mike Louis
7
STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Date: September 14, 1987
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman
Judy Curtis Dean Miller
Mark Ehlenz Nancy Putz
Jean Jacobson Don Valsvik
Steve Russell, Comm. Dev. Director
Members Absent: Rob Hamlin Jay Kimble
Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of August 10, 1987 are amended as follows: Case No.
SUP/87-35 was approved with a vote of 5-1, with Don Valsvik
indicating opposition.
Motion by Nancy Putz, seconded by Dean Miller to approve the
minutes of August 10, 1987 as amended.
PUELTC HEARINGS
Case No. SUP/87--41 - Special Use Permit for construction of
laundry addition to Greeley Healthcare Center.
James Forberg, Architect for Beverly Enterprises, presented the
request and the Commission viewed the plans for an approximately
500 sq. ft. addition to the existing facility. A neighbor, John
Jewell, 415 S. William, asked to view the plans but had no
objection to the project.
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve the
request with the condition that new curb, gutter and sidewalk
shall be constructed where the old driveway was located. Approved
6-0.
Case No. V/87--42 - Variance to construct an in ground 18x36'
swimming pool in side and front yard at 2675 Interlachen Court.
Richard M. Minday, owner of the property, presented the request.
Due to the steep elevation and heavy vegetation of the rear yard,
he is requesting a variance to construct the pool in the front -
side yard. Marilyn Karr, property owner south of the Minday's
expressed concern about the view from the entrance to the Court,
and that the redwood vertical fence would obstruct the view from
her home. A representative of Pacific Pools was present to
support Mr. Minday's request and answered questions from the
Commission.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1987
The Commission expressed concern with the pool and fence being
too- close to the property line and suggested that the pool be
turned so it is at an angle to the property, or that it be moved
to the side yard, which would sacrifice a part of the deck which
is presently located there.
Motion by Dean Miller, seconded by Nancy Putz to deny the
request as presented. 6-0 in favor of denying the request. Mr.
Minday requested the item be continued to the Commission 10-12-87
meeting. The Commission agreed to the request.
Case NoS_UP/87-43 - Special Use Permit for three room Bed and
Breakfast.
Barbara Schotl and Bernard Rappa, owners, presented the request.
A previous Special Use Permit was approved for the structure for
two rooms. Currently, only one room is being used; the second and
third rooms are under renovation, to be ready for use next
spring. The owners are aware of the 11 conditions of approval
as presented in the staff report and have no objections.
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve the
request with conditions. Approved 6-0.
case No. V/87-44 - Variance for sign program for Oasis building.
Clark Nyberg presented the planned sign program which requires a
variance because of the number of signs and sign setback from
South Greeley Street. Four conditions of approval are to be met:
(1) A maximum of one sign other than free standing sign shall be
allowed for each tenant. (2) The existing signs on the building
shall be removed consistent with the sign program. (3) The free
standing sign shall be a maximum of 25 ft. with a 9 ft clearance.
(4) Any exception to this sign program shall require a variance
permit.
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Mark Ehlenz to grant the
request for a sign variance with conditions. Approved 6-0.
Case_ No. SUP/87/45 - Special Use Permit to construct an
aquatic/therapy facility.
Craig Rafferty, Rafferty, Rafferty & Mitkutowski & Associates,
presented the proposal for Courage St. Croix, an aquatic/therapy
facility to be operated by Courage Center. The conditions of
approval are: (1) A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer. (2) The lighted free standing sign shall be
set back 25 ft. from the front property line. (3) The trash area
shall be enclosed in the building or screened using a structure
of compatible design. (4) The three lots shall be combined into
one before the building is finalized for occupancy. Mr. Rafferty
stated that the drainage plan has been submitted to Mr. Russell,
2
Stillwater Planning Commission
September 14, 1987
Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Dean Miller to approve the
request for a Special Use Permit. Approved 6-0.
OTHER ITEMS
City Coordinator Nile Kriesel met with the Commission to review
and discuss the Surface Water Management Plan developed by the
Brown's Creek Watershed Management Organization. The plan states
that any future development within 1000 feet of any wetland must
be reviewed by the Soil and Water Conservation District before
approval.
The Planning Commission agreed to continue to meet on the second
Monday of each month.
The Commission discussed a possible amendment to the sign
ordinance. Steve Russell will draft an amendment and present it
at the next meeting.
Mike Weis, downtown business owner, presented proposed plans for
a gift shop to be located on the west side of Highway 5. That
area is currently zoned CA, Banking or Professional Office. The
Commission suggested that he write a letter to the City Council
explaining his plans and the conditions of development.
Motion by Dean Miller, seconded by Jean Jacobson to adjourn the
meeting at 8:45 p.m. All in favor.
Submitted by
Shelly Schaubach
Recording Secretary
3
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/87-42
Planning Commission Meeting: October 12, 1987
Project Location: 2675 Interlachen Court
Comprehensive Plan District: Residential
Zoning District: R-A
Applicant's Name: Richard Minday
Type of Application: Variance
Project Description:
Variance for construction of pool in side yard.
This application was considered by the Commission at the September 14th
meeting and continued for redesign because of concerns for the pool in the
front yard.
A new design is proposed that locates the pool on the South side of the house
five feet from the side property line. This location will provide better
exposure to sun and will not be seen from the front of the house (new plan
attached).
Recommendation:
Consider revised plan.
ALL_�L���L_
Revised plans.
