The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-06-13 CPC PacketZoning 67,,a-L • liwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA JUNE 8, 1988 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1988 AT 7 00 P M IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET AGENDA Approval of Minutes - May 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Case No V/88-31 - Variance for construction of eight foot fence at 1206 North Second Street in the RB Residential Duplex District Carol M Ulrick, Applicant 2 Case No V/88-32 - Variance request to construct an attached garage with a two foot setback from side property line and approximately six feet from neighbor's residence (five feet from sideyard and fifteen feet from neighbor's residence required) at 319 W St Croix Avenue in the RB Duplex Residential District Jay Ludowese, Applicant 3 Case No SV/88-34 - Request to vacate a 110 ft section of East Willow Street just west of North Second Street (not improved) Robert Troyer, Applicant 4 Case No SUP/88-36 - Special Use Permit for a sign program for Lakeview Memorial Hospital located at 919 W Anderson Street and St Croix Valley Clinic, 921 South Greeley Street, in the RB Duplex Residential District Marie Coyne, for Suburban Lighting, Applicant 5 Case No V/88-37 - Variance request to maintain existing 63 sq ft structure located on the property line (five ft setback required) at 823 West Anderson Street in the RB Duplex Residential District Neil Hanssen, Applicant 6 Case No PUD/88-29 - PUD Concept Plan for a 3 5 acre parcel to be used for commercial development and a 10 6 acre parcel for a 106 unit, three story apartment building on 61st Street at the future Frontage Road access road (behind Burger King in the Forest Hills/Frontage Road/South Greeley Area) in the Two Family Residential, RB, District Augustine Brothers, Applicants OTHER ITEMS 1 Sign Ordinance discussion 2 Letter to Metro Council on Wastewater Planning 3 Memo regarding review of hazardous/flammable waste in residential neighborhoods CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Date May 9, 1988 Time 7 00 p m Members Present Members Absent Gerald Fontaine, Chairman Glenna Bealka Nancy Putz Jean Jacobson Don Valsvik Rob Hamlin Judy Curtis Steve Russell, Comm Dev Director Mark Ehlenz Jay Kimble Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve the minutes of April 11, 1988 as submitted Motion carried 7-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No SUP/88-24 - Special Use Permit to conduct lawn and garden sales in a 1,600 square foot temporary greenhouse and outside area designated for this use at 2001 Washington Avenue North in the Industrial Park Commercial, IP-C District SuperValue Stores, Inc (Cub Foods), applicant Thomas Thueson representing Cub Foods presented the request The greenhouse will be used until June 19, the request is for subsequent years also Mr Thueson stated that the two recommended conditions of approval present no problem Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Rob Hamlin to approve the SUP/88-24 with the two recommended conditions and a third condition that the permit will apply to future years Motion carried 7-0 Case No. SUP/88-25 - Special Use Permit to fill and grade an approximate 2,000 foot road at 1250 South Main Street in the General Heavy Industrial/Two Family Residential/Bluffland/Shoreland/Flood Plain District Frank Aiple, Sr , presented the application Mr Russell explained the concerns of the DNR and the City's Public Works Department He is awaiting comments from the City Engineer Dan McGinnis from the Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Commission stated that he has no objection provided the area is stabilized so no erosion occurs There are two recommended conditions of approval and the Commission added a third and fourth 3) Any adjustments or repair to sewer line caused by the project would be the responsibility of the applicant 4) If the manholes need to be raised, the applicant would be responsible 1 w Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1988 Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Judy Curtis to approve Case No SUP/88-25 with four conditions Motion carried 7-0 Case No V/88-27 - Variance request to construct an eight foot fence (six feet required) at 203 West Hazel Street in the Single Family Residential, RA, District Richard A and Julie Edstrom, Applicants Mr Edstrom was present and explained that the request for an eight foot fence is to adequately screen his home from that of his neighbor He stated that the neighbor has no objection to the height of the fence The Commission discussed the rationale of the six feet requirement, and determined that only one neighbor will be affected by the fence Written consent from that neighbor would be a condition of approval A second condition would be that the fence be set back two to three feet