�713o/7
/�iP, ��zvt �Grss�L
miry �f= �T � Grii�j�
L�/yCLo,.Sc',U /�,pc Tlr/v $�7� Of= U,�igwi,�/Gs Sh`r�wi�G
�� /�/FG✓L'/ %�iED��VS�U S/%L` /=off /-�- �poL /.c/ D�,�
f:q.QO �T ,26 �Siii�'��c r}cyra� C'T Ci(JT%' OGj,Q - ivy/G�Y,C�vRs
40o4. ClGSF- -T0 ;We-SDaTi=/ _-.A;RooO& 27Y-- -
/,t�sc 77�!?c A /h/Mu7� J?O .QCy/EW %J/=' .�/P.`��✓/NGS . .�� %7%��2t f//lc
(�ur�bT�oNs G xF �D•2c - . _ /.clFa/l�1i97�vy - �s /?�GZt�ir2rr,� - i'�NsE - G�-c.c. - ----
/Cic ��II1�DrJ�
It
1
l;
•,�4 �\:
ft!` S.'J' -'!r
::�-. ,�L'�•S•I.y,.-": +.'r M1�1
r_i•\
��
�'.�•ljl
ti- `�V' , �y, �4y � :. •'lfi f�•� `` lye _� �
,•••cif'...:.'- �j V1 • .V � y•• .. � � 4
-'i�-' �i' '7r.. �•;: �5'^'•rr;�+.�;'.: l,i: 4y •Z' �_' ,-s• Y.1 .. .. -
�. :5 f -.1r�+•:... yy�11,i` .fir `•C.'J.. ••' •• rl.R'y : -•_• '+_ • a' - :• . - � ••; -"•� - � •
' .-tiS'tii is �rV ,•+'. ;Xi•`C'R!^rL• •� •'.'w.ZF• '•; � u r - :. f'. a1:••. •.. - _ � •! ,rl -
_.'`cL•IC:f=' Li'.�.a�.i;�,•.-�, ��'`-t}?�i r,•;�•^�; w}%,y:r._+ti Y.Sf.�..i:' J• .- _ `_;.
;�(�:�r �:y .i _ r.:• •-;.ti •_:;..��, __ 1. ,ry!�:. _ :�: +••:•.
l K; Fy„++•' :•:s?-{a��•C�`'��i1L ..t"1l^v!�N':lY.• I .� �,., _' .i..r:)l H'�•.L''�.+ :! `, '' •' 1• ••
} •. 5•n.3'i••;„=may ��'�•«• !.._ [ I�•':r'v:-.Y�. i��' .r.� 'y.L t•` �' ..�.
• �5:: �'� r'i': �+ �*' � I, �'ti.'�1��YM1i .i-.��•~1'�i C_ li.•,i`'{X*�R'.' 1t �' � I'.!••' /.. .T� .. ... �
• 3'•. ` ^N. yf'i.5 il.J'r'4.'+v •!'. Yay' „5 i'-. Y'Y•'.�'.. at .. , ',�: r
:.�� .ti%.},n. ' r1� ti yy��••�yn5 :C7.•' yi$f V'y..: ._..F��`,.�•.i �.? ••J .. '� a' �.`
.J'l%"�ea� � �,.� 'i::n�' �j'�1+ t�..�'�i'•ji. �'.•r.� i''' � .. ,�' �:�^r�.7' .. - .. t,�=7.v'� ._ -
•� e-r,•=L:y�Y��•�•.1;��[ � ll,� :. '�• r j' rtir�:i..r•s5��r� �'r..:' 1A `.re:1J-'^ �� a:e.-.
.c_ -:* y:5 ;w- -ri^• •.rr, i•�k-Y::- `i-=•` : r.,L ,• -•i.' fit'::+ ` • -
... ..... �. ,.._. ..... JLIr:�a�.. �L�:.. ,..•5: y+.!°}_ii:',+•••r,�'`+•:'�ii'. -�]'r•- 5.._ y ... .-..�:�-�.Y..:.s.'..,... .�ar:r' --
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/87-47
Planning Commission Meeting: October 12, 1987
Project Location: 1316 South Fifth Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Multi Family Residential
Zoning District: R-B
Applicant's Name: Geraldine A. Revoir
Type of Application: Special Use Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Special Use Permit for 14 child Group Family Day Care.
nTsrlNgTnN-
The application is for a 14 child Group Family Day Care. State law requires
that licensed Day Cares serving 12 or fewer persons be considered permitted
uses in residential districts. The application is for 14 children requiring a
Special Use Permit. In approving the request, it must be found the request is
consistent with, and will not be detrimental, to the character of the
neighborhood. In making the decision, the traffic generation parking in
adjoining uses, and other factors important in consideration of the use,
should be considered.
The Day Care use would take place on the first floor of a duplex. Parking is
provided in a driveway or along the street. Rose Floral is located across the
street. The application does not indicate staffing requirements for 14
children or the age of the children. It is estimated that the use will
generate a maximum of 30 to 40 trips per day. An outside play area is provided
but it is not enclosed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consideration of request and consistency of use with neighborhood.
mUTTMNS-
1. One off street parking space shall be provided for each Staff person.
2. A maximum of one sign (one square foot) may be fixed flat against the
residence.
3. A 48 inch fence shall be constructed around the children's outside play
area.
PAS 100 '
Case Number— .�
' a
Fee Paid ____ —
Date Hied ' 10 PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISRATIVE I: ORNI
=
_ 57
Street Location of Prcperty: --- ---` � ---5
----
700 l--i
Logal Description of Property: -----= --`-j-------- ---,,Q
Owner. Name __C.� �C �� ��► _- __�Y�?_� ------ _-_-----
�U Phone: ---
Address ------- �-
Applicant (if other than owner): Name _= L Address ------------------------------ Phone: ---------------
Type of Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
.Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
_-_ Variance ___ Other -------------------
Description of Request:
------� -----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------ure of Applicant: _�_��
Signature p,
r Hearing: _----__________________
Date o� Public H g: _------------
_------
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back of this form or at-
tached, showing the following:
1. North direction. _... -3� '
2. Location of proposed structure on lot.
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs.
4. Dimensions of proposed structure.
5. Street names.
6. Location of adjacent existing buildings.
7. Other information as may be requested.
xi
___ Denied ___ b the Planning Commission on
Approved y
subject ►o the following conditions:
----------------------------------------
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ sublet. to the
following conditions ----------------------------------'--
----------------------------
Comments. (Use other side),
September 15, 1987
Date
gLe p�Y R
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
444 LAFAYETTE ROAD
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
City of Stillwater
Zoning Authority
216 North 4th Street
Street Address
Stillwater MN 55082
City State Zip Code
RE: ZONING NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSURE
Subject: Geraldine Revoir
Name of Day Care Home Applicant
1316 South 5th Street
Street Address
Stillwater, MN 55082
City State Zip Code
DHS-2722 (9-85)
PZ-02722-02
Type of License:
Family Day Care
Group Family Day Care C-3
Licensed Capacity 14
Phone No. 459-4492
This is to inform you that we are in receipt of an application for
licensure under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0300 to 9502.0445 (formerly
Rule 2), Family Day Care and Group Family Day Care Standards. Issuance of
this license is subject to compliance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 245.781 to 245.812 and 252.28, subdivision 2, known as
the Public Welfare Licensing Act and the rules of the Department of Human
Services.
You should note that under Minnesota Statutes, Section 245.812, Subvision
3, a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons shall be
considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the
purposes of zoning. Subdivision 4 of the same section indicates that a
licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be
considered a permitted multi -family residential use of property for
purposes of zoning.
If we do not hear from you within 30 days after receipt of this letter, we
will consider the above -mentioned day care home to be in compliance with
your local zoning code.
Sincerely,
Cynthia A. Utecht, Day Care
Licensing Worker
14900-61st Street No. P.O. Box 0030
Street Address
Phone 779-5020
Washington Co. Community Social Services
Name of Agency/Organization
Stillwater, MN 55082
City
State Zip Code
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. SUP/87-48
Planning Commission Meeting: October 12, 1987
Project Location: 110 South Greeley Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Multi -Family Residential
Zoning District: R-B
Applicant's Name: Judd Orff and Associates
Type of Application: Special Use Permit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Sign program for Davian Building.
DISCUSSION:
The application is to revise the existing signage on the Davian Building as
proposed in the attached sign program. The program consists of only signage
over and on pillars on either side of the main entrance. All other signage
would be removed from the building. The sign program consists of the existing
large Davian Building roof sign being relocated over the front entrance. A
maximum of 12 business signs, 4211x14" each, six on either pillar is proposed
along side the main entrance (see attached plans).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval with conditions.
CONDITIONS:
1. All signs other than those proposed in the sign program shall be
removed.
2. Any signs not in conformance with this building sign program shall
require a variance.
3. Each business shall have one sign.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application and plans.
PAC 100
Case Number���_�-
Fee Paid
Date Filed
PLANNING ADMIN
FORM
- Street Location of Property: ___ _110_S - Greelea_Street________________
Legal Description of Property: ----------------------------------------
_ _ Washincx�on Federal Savings Bank
Owner: Name
Address __ 200_ E._ Chestnut Street Phone: - 4 39 - 5454
oolicant (if other than owner): Name Judd Orff and Associates
A„ --Judd Orf
___ 305 S _ Greelev Street 208 phone: _ 439 _5450 ^_---
Type a& Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
_ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat
Variance __ Other ___________________
Description of Request: ei _ S4_Y ________________
Signature of Applicana.
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: ' T
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 ___________ (date}
subject to the following conditions: -------
Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the
following conditions: ------------------------------------------------
Comments: (Use other side),
JUDD OUP V A=OUArFG 305 So. Greeley • Stillwater, MN 55082 • (612) 439-5450
October 1, 1987
Building Sign Program
Davion Building
110 S. Greeley Street
Stillwater, Mn. 55082
We propose to make a uniform look to the exterior signage of
the above listed building.
Currently there are pillars on either side of the main Greeley
Street entrance. Our plan, if approved, would be to install up
to six (6) signs on each set of pillars. The signs would be of
uniform color and size, with the style of print being up to the
individual business owner. The individual signs would be 12"
to 14" high and 46" long. The background would be dark brown
to match the pillars, with the lettering to be white on all signs.
We would propose to light the main Davion sign over the entry-
way and not light the other 12 signs. This will give a uniform
look to the exterior signage and won't detract from the current
look of the building entry.
Sincerely,
Judd E. Orff CPM®
Building Manager
JEO:sp
=�= A &, M &,&- iL Leaslnp and Property Management
1
i
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
CASE NO. V/SUP/87-49
Planning Commission Meeting: October 12, 1987
Project Location: 116 South Sixth Street
Comprehensive Plan District: Multi -Family Residential
Zoning District: RB - RCM
Applicant's Name: Wayne L. Stephenson
Type of Application: Variance and Special Use Permit
Project Description:
Variance to lot width requirement and Special Use Permit for conversion of
single family residence to duplex.
Discussion:
The application is to convert an existing single family residence to a duplex.
The residence has been used as a two family house but there is not record of.
the conversion. The current owner would like to sell the structure as a duplex
with necessary City planning reviews. The front part'of the lot is located
in the RCM Multi -Family Residential District and the back part of the lot is
in the Duplex R-B District. The 15,932 square ft. lot meets the lot size
requirements of both districts. The R-B District requirements call for a 75
ft. lot width. The lot is 72 feet wide in front and 65 feet wide in the rear.