from the property line for maintenance purposes Motion by Rob Hamlin, seconded by Don Valsvik to approve Case No V/88-27 with two conditions Motion carried 7-0 Case No SUP/88-28 - Special Use Permit to operate a furniture refinishing business at 111 South William Street in the Two Family Residential, RB, District Chris and Laura Fischer, Applicants The applicant explained that he wishes to operate a furniture refinishing business out of his garage He will pick up and deliver furniture and will not advertise the address of his business, and will therefore not generate additional traffic in the area Rob Hamlin discussed with the applicant the use of dangerous and flammable chemicals, and the proper disposal of toxic waste The applicant stated that he would take adequate safety measures, and will contact the PCA regarding regulations if required to do so Mr Russell stated that the building code would require adequate ventilation of the garage, and that all businesses are subject to yearly inspections by the Fire Department There are five recommended conditions of approval, the Commission suggested the addition of two more 6)The use of flammable and toxic materials and toxic waste should be approved by State and County agencies and the applicant will adhere to all regulations 7)Locks and security system will be installed Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve Case No SUP/88-28 with seven conditions Motion carried 6-1 (Rob Hamlin opposed) Case No PUD/88-29 - PUD Concept Plan for a 3 5 acre parcel to be used for commercial development and a 10 6 acre parcel for a 106 unit, three story apartment building on 61st Street at the future Frontage Road access road (behind Burger King in the Forest Hills/Frontage Road/South Greeley Area) in the Two Family Residential, RB, District Augustine Brothers, applicants 2 0' • Pliritiing Ctiturui5E iun M111hrtrE May 9, 1988 The applicant was not present Several area homeowners were present and Chairman Fontaine asked for their comments Maurice Jensen, Forest Hills resident, expressed his concern with the project's proximity to Forest Hills He is also concerned with the high density and the height of the proposed building He stated that residents would like more information on the aesthetic design and materials to be used, and also on the drainage plans Bob Morrow, 1601 Morningside, asked about plans for the greenbelt area between Forest Hills and the project The Commission members agreed with the residents that this is quality property and only quality buildings should be approved Mr Russell will communicate with the applicant regarding the stated concerns Motion by Rob Hamlin, seconded by Jean Jacobson to continue Case No PUD/88-29 until a response is received from the applicant Motion carried 7-0 Case No. SUP/88-30 - Special Use Permit requesting placement of two signs on the Grand Garaage Building, 324 South Main Street, in the General Commercial, CA, District One sign is a chimney sign (roof) sign, the other is an additional "major" face sign Estebans of Stillwater, Applicant Bob Tanner, owner of Estebans, presented the request The chimney sign will be illuminated by spotlights on the roof The Commission recommended two conditions 1) The chimney sign will not damage the brick on the chimney 2) No additional signage is permitted Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Judy Curtis to approve Case No SUP/88-30 with two conditions Motion carried 7-0 OTHER BUSINESS Mr Valsvik reported that the City Council, at its May 3 meeting, approved all cases as recommended by the Planning Commission Sign Ordinance - The Commission reviewed and discussed the first three sections of the new Sign Ordinance There was discussion of mandatory address signs, and guidelines for illumination of signs The Commission will discuss zoning changes at the next meeting Motion by Judy Curtis, seconded by Don Valsvik to adjourn the meeting at 9 15 p m Motion carried 7-0 Submitted by Shelly Schaubach Recording Secretary 3 • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO V/88-31 Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 1988 Project Location 1206 North Second Street Applicant Carol Ulrick Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Type of Application Variance Project Description Variance to construct an eight ft fence (six feet required) approximately six inches from the side property line (one ft required) Discussion The request is to construct an eight ft fence on the north side of the property The reason for the eight ft fence, rather than a six ft fence, is because the neighbor's property to the north is at a much higher grade Ms Ulrick would like to be screened from her neighbor as much as possible and feels a six ft fence would not adequately allow for the screening she would like A six ft gate will be constructed in the driveway at the building line There is adequate room between the gate and the sidewalk to park a car The eight ft fence will then run directly west to the back property line The fence will be constructed of treated lumber so it will have a minimal amount of maintenance The six inch setback is sought because Ms Ulrick feels that a one ft setback would cause maintenance problems between the fence and the neighbor's property line RECOMMENDATION Approval Findings The granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare Attachments - Planning Administrative Form - Map • illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM ANN PUNG-TERWEDO DATE JUNE 8, 1988 RE CASE NO V/88-31 I would like to inform the Commission that Ms Ulrick, who is requesting the variance for the eight foot fence, has had domestic problems (with Police involvement) with the neighbor to the north of her property This neighbor has been informed of the meeting and may attend Ms Ulrick informed me of these problems and would like the Commission to know that there may be a disturbance if this neighbor is at the meeting CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 , "11;;; ) iie i 4 --x-3-T,20-4,40:014 c(\ \I ‘ii—I'Prr-v-v:]_ icrez) -e--9-- td Qs' )( 42 rf)-wr-. i A. • :t 1CJ • • Case I`lumi7/r 0/2 .17 Fee Paid ____ Dc'a Filed _71/ PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM 3 - St-eet Location of P-operty LE (,ctl2JGc.o% k Lecal Dascription of Prop ertyi CN 40-"# 3 t Cwner Nc—� e Cam. 272 - a 01p /1) to 5-7' AG:.r255 Phone Aoolic;n+ (if other than owner) Nome Ada-ess Phone Type of Recuest ___ Rezon Dose -option of Reeuest Alefrsit I �-�-�- 1/ Da -a of Public Hearing •S,cetc1 of proposed prone_-'y and e,c")rp 10 -c :ea, snowing the iodlowing • 1 L. 3 _4 5 6 7 Nor*`i eirection. s LJ6-2A) /30 -/ F,Y7 a Y - a 4/ 1-17 ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Approval of Final Plat Signature of Applicant F s ructure to be arawn on bay 'o�:.. or a- ^��*e LOCa, on or. YiGpGScG� on lot. .+ - Di--ensions of front ane sine set -backs Direns,ons oz proposea structure Street nar-es Loca,..on or aciace-it e' s'.ng bt.uo1ngs Other in:or nation as may be reques-ea. pprovcd ___ Denied ___ by the Planning sublecl to the following conditions Commission t lo,Q,.,tk deo° o orgy 78 8 on (date) Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on sublet' to tl-e w�(1-4/-) following cond,t,ons Comments. (Use other side), 61,4 • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO V/88-32 Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 1988 Project Location 319 W St Croix Avenue Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicant's Name Jay Ludowese Type of Application Variance Project Description Variance to construct an attached garage approximately two ft from the side property line (five ft are required) The garage will therefore be approximately six ft three inches from the neighbor's residence (fifteen ft required) Discussion The request is for a variance to construct an attached garage The attached structure will be a single car garage approximately 14 ft by 14 ft This specific location of the garage is needed for accessibility into the house through the kitchen/dining area The Ludowese's also feel an attached garage would increase the value of their property Another reason for this specific location of the garage, is that the property slopes downward from the front to the rear yard The location of the garage would allow for less grading and less impact on the backyard There is concern about the six ft three inch distance from the neighbors living quarters to the west of the proposed garage The Ludowese's have discussed the project with these adjacent neighbors and have their signed approval to the construction of the garage Conditions of Approval 1 The runoff from the garage will not drain onto neighbor's property 2 A two hour firewall must be installed on the west wall RECOMMENDATION Approval Findings The granting of this variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings and that the same is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose ATTACHMENTS Map of the location of the garage Signatures of neighbor's consent rw CI L OF .1Ar STILLWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT 4i/7.y/a TJ4� _oNe ,�7 i o 3v,t, 4A.L 3,4 TrAci&A 6-4vacl To w[ST S, of EX),crovq l./uv SE A-i 3E9 w sr. G ,ke e 17 S C v s s- w 9 V i E �, o} .� ,.t 4cl v �r o��C s :� d.►.% cat 5,4 apo5-aD AiTA D 6.