The RCM District requires a Special Use Permit for duplexes.
The project is to convert the existing residence to a duplex, minimum exterior
modification of the structure is proposed. Parking for four cars, two covered,
is required in the RCM District. The plans show four areas for parked cars,
one covered. The existing North side yard setback is not indicated. Twenty
feet is required in the RCM District and 10 in R-B Districts. Approximately 17
feet is provided. No change is proposed on that side of the residence.
As indicated in the letter of application, the house has been used as a two
family residence in the past. Because of the pending sale, the owner would
like to clarify the status of the duplex use.
Recommendation:
Approval with Condition -
1. The parking area shall be improved to accommodate four cars as approved
by the Community Development Director.
2. All applicable Building Code requirements shall be met.
Attachment:
Plans and Application.
1Ar 10G`
Case Number _ ------
Fee Paid ___' ___---_-
lo
Date Filed
PLANNING ADMINIST:ZAT IVE FORT li
Location of Property: L !_ice -_s
Street p y: _
Logal Doscription of Property: L
Gwner: Dame �L 2 J_j - ---C2L� _`--- r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Address Phone: __L
A
Applicant (if other than owner): Name s_l� __5�
Address _l'_____1_,lJ_�..--5- Phone:
Type of Request:' ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat
Special Use Permit __- Approval of Final Plat
Variance ___ Other ___________________
Description of Request: _ _____-------------
e L/i I L',
Signature of Applicant: ' ,ca"2�
Date of Public Hearing: -_____
---------------------------------------
NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back-11-9,ili-trm or at-
tached, showing the following:
1. North direction.
2. Location of proposed structure on lot.
3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. ,11 fi� _ ;~::; .. A,
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: ______________-_____..-____-__------__
Approved ___ Denied _-- by the Council on __w_____________ subject to the
following conditions: ------------------------------------------------
' Comments: (Use other side),
r
IT 7-
cicj e -f -o i" N •�
a F
1 c.
S
few�-
awe Z,y
g q
r i ���
,wa
e,
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
October 2, 1987
REPORT ON PREINSPECTION FOR CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY
Site: 116 South Sixth Street
The main building at the above site is a two story home with
a full basement and appears to be relatively well maintained
for its vintage. There is a detached one car garage to the
rear of the lot. The building is well suited to house a
dwelling unit on each floor without any major changes for
compliance to C'ty ousing and Building Codes.
�I
Vern Rylande,'
Building Inspector
City of Stillwater
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
S'
G
IW
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 12, 1987
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DOWNTOWN AND INDUSTRIAL PARK SCATTERED SITE
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #2 (TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #1)
RAf (ApnIINn
In December 1985, the City approved a Downtown and Industrial Park Scattered
Site Redevelopment District #2. The purpose of the district is to reduce
blight and help promote orderly economic development in the Industrial Park
and Downtown. The Scattered Site District will in part provide revenues to
implement the upcoming Downtown Plan. The objectives of the district are
listed on page 3 of the attachments.
The plan uses existing zoning standards to guard development so the plan is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Janet Van Benthuysen, from
the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will be present to
present the amendment and answer questions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review District Amendment and approve attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENT:
District Amendment and Resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE STILLWATER PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THE CITY'S MODIFICATION
OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREI�IENT FINANCING ❑ISTRICT NO. 1 TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF
THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City's proposed modification of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 within Development District No. 1
have been submitted to the Stillwater Planning Commission pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 472A and Section 273.74, Subd. 3(c), respectively, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Modified
Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") to determine the consistency of the Plan
to the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Stillwater Planning
Commission that the Plan is consistent with the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted: October 12, 1987
Chairman
ATTEST:
APPENDIX D
41
• ��� i f I � .. 5 E � F.r � ;•—• - '� �. .. �i 11 � 1 " ••■• I —err.
i lot
IBM
71
LL
7
�.. . � I• - .I:J il.. �•,.lt: L1 ' Ej..�. �Ly� � . 1'�, ,�.p� • li" r i �
f !
4.,7.`� ...
� I I• a _ �:::L' _k' a'I• `� � yli: ... .:.I, y.•;�• r�'Y,. ' J� � � _
6.t 11l`�..pp •. j
� r• i
THE CITY OF STILLWATER
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN
MODIFICATION #2
(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A.01 et seq.)
and
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
MODIFICATION #3
(Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78)
for
THE DOWNTOWN AND INDUSTRIAL PARK SCATTERED SITE
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Date: November 3, 1987
(Fiscal Disparities)
MODIFICATION # 1: Oct. 1, 1985
MODIFICATION #2: Dec. 12, 1985
MODIFICATION #3: Nov. 3, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN
MODIFICATION
#2
Section A.
Statement of Public Purpose
1
Section B.
Statutory Authority
1
Section C.
Property Description
1
Section D.
Rehabilitation
2
Section E.
Relocation
2
Section F.
Development Program
2
Section G.
Administration and Maintenance of District
5
PART II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
MODIFICATION #3
Section A.
Statutory Authority
6
Section B.
Statement of Objectives
6
Section C.
Development Program
6
Section D.
Description of Property in Tax
Increment Financing District
7
Section E.
Classification of the Tax Increment
Financing District
7
Section F.
Parcels in Acquisition
8
Section G.
Estimate of Costs
9
Section H.
Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded
Indebtedness
9
Section I.
Sources of Revenue
9
Section J.
Original Assessed Value
10
Section K.