-Av.41E s► e 3,q w S,^ CKoi�o WL Cit7"- evrtaexi -44 323 w sr &t 4it • • 1-}vgo eve sS `J ' 1 'ri c, Kyle. SS i 3 o s A, 111'3 7*4 Sr (L t G NC e_Trem Form .1 8 Disi, 28 ► I)> -2--roos • • 9Sn01- rv11Sin� --•—•r arsai i.laadoycl 3►9 w sr eRrnx AA_ ADD oN N •1 313 w, sr ceo»c Ave srcoox no -z • a • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO SV/88-34 Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 1988 Project Location Willow Street west of North Second Street Comprehensive Plan District Residential Zoning District Single Family Applicant's Name Robert Troyer Type of Application Street Vacation Project Description Vacation of 110 feet of Willow Street west of North Second Street Discussion The request is to vacate a remaining 110x60 foot portion of Willow Street directly west of North Second Other sections of Willow have been vacated in the area The request has been referred to public utility companies for comments The City Engineer and Water Department indicate no utilities, or plans for utilities, in the right-of-way With the vacation, half of the right-of-way will revert to the Troyers (owner of the house on North Second and half to the City of Stillwater, owners of the park to the north) The applicant owns lands to the west along the right-of-way and plans to use the vacated area eventually for driveway access to the land Recommendation Approval Attachment Petition of vacation • • • PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC STREET THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY PETITION THAT ALL THAT PORTION OF K. J / oW ABUTTING LOTS J BLOCK `f `f GA -I -, 5‘11 -IE- 66-3 i ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF STILLWATER, HEREBY BE VACATED f'° 1 C- a l NAME ADDRESS Tto� P,-. —Ero- ! roE2 I?i9 J N yT'' _51 II,*ert. 51- 6 fi v4c,9+ 1Q& L Est • v r- C L U B rT 4 3 (fQ/OJEA VI9-c A+ orv- of tti 11 sr.-«fi 6 6 43 4 3 ALD ER St ST 6 5 R 39 2 6 6 4 42 3 4 3 6 0 Q 3 4 P ,4 3 6 1 1 30 4 I 3 0 k 3 Z • iA-2. E I 5 / 1 15 C^/3 .. frA Ail 1 S1 4 (TRo76(Z) / / Lt- �p l , k o Lot I 4 vA<<atc I sr — (TRo)/O /////I1 c'"‘ s 4S t A c r a1ock 1, G 1y PA,k (6. ) � t----,_ 1 ////////_, 16 S' % 0 i • t o-- O i l l u '-- 0 A'41'1 h+r / l e o / //i/1" / /le / pck,4Y / r SY M i Mk ,60..E b loa.cr .. Cq-I 5+.1. f __ lief() r "to T A<— c- 1'y o f Cy/oc.ices Yy YS '7"6 n--writ,) 1 v die • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO SUP/88-36 Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 1988 Project Location 919 West Anderson Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicant's Name Marie Coyne, Suburban Lighting Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A Special Use Permit for the placement of directional signs for Lakeview Memorial Hospital and St Croix Valley Clinic Discussion The request is to add new directional signs for Lakeview Memorial Hosptial and St Croix Valley Clinic The medical faciliites have had concerns over emergency victims and vehicles locating the emergency entrance to the hospital Many people have gone to the main entrance of the hospital looking for the emergency room because the signs on Greeley Street do not adequately direct them to the correct entrance The following is an overview of the placement, size and color of the signs on the hosptial/clinic property 1 Sign A will be located on the Northeast corner of West Anderson and Greeley Streets The sign will give direction to the emergency entrance clinic and main entrance A-1 and A-2 stand for the different sign faces on one sign The directional arrows must be different according to which direction one is traveling on Greeley Street It will be a black, blue and white sign The sign will be approximately ten ft high and six ft wide 2 Sign C will be lcoated on the Southeast corner of Greeley and Churchill Strets Sign face C-1 will give directin to the main entrance and patient/visitor entrance Sign face C-2 will give direction to the emergency receiving and main entrance and patient/visitor entrance It will be a blue, black and white sign 3 Sign B will be changes in the color of an existing sign from a brown to a white background This sign is located at the emergency entrance All signs wil be internally illuminated All signs will be located on Lakeview Memorial Hospital and St Croix Valley Clinic property • • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 The placement of signs A and C will interfere Churchillthe Streets and circulation of traffic on Greeley, Anderson 2 The signs will be constructed in such a manner that will stand up to possible vandalism 3 A plan showing where the electricity will run to the signs 4 A map showing the height and specific placements of all signs so sign setbacks may be determined Recommendation Approval Findings The granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings Attachments - Map of the locations of signs - Drawings of signs tuJ • • • Case Number au 3 _ _ 6 Fee Paid Date Filed __‘_/-34e.? PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property 9/9 W I4 k7 Cie j v► Jed Legal Description of Property: l.-a kevieN/ Memorial /lei _p& / Address £ J 7 w' !�-hder�oh led Phone __ 39-533-a Applicant Of other than owner). Name _. 1'L/ I"�1Zd2' Address &12Z7 Lao 1 /fve t / Phone Owner Name Type of Request: ___ Rezoning r �° ` _ :=_ Approval _of_Preliminary Plat -- . Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat am. __ Variance ___ Other Description of Request _1)1 fleet -tong) 591.5 For h05,p rizi1 -t c infer fee attached /o u t mqLD Signature of Applicant. __. Date of Public Hearing NOTE Sxet& of proposed property and structure to be drawn on back -of this form or at- a _ tacnea, showing the following 1 North direction. 2 Location of proposed structure on lot. 3 Dimensions of front and side set -backs 4 Dimensions ot proposed structure 5 Street names 6 Location of adjacent easting buildings _z ti - 7 Other inzormation as may be reques`ed - = __ 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). • Az_ _ 4ky)____ C z. 519 '15 For_ _Lathe view Monona' _ HCFFi fa_I X31-1- NEON - 7"x3LJ_ NEDN " EME 6-E/V C y _ N ENTR/ocE , r _ c r V.1 j �� t 'rg k4.4 rig `"1,4 r T r "WI a i , r w` ` ` w`t T+ys' ✓ # x 7 �� 9� 'h C. .yam 3 r 1; fi2 YX 1, �, EtoERGENCYc ," �� s uiaMA1N ENr�ANCE;�r �"za,;1, ;� r ._ � o'r. _- two ..�-,.�. H K£CE I VI N 6 � '-.;,��.v PAVE N TL _ V I $ I TO �'�L 61_ 4i 14 EMERGENCY �i - x r Clie y� ? y ryTs nl b yr� l�%�,J+ ,h S,y1„ 3" 5 ,� j, 1 4 �� rn t�� c4 rrt�x'r S � 71k i .«-- Lrt 3$. 445.)2r K� 'yt ,� > 1 < A}o - - ,,r 44' f �4 NlY .,wih - a^-r r i -�'� . `r N r rh �s � RECEI %ONFL 'n s '� Yi. 4 r 5 1 S.h- �'" l� Lexah- - -Faces w�f� poles ---- E-NTRANCE PATIENT - v15ITOP. _ `7_Ix(OI Lexam „ ENlEeGENCY `j -" Fa C e - - - - H ,PECC/ I/MG— (_j (4 MAIN ENTRAN C�' PATIENT = li/S/TOj- _ j/ t`2 _ role,s - pole he/yht v/// be 6 - what- - /5_ a ///o wed deter/nined 13./14 , c q/oLAnol, WkkIfe totter l� TI i 0 { 11V 7 f T 1 �11 i 'ems[ 24 k .J A -I • 1\ • .66 6 r, t` 1 t `C • >l`$.4GRE LEI '0 Lt WYashznyz o iz 3/6 03 _ Park. 6" WATsQ MA/N /934- /8 ✓CO Ih 5 n 6 7 • 3 -8 ✓. cP 8 v - f _ /65 65' Leinge_ 5116,N7 Se0 05 V 3 _ 50 oS a _ 5o.oS ^ _ / _ P• L - 4 - - - 3 y _ 2 - _ a __ _r 8 _ _ _ _ o h 9 - _ ._ ____ 2 _ 4 go 05 5 So oS 6 Z 56 o5 s 6 12 _ _ 7 8 - h I /I to /b979 e. \¢ ® T I (' WA7 .e 4 7A/4/ /9/,S I y 4 .1 (7 l� IWEST .2_90 _ =YSo -_ c--- f _ _ - =5 .50 05 3 .50.05 2 zz 5005 / �I�� 7" 1 I bo 011, 4 5o 3• 0 I y 6 44. 0 7 8 9 to 6" J4/4 TER MA/N /9 /c.. 36 0 -6 5 4- 11. - 3- 2 = 1 7 8 9 /o // I " (4,47 rEe /N / 9/5 960 S R" ✓.CP ANDERS ON SO So Grp - So 5o 50 6 5 4 3 a 1 • • Red Getters wh te Bacrouhd 741" tt- 5 s � 1 y f {r 4 n 7✓ J + 7 b t d r 4d« Al i,C /ye. Z5aci911 ,S/ Le //ors 0 L_11 L_1 Oro wh Letter5/ /1/ki to 50ciryilouh0/ 0 BM e- Bac re, ti110 l lii tte_ e L � (.O 0 O A Pc. �J 'J l x 4 _1 1 L I1 Bmiv, Le7fe, White 5arie9rean • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO V/88-37 Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 1988 Project Location 823 West Anderson Street Zoning District RB-Duplex Residential Applicant's Name Neil Hanssen Type of Application Variance Project Description Variance for location of two level storage shed playhouse on rear and side property lines Discussion The application is to make legal the existing two level accessory structure currently located on the rear and side property lines The existing condition was brought to our attention by the neighbor located on the corner of Hancock and Everett The zoning regulations require a five foot rear and sideyard setback for accessory structures located in the rear yard The existing location is closer to the Johnson structure than what is allowed in the ordinance As described in the letter of application, other locations closer to Everett Street in conformance to zoning, would have a greater visual impact than the Johnson house However, it appears difficult to make a finding for the variance (attached) based on information provided Recommendation Denial Attachment Application • • • Necessary Findings (a) There are special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or buildings (b) For reasons set forth fully in the findings, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings and that the same is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose (c) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare In addition to considering the character and use of adjoining land and buildings and those in the vicinity, in making such finding, the City Council shall take into account the number of persons residing or working in such buildings or upon such land and traffic conditions in the area among other considerations Case Number 17il34_ ,, f_ p/ z)/jl(1ty „ Fee Paid --- -R�'" SN�V �iTl�UGy.� n�• 3c. Dee Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM S.'eet Location of Property 73kco,de's ,Mf,,Zia"; tiL0N C1- 2B2S—GGao Legal Doscrip'ion of P-opeerty: Gwr er Nc— e _ Ac::'ess e_s3-292',d ✓ 0e2_�2��_ Phone yi7 1?6 7 Apoliccnt (if other than owper) Address Type of Reauest Ncne ___ Rezoning ___ Special Usa Permit .- Variance Desc- pt.en of Request e. Phone • ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Approval of Final Plat ___ Other Signature of Applicant. 