Estimated Captured Assessed Value
11
Section L.
Duration of the District
11
Section M.
Estimated Impact on Other
Taxing Jurisdictions
11
Section N.
Modifications of the Tax Increment
Financing District
14
Section O.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
14
Section P.
Limitation on Duration of Tax
Increment Financing Districts
15
Section Q.
Limitation on Qualification of Property
in Tax Increment District Not Subject
to Improvement
15
Section R.
Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment
15
Section S.
Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
16
Section T.
Excess Tax Increments
16
Section U.
Requirement for Agreements with
the Developer
16
Section V.
Assessment Agreements
16
Section W.
Administration of the Tax Increment
Financing Redevelopment District and
Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account
17
Section X. Annual Disclosure Requirements 17
Section Y. Assumptions 18
Section Z, Municipal Findings 18
Section ZZ-. Fiscal Disparities Election by Resolution 18
Appendix A-1 Estimate of Tax Increments
Appendix A-2 Additional Estimate of Tax Increments
(as modified November 3, 1987)
Appendix B-1 Property Data
Appendix B-2 Additional Property Data
(as modified November 3, 1987)
Appendix C-1 Estimate of Costs
Appendix C-2 Additional Estimate of Costs
(as modified November 3, 1987)
Appendix D Boundary Map of Tax increment Financing
District No. 1 (as modified November 3, 1987)
PART I.
Development District Plan Modification #2
{AS M6D[FIED ON DECEMBER 12, 1985)
A. Statement of Public Purpose
It is found that there is a need for new development in the City of
Stillwater, Minnesota, to encourage development within areas which are
already built up to provide employment opportunities to improve the local
tax base and to improve the general tax base of the state.
B. Statutory Authority
The City of Stillwater designated a portion of the city as a municipal
development district and is proposing to modify the boundary as authorized
by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A. According to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 472A.02, Subdivision 11, a development district is a specific area
within the corporate limits of a municipality which has been so designated
and separately numbered by the governing body.
The City of Stillwater is also utilizing and proposes to modify the
development finance provisions encompassed in Minnesota Statutes, Section
273.71-78, the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, in conjunction with
the modification of the municipal development distric`.
Co Property Description
The area to be encompassed by the proposed Municipal Development
District Modification is generally described below in "ALL CAPS":
Beginning at a point of intersection with the center lines of Aspen
Street and Third Street, City of Stillwater, Minnesota; thence
southerly from said point along the centerline of Third Street to a
point of intersection with the centerline of Orleans Street; thence
westerly from said point along said centerline, as extended between
Everet Street and Washington Street, to its intersection with the
easterly right-of-way line of parcel #9032-2620, thence northerly
along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of
parcel #9032-2620; thence easterly along said northerly line to its
intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of County Road No.
5; thence southwesterly from said point and along said right-of-way
line to its intersection with the southern municipal boundary; thence
easterly more or less, from said point along said southerly municipal
boundary to its intersection with the westerly shoreline of Lake St.
Croix; thence northerly from said point and along said shoreline to its
intersection with the centerline of St. Croix Avenue, as extended;
thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the
centerline of Main Street; thence southerly from said point and along
said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Elm Street,
as extended; thence westerly from said point along said centerline to
its intersection with the centerline of First Street; thence northerly
from said point and along said centerline to a point of intersection
with the centerl-ine of Aspen Street; thence westerly from said point
along said centerline fo the point of beginning.
D. Rehabilitation
Although the City has designated a rehabilitation zone to target such
improvements within the Central Business District, no rehabilitation
standards nor a formal program for rehabilitation of buildings has been
adopted. The City will encourage the use of industrial development revenue
bonds or notes (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474) for rehabilitation,
renovation and expansion of existing buildings in the project as well as State
of Minnesota grant funds and tax increment proceeds.
E. Relocation
The City accepts its binding obligations under provisions of federal and state
law (Minnesota Statutes), Section 117.50 through 117.56) for relocation and
will administer payment benefits to individuals and businesses to be
displaced by public action.
F. Development Program
The municipal development district has been created and being modified for
the purpose of continuation of the improvement art] revitalization activities
presently underway in the central business district. The City of Stillwater is
authorized to use eminent domain, issue bonds and to acquire, construct,
reconstruct, improve, alter, extend, operate, maintain and promote
development programs in each municipal development district created.
Phase I
Tax increments will be utilized to assist in the financing of the land
acquisition, public facility and utility costs associated with providing a
suitable site for a new elderly housing development and the expansion of a
commercial project (Nelle).
1. Statement of Objectives
The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, determined
that it is necessary, desirable and in the public interest to establish,
designate, develop, and administer a modification to the development
district in the City of Stillwater pursuant to the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A. The City of Stillwater
determines that the funding of the necessary activities and
improvements in the modified development district shall be
accomplished through tax increment financing in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71-78. The City of Stillwater and
the Stillwater City Council seek to achieve the following objectives
through this development plan modification:
2
a. Acquire land or space which is vacant, unused, underused, or
inappropriately used.
b. Improve the financial base of the City.
C. Provide employment opportunities through the creation of new
jobs.
d. Encourage the renovation and expansion of existing businesses
and historic structures.
e. Acquire property containing structurally substandard buildings
and remove structurally substandard buildings for which
rehabilitation is not feasible.
f. Eliminate blighting influences which impede potential
development.
g. Coordinate elements of the City's Central Business District
Revitalization Plan with these project objectives.
h. Provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of
the City, for development by private enterprise.
i. Provide adequate public improvements and utilities to enhance
the area for new development.