1.71c1:73 De:e of Public Hearing NO= of pr000sed proper`', and structure to be arawn snowing the ioi.lowing 1 North airection. 2. Loca:.on o. ?noosed s ant..=e o- lot 3 Dinensions at front ana siae set-oac'ks 4 Dine*is.ons o: proposea structure 5 Ste nares 6 Loca.ion o: aciacent a'is .ng bi.ua.ngs 7 Other in:ornation as may be reques-ea. Approved ___ Dented ___ by the Planning Commission on Snetc tacaea, subiee to the following conditions on bacx o� this zor or �\ k4��. L `L JUN 1988 Uir crPir �,:00, 'rr Y1�StF��' l J u'- `'� ,ti i • .- 7_,� •0". (data) Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on sublecl to t:-e following cond.tions Comments. (Usa other side), • • June 3, 1988 To Whom It May Concern I would like to request a variance on the existing structure located at 823 Anderson Street (please refer to the attached drawing) This request is in response to a letter written to me dated May 16, 1988 from Minnie P Johnson and Greg Johnson requesting that I move the existing playhouse/storage structure form its present location Mr Steve Russell, Zoning Administrator for the City of Stillwater, has a copy of this letter I have also attached a copy of the letter To assist you in making your decision on this matter I would like to provide you with some history regarding the existing location of the structure Due to some remodeling I was planning on for my kitchen it was going to be necessary for me to remove my existing storage shed I had two possible locations for a new shed with a playhouse addition The primary location (see attached drawing) was in compliance with the City code but presented two potential problems Its location would have been offensive to Minnie Johnson in that it would be seen from all windows in the front of her house The other problem was that Everett narrows at this point and the structure might create a diversionary glance by a motorist hence causing a potentially serious accident The ideal location was the secondary location but, this would require placing the structure on the property line as an existing foundation was already in place in the form of a brick wall Another advantage is that this location was hidden from direct view by either of the neighbors Because of this I needed permission from the Johnson's and the Finnegan's to locate the structure on this site I received verbal permission from both parties and began construction in May of 1987 Because I did not want my neighbors to have to look at an unsightly structure I designed it to blend in with the architecture of my existing house (see photographs) Everything seemed to be fine until, one year later, I received the letter from the Johnson's asking me to move the structure in five feet from each line Their letter indicates that everything would have been fine had I not listed my house for sale Unfortunately, the company I have been employed by for 19 years has decided to relocate our division to Austin, Texas As much as we hate to leave Stillwater, from a financial and employment standpoint, we don t have any other options It goes without saying, the playhouse was built prior to our being told about the relocation •Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated If you require further information please contact me at 439-1767 Best Regards, l-2,,,,A-L_ • May 16, 1988 Minnie P Johnson Greg Johnson 1015 S Everett St Stillwater, Minn 55082 Mr & Mrs Nell Hanssen 823 We,t Anderson Street Stillwater MinnFseta Dear Mr & Mrs Hanssen In an effort to maintain a friendly atmosphere in the neighborhood, we have not heretofor complained about the location of the play house you built last fall near the boundary of our common lot line But since you now have listed your property for sale, we respectfully request that you move the play house to conform to the city setback requirements which we believe to be five (5) feet from all lot lines Please contact Mr Steve Russell, Zoning Administrator for the City of Stillwater if you have questions about city ^,IPs We will send him a copy of this letter and in the belief that all prospective buyers should be informed, we also will notify the listing agent, Mr Gary Tauer Your neighbors Sincerely„ MinijW P Johnson on Greg Johnson (joint owners) • ANDERSON STREET NORM EVERETT STREET to HANSSEN HOUSE b _el. Jr •y `Ws*, (1 ` a, . . I F PRIMARY LOCATION LOT LINE —* SECONDARY LOCATION —) ( EXISTING ) i erli J• rr)11 J u■ 1 Li LOT LINE 7 X 9 JOHNSON HOUSE HANCOCK STREET • • 823 ANDERSON ST FROM EAST TO WEST PRIMARY LOCATION FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Ir • i, —tea:, x ♦ _ ---• Ham.}..ArC'., .. T_ — • FROM WEST TO EAST • FROM NORTHWEST TO SOUTHEAST • • • iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE JUNE 7, 1988 SUBJECT PUD CONCEPT APPROVAL FOR 106 UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON 10 6 ACRES LOCATED IN BRICK POND PLAN AREA BACKGROUND This application was heard at the Commission meeting May 9, 1988 and continued indefinitely to give the applicant the opportunity to respond to the concerns expressed at that meeting by the Commission and Forest Hills neighborhood Staff was directed to write a letter to the applicant describing concerns Staff wrote the attached letter and discussed the concerns with the applicant In response, the architect submitted the attached letter dated June 6, 1988 The applicant will be at the Commission meeting to further describe the development concept and discuss the project ATTACHMENTS Applicants letter - June 6, 1988 Letter to applicant dated May 11, 1988 Planning Commission Staff report - May 9, 1988 CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • • ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 331 6887 June 6, 1983 TO Cyt j o1 St 11 / .'or Still a C_t r 11 216 _To_ tr, T_ e�� 550_2 lug Lt�_ E Bic t,n.,_ s :UD Cori unity Develo.Lre _t Director Stet' I eJ S. Russell Dear IIc. Rvs�ell T_is letter is in rer1,7- to cur Tray 11, 12.83 letter re;, ^ding tee *meting of the Co1_4.ission. ola Iay 10, 1988 Gihicri I did not .itten1 b.c_u e I dicl _eceive notice until May 11, 1988 because t i3 zip coda on the letter r2, 55415 iilsce a of 55414. The folio, in-; is in �3 1� to concerrs ex2 re5sed b;, the 21an.-.1_rig ccr;Lliss,on 1. DENSITY To� -1 1azd di zg st_�ets d.rea is 588.0' 660.0' 1 _ 295.0'. Trite a tot�l rea of 483,065.0 S. F. or 11.097 _cres9 diviaed. by 106 units is 9.552 miits/acre. De.J.SitJ allot ed is 8.7 DU/acre so d,:.zsi t,y is e_>oee,..s.cl b,, .852 ui_L is/acre. A.. Tot 1 o ildin coT er is 49,218 S. F. Tot_1 land area is 463,355 S. F. Br.tildin; cover is 10.2% of total -roi _ad coy B. Tt e re qne 5t is for 106 units, re_so.i.s for ,i ri c h rill oe further ems. 2lained in t lis letter. C. Future 61st Street North is not necessi.ry to t-is devel„irzs±:t, 61st Street easeLrnt s^o ula be added to the y,ark area to the earth with a tot41 for the park of 3.212 acres. D. 61st street ITorth Trca11 Je a bus/ street in front of the l?ro , ec t ;enei .. ting very eavy traffic •ru.ich would be a nwzard to i __s de-Teioln:ent 2.nd the leif,hoonccod to the north. C. .,.i _lte_n_te plen for the flops of traTfis must oe 1 of 3 ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 391 6887 June 6, 1986 lugustin_ Bros. PJD C. co: 1 t'_'ed. D. 'l.i 1 ( t t v U.L. L J �_ _ _ Yo. 2t Ll-t rill i D _ 11 ] �uLt th3 Jk It Jl _ ` ee 2un-o...= in the =_tea, tr1Lt„> u size of iC,, no i__l� rona. E. The 103 DJ dens.Aj of t.ls ,ro ject rill f 'vc r0 1.1,,:ct on the _nei3hoorL cod to the north Jec_use 10 No traffic is ,eneritea tarot,3a the reighoorhood. 20 The 3.212 acres of green are 2 can be pl.ented ,rith evel.gr oeas 'cc ma_:e in ev3rsroen forest e3 J. vis tel and acou:.ticol oL,ffer Jet teen 'he ei thoornood to Z1 e north and t-e '.r ..rti ent corillex. 0. 1'03 t s..tr__..3c runoff would )e oefol'e rL:o"i_ig tie hcld.1__; _pond. 4. T _e rond fro ld Jec ome dta 1nt 3,3 ^_.l ,art of this forest- ed -Me_.. 5. kl1 outaoor 3ctivi ty for rtLLeLit residents is off t le ItriLtr- to tr_e soL try. r . truenitie3 end 106 DU dens 1tj 1. F1cuse refer to 2.pi'i1 ,_,8ta letter to Cit,; Co-odinator rlr. Nile Zriesel, Item B - Inacor .1.menities and Item 0 - Outdoor zr.le Titles. Cot j att_o hed. 2. These .1 -acnities Qr.,atlj lncreaoe project cost out .=_e eos:nti_,l for sucessful re1_t-L.p and -ttractin6 1ualitj te_)nants. 3. RenLs must oe cor;etitive. i mi _iriit11 of 106 Gaits rill sa„ort t-'ese .r.ietitles end Kee,y tre rents coilretitive. 2. BU' LDiTT0 1. Building nelvht to t ne e r-1a e of i,he sotf it is 27 ft. r'.ich is 8 ft. less than the required ordinance. B. The building nas as aspn-lt shingle roof with a 5/12 Ditch nc ping uHe height of the ouildinlz at the ridge 42 ft. 3. B7Ir'1ITT ILT:3I113 See mj letter of -12ril 28, 19E8, Item D - Ecterior Materials. • • • 2 of 3 • Li • — r "OW • A ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 331 6887 Jude 6, 1968 r J'J J V _ t The 3-os. t -J 1 b f,- t cL e t � 1 Cora)le <<lta Of t e _naccr JL tLLCot —2zi11 J3B lndlc;..tea lit t tie 2i, 1?oS le.ttet to N.C. Kriesel. B. or too project to Je econor_13 11, 2eJslble, and. tae ;eiats cor;etitie the �,rojec,t i,ust cont-tin 3, minimum of 106 units in oraer to sort o11 of me indoor all outdoor :rneniti lndic _ted. C. Tre success of the ,aroject is aei)endent on good. mad_ , nalntenance res2cct..ale te_r lint:. 