2. Revitalization Project Proposals and Public Facilities
Revitalization within the Development District must be financially
feasible, marketable and compatible with longer range City
development plans. The following recommendations represent the
options that satisfy the development for the Project area
modification in the initial state while taking advantage of
opportunities which are currently available.
a. Clearance and redevelopment,
b. Rehabilitation of buildings to remain,
C. Relocation of buildings and the inhabitants of buildings,
d. Vacation of rights -of -way,
e. Dedication of new rights -of -way,
f. New construction and expansion of commercial and industrial
buildings,
g. Land acquisition,
h. North -end development assistance, and
3
i. Installation or replacement of public and private facilities and
utilities. -
3. Open Space to be Created
In addition to the provisions of Chapter 472A.02, Subdivision 6, some
open space may be created for the purpose of enhancing housing
development and providing circulation of pedestrian traffic, special
landscaping of residential and public property, and creation of
recreational facilities including parks and walkways. The open space
will be aimed at the improvement of the quality of life, quality of
transportation and the physical facilities.
4. Environmental Controls
The proposed redevelopment projects in the Development District
Modification do not present any permanent environmental problems.
All municipal actions, public improvements, and private development
shall be carried out in a manner that will enhance, rather than
detract from the natural environment. All necessary environmental
permits and clearances will be obtained.
5. Proposed Reuse of Property
a. Current Land Use
The current land uses in the development district modification
include - public/semi-public, residential, multi -family
residential, industrial, land consumptive/highway oriented
commercial and retail/office/service commercial. The
development sites are currently zoned in conformance with
zoning standards for commercial and industrial uses.
b. Proposed Reuse of Land
It is proposed that a portion of the property identified in
Section C of the Development Plan will be acquired for the
construction of an elderly housing development. The 35 acre
site is capable of accomodating 283 units of residential rental
development plus related retail/limited commercial
development and parking. The development parcel is currently
vacant. Phase I will consist of 64 units of lowrise housing,
Phase IIA will be 80 units of lowrise housing the Phase IIB will
be a two story 75 unit development. Phase IIIA is estimated to
include a shopping/retail facility and Phase IIIB consists of 64
units of lowrise housing. The city may also assist with the
public improvement and land acquisition costs for the
expansion of an existing hotel. This project is further
described in PART II.
4
G. Administration and Maintenance of District
Maintenance and operation of the public improvements in the municipal
development district -will be the responsibility of the development district
administration of the City. Each year the administrator of the municipal
development district will submit to the City Council the maintenance and
operation budget for the following year to be charged to the property in the
district. The City Council will certify the assessments to the County
Auditor for collection. The City Council will levy these assessments, if any,
in accordance with the procedures established in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.061.
The municipal development district administrator will administer the
municipal development district pursuant to the provisions of Section
472A.10 of the Minnesota Statutes provided, however, that such powers may
only be exercised at the direction of the City Council. No action taken by
the administrator of the development district pursuant to the above -
mentioned powers shall be effective without authorization by the City
Council.
PART II
Tax Increment Financing Modification 03
�As Modified November 3, 1987)
A. Statutory Authority
The City of Stillwater is authorized to modify a tax increment district
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71-78.
B. Statement of Objectives
See Section F, Subsection 1, Part I of this report.
C. Development Program
1. Description of Development Activities
The developers plan to construct a 6,000 square foot restaurant and
related parking, 500,000 square feet of industrial/office buildings in
the industrial/commercial parks as well as miscellaneous downtown
commercial rehabilitation of existing buildings. The developers may
be assisted with a portion of the acquisition, relocation, demolition,
clearance, public facility and parking costs associated with the
various phases of development through tax increments generated as a
result of these developments. (See Appendix "A" for Proposed
Bonded Projects.)
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
One developer plans to construct a 5,500 square foot industrial/office
building and two developers plan expansions (40,000 square feet and
70,000 square feet) to existing industrial/office facilities. Tax
increments generated from these developments may be used for land
acquisition as well as public improvements consisting of: site
preparation, relocation, utility upgrading, utility extensions, park
improvements, parking improvements, planning/engineering and
administration as determined by the City.
2. Development Activities Covered by Contracts
It is expected that the Phase I developments will have executed
development contracts no later than the fall of 1985.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
As the developers will not be assisted by the City with their
developments, no development contracts are anticipated at this time.
3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to
Occur in the Project
0
As a part of the City's overall revitalization program within the
redevelopment district,.the other phases of the program may provide
for additional public facilities, business relocation and land
acquisition. In addition, the City may assist with the rehabilitation
of historic structures within the district, parking, and additional
industrial expansion. Depending on the availability of public funds,
the Phase II development should commence within the next two
years. (See Appendix "A" for proposed bonded projects.)
4. Also, see Section F Part I of this report.
Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District
The tax increment financing district encompasses the majority of the
parcels in the central business district and additional parcels in the
industrial park.
See Appendix B for the property identification numbers included in the
district.
(AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 12, 1985)
The City of Stillwater is authorized to modify an existing tax increment
financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 271.71-78.
Modification #1 to Tax Increment District #1 was approved in October of
1985 along with adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. The only
change to be made to Modification #1 is to remove certain parcels from the
district, thereby modifying Section D of the plan. The parcels included in
Modification #1 are listed in -their original form in Appendix B to Tax
Increment Financing Plan Modification #1. The parcels to be deleted from
Modification #1 as a part of Modification #2 are listed below as a
modification to Section D.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
The City of Stillwater is authorized to modify an existing tax increment
financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 271.71-78.
Modification #3 to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 was approved and
the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan was adopted in November of
1987. The Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 consists
of including 30 additional parcels in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.
The additional parcels to be included in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1 are listed in Appendix B-2 of the Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plan.
E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District
The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, in determining the
need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 273.71-273.78 inclusive, finds that the district to be
established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 273.73, Subdivision 10. It has been determined that 80 of the
parcels in the district (71.4 percent) are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities or other improvements and 35 percent of the buildings are
structurally substandard and an additional 33 percent of the buildings are
found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such
existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land
use relationships; overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling
unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion,
or other identified hazards to health, safety and general well-being of the
community. The 80 structures on the 112 parcels of land constituting the
redevelopment district have been investigated by the Washington County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Twenty-eight of the 80 buildings are
deteriorated and structurally substandard to a degree requiring clearance
and 27 other structures are found to require substantial renovation in order
to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout,
incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the
land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for
improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety
and general well-being of the community. Thus, the tax increment financing
district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment
district and will henceforth be referred to as a redevelopment tax increment
financing district. The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as
a redevelopment tax increment financing district have been listed in
Appendix B-1.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
It has been found that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 qualifies as a
redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73,
Subdivision 10(a)(2). Of the 30 additional parcels being incorporated into
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1, Washington County HRA has found
that 21 parcels or 70% are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other
improvements; that 5 of the 21 parcels or 23.8% contain buildings which are
structurally substandard; and that an additional 7 of the 21 parcels or 33.396
contain buildings that require substantial renovation or clearance. The
parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment type
of tax increment financing district have been listed in Appendix B-2.
F. Parcels in Acquisition
Properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City in
order to accomplish one or more of the following: remove, prevent,
or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight, or the spread of
blight and deterioration; to eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and
unsanitary structures and conditions; reduce traffic hazards; provide
land for needed public streets, utilities, and facilities; remove
incompatible land use, eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses;
assemble land for redevelopment; carry out clearance and/or
redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this
plan.
2. Properties so identified include the following parcels: -
Property Identification Number
9028-0030 - MNDOT
11022-2000 - Midland
10
I�
I.
3. Conditional Acquisition
The following parcels may be acquired by the City should they
become necessary for future redevelopment with the condition that
there is sufficient tax increment to finance the costs association with
the acquisition of these parcels:
District, Plat and Parcel Number
To be determined at a future date.
Estimate of Costs
The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment financing
redevelopment district are outlined in the line item budget attached as
Appendix C.
Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded Indebtedness
An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness for Phase I is expected to
be $60,000 to $90,000. The term of the issue is 15 years and the interest
rate is expected to be 10 percent. The amount of capitalized interest is
estimated to be $15,000 to $23,000. If all of the development occurs listed
in Appendix "A" that has bond allocations, the $200,000 tax increment could
amortize an additional $1,360,000.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
It is not anticipated that any additional bonded indebtedness relating to the
rec+Pnt develooments will occur at this time.
Sources of Revenue
Several sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated
with the development projects in the municipal development district
including tax increment financing, industrial revenue bonds, 312
rehabilitation loans, and Small Cities Development Grant funds. Tax
increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in
assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development to
finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. The
restaurant is expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1986 at which time
the development will generate an annual tax increment of $9,000 to $13,800
collectable in 1987 once fiscal disparities has been allocated to the metro
pool. An additional $200,000 could be available (after fiscal disparities) if
all of the bond financed development is completed.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
Several sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated
with the developments project located with the municipal development
district. These sources include tax increments, industrial revenue bonds,
312 rehabilitation loans, Small Cities Development Grant funds, and special
assessments. Tax increments financing refers to a funding technique that
utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes to assist in
the financing of public development costs.
Of the three proposed additional developments included within Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1 a partial increment is expected to be
received in 1989 with the full increment to be received in 1990. The
additional development will generate an annual tax increment of
approximately $177,657.91, collectible in 1990 after fiscal disparities has
been allocated to the metro pool.
J. Original Assessed Value
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Section
273.76, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed Value (OAV) for the City of
Stillwater tax increment financing redevelopment district is based on the
value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1984. This assessed
value is estimated at $4,900,000. Each year the Office of the County
Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total
assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the
tax increment payable to the Stillwater redevelopment district fund. In any
year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax
increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value,
a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed
valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines
below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured
and no tax increment will -be payable.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original
Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV has increased or
decreased as a result of:
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the
district;
change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court -ordered
abatements.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
Pursuant to Minncsota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Section
273.76, Subdivision 1, the Adjusted Original Assessed Value of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1 is estimated at $7,207,591. This is
calculated by adding the current assessed value of the additional parcels to
be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 $2,307,591 to the
$4,900,000 Original Assessed Value of Tax Increment Financing District No.
1 in 1984.
10
K.
L.
M.
Estimated Captured Assessed Value*
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Assessed
Value (CAV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will
annually approximate $2,000,000 to $2,600,000 in all present and future
phases. It is expected that an estimated $1,900,000 will be captured as a
result of the restaurant and office and indutrial building developments. This
amount will be captured for up to twenty-five years or until the project debt
is retired.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Section
273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated additional captured Assessed Value of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 relating to this modification is
approximately $177,657.91.
* These estimates are based on a 40% contribution to the fiscal disparities
pool pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 3, clause
(b).
Duration of the District
Pursuant to Minnesota Statut
of the tax increment distric
indicated within the finance
district will be 25 years from
Thus, it is estimated that
modifications to the finance
would terminate in year 2012.
�s, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, the duration
t within the Development District must be
plan. The duration of the tax increment
the date of receipt of the first tax increment.
the tax increment district, including any
plan for subsequent phases or other changes,
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, the collection
of tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 may be
collected up to 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment.
The first tax increment was received by the city in 1986. Therefore, the
City may collect tax increments generated from Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1 through year 2010.
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is
estimated below for each taxing jursidiction. This estimate is based on the
existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax
increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or
inflation factors.
11
Total Assessed Value
Tax Increment Fitianc�! District 1/2/84 Total $4,900,000
Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Bow:
% of District
to Total
Washington County
$ 766, 928,175
.639%
School District #834
$ 265,063,453
1.849%
City of Stillwater
$ 72,818,081
6.729%
Other (Metro Transit, Metro Council,
Mosquito Control, Vo Tech #916)
$2,740,931,323
.179%
Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school
and county districts will have over 98% of each respective district available
for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the
total mill rate in 1985 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected
mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss
of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below
assuming development would occur without public assistance.
The finance plan indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as
follows:
All Future Phases
Captured Tax
Assessed Increment
Valuation Received
Tax Increment Finance District $3,599,432 $ 386,694*
* After contribution to the fiscal disparities pool
Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as
follows for the taxing bodies:
Mills
Percent
Tax Increment
City
27.832
26%
$ 72,280
County
25.389
24%
66,720
School District #834
48.000
45%
125,100
Other
6.211
05%
13,900
Total
107.432
100.0%
$278,000
The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be
levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments
for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the
development alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available
to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the
12
City. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not
be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax
increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually
permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured
assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of
tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This
determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for
property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be
increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction
that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of
the City.
Adjusted* Required Tax
Assessed Value Mills Increment
School District $ 260,163,453 .481 $125,100
County $ 762,028,175 .088 $ 66,720
City $ 67,918,081 1.064 $ 72,280
*Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 3, 1987)
The additional estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction
would have occurred without the creation of a Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0
to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other
taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred
without the assistance of the city, the following estimated impact of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not
met:
IMPACT OF TAX BASE
% of
Additional
Additional
Additional
Captured
Original
Future
Captured
Assessed
Assessed
Assessed
Assessed
Value to
Entity
Tax Base
Value
Value
Value*
Entity
Washington
County
851,852,556
2,307,591
4,412,931
2,105,340
.247%
Stillwater
80,795,336
2,307,591
4,412,931
2,105,340
2.606%
S.D. #834
288,278,482
2,307,591
4,412,931
2,105,340
.730%
13
N.
IMPACT ON MILL RATES
Entf
Washington County
Stillwater
S.D. #834
Area Vo-Tech.
Other **
Total
Additional
Current Potential
Mill Rate Taxes
26.499
$55,790
28.850
60,739
54.083
113,863
1.396
2,939
4.767
10,036
115.595 $243,367
* Does not include fiscal disparities contribution
** Includes Met. Transit, Met. Council, Hennepin County parks, etc.
Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, any
reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax
increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to
be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that
determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease
the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion
of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total
estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property
to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after
the discussion,- public hearing and findings required for approval of the
original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may
be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of
certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax
increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until
1990.
O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 13 and
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses
means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the
purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing
materials and services, including architectural and engineering services,
directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing
or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund
a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77.
Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development
consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative
expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax incre inent
expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax
increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less.
14
P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Pursuant to Minnesota .Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, "no tax
increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the date of
certification by the County Auditor unless within the three-year period (1)
bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 273.77 or in aid of a project
pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter
474, prior to the effective date of the Act; or (2) the authority has acquired
property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused
to be constructed public improvements within the district ... " The City
must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by 1988 or the Office of the County
Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district.
Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not
Subject to Improvement
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 6, "if, after four
years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax
increment financing district ..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation
of parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street
adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer
or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax
increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel
in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax
increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of
that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel
subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other
site preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent
to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the
authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report
that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the
assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of
revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment
financing district.
R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment
All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with
the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or
otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 472A. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy
limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the
construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily
and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision
shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the
construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a
public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes
and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality.
15
S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 4, the City has
reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment
financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building
permits for new construction have been issued during the 18 months
immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the
city except excluded building permits issued during the three month period
immediately preceding said approval of the tax increment financing plan.
T. Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 2, in any year in
which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs
authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to
cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61,
Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to: _
1. prepay the outstanding bonds;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond;
4. repay any loans including interest on these loans; or
5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the
respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rate.
U. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, no more than
25 percent by acreage of the property to be acquired by the City in the
redevelopment district shall be owned by the City as a result of acquisition
with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the
City having prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage,
concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and
which provides recourse for the City should the development not be
completed.
V. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, the City may,
upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form
with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district
which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed
improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district.
The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who
shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be
constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon
which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum
market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the
16
judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, 'the assessor may
certify the minimum market value agreement.
W. Administration of the'Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and
Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account
Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will
be handled by the Office of the Washington County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in conjunction with the City.
The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of
the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be maintained in a
special account separate from all other municipal accounts and expended
only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified in the finance plan.
X. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 6, an authority
must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing
districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board and
the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. The report
shall include the following information:
1. The original assessed value of the district;
2. The captured assessed value of the district, including the amount of
any captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts;
3. The outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans
incurred to finance project costs in the district;
4. For the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the
amount budgeted under the tax increment financing plan, and the
actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories:
(A) Acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or
purchase;
(B) Site improvements or preparation costs;
(C) Installation of public utilities or other public improvements;
(D) Administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the
authority.
5. For properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to
the authority and the price paid by the developer;
6. The amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported
under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for
facilities located in the district.
17