11 tea,.L:nts t1111 be tuoroL<sol,j screened. D. 61st Street }aorta eaae'n3nt r LA=t be ellr_in...ted o.r_d iwrk area lncre._sed. 3 of 3 0 • • THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA May 11, 1988 Albert Lawrence Hoffmeyer AIA 1039 18th Avenue S E Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Mr Hoffmeyer Last evening the City of Stillwater Planning Commission reviewed the Pondview Estates Planned Unit Development application Commissioners expressed concern that the applicant or his representative was not present but discussed the request because several people had come to speak on the request 0 After discussing the application, the Planning Commission directed me to notify you of their concerns Concerns expressed by the Commission were regarding project density Net developable area with road easements taken results in a 13+ DU/Acre density, 8 7 is allowed in the RB Zoning District The height of the building exceeds the 35 ft height limit for the district This was a concern The Commission would like to have more building material detail shown on the plans The drainage pond areas appears to be less than what was shown in a previous drainage plan for the area Justification for the reduced area should be provided After discussing the project, the Planning Commission continued the PUD request indefinitely until the concerns are addressed by the applicant_ Should you have questions regarding the letter or meeting, give me a call at 439-6121 Sincerely, epf{en S Russell Community Development Director c c Augustine Brothers CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO PUD/88-29 Planning Commission Meeting May 9, 1988 Project Location 61st Street (Forest Hills/Frontage Road/South Greeley Area) Comprehensive Plan District Zoning District Applicant's Name Augustine Brothers Type of Application PUD Concept Plan Project Description PUD Concept Plan for a 3 5 acre parcel to be used for commermcial development and a 10 6 acre parcel for a 106 unit, three story apartment building DISCUSSION The 3 5 acre parcel will be used for an unspecified commercial use The 10 6 acre parcel will be a luxury three story, 106 unit apartment building with such amenities as a 75 ft swimming pool, whirlpool, a three story glass enclosed atrium, an indoor garden, exercise roo, saunas, daycare center and community room (See attached memo for full list ) Outdoor recreational features will include two tennis courts, a large children's play area shuffle board, and a putting green to name a few Also, a jogging trail will be placed around the property SEH did a feasibility report on this area to provide a street net plan for the area as well as a utility plan The report covers providing trunk sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and streets for future development The City Engineer will be consulted on the street plan and utility plan and how it relates to this apartment complex Landscaping The site and landscape plan states that 1 All existing trees will remain on site or transplanted wherever possible to keep the aesthetic natural qualities of the site 2 Spruce trees will be placed around the edges of the site to create a buffer zone from existing or future commercial or residential sites Setbacks All setback requirements have been met • • • Parking and Circulation The total parking spaces provided for the development is 238 cars This will provide two parking spaces per unit plus 26 additional spaces for visitor parking There is no landscaped buffer areas shown in the lot although this is not required, it may be recommended for aethetic purposes Density The complex will have 106 units on 10 519 acres of property, (including the dedicated City Park) Therefore, there will be 9 88 units per acre Height The height of the apartment complex is three stories (40 ft ) from grade The height regulation for a Two Family, RB District is 2 1/2 stories (35 ft ) Open Space/Park Dedication The apartment complex is on 10 519 acres of land The land dedication on the North side of the property for the City Park (1 52 acres) includes the pond The residents of Forest Hills previously made an agreement with the City that this area would remain a green, open space buffer zone Pedestrian Circulation No sidewalks are shown from the parking lot to the apartment complex except where entrances have direct access Staff Comments Comments by the City Engineer have not been received The Water Department has concerns over where the water hook-up will be Public Works commented that 61st Street met width regulations The site plan, however does not show utility easements Not Included in Site Plan 1 No lighting plan for the site was submitted 2 Signage or location of signs on the site was not included ACTION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISISON Review the Concept Plans for the Pondview Apartment Complex for recommendation • • ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 331 6887 kpril 28, 1988 TO City of Sti-lw :e, Still rat, er Ci t,l, i ll 210 TTorth ctk St^eet rT e:Iot- 55082 PE PUD for tr e E 1 j - ' 11/4-3E1/4 9nd W1/2-E1/2 bE1/ 4-b'1/-. ELcert the south 350 feet and the E_st 333 feet of :.aid 1Y1/4.-E1/2 3E1/4-S111/4 all in bection 33 T30NR :0,d. (A.usustine Property) _TTN City Co-ordin._tor Mr. bile Kriesel Deer III.. Kriesel D-is letter is part of the applic-t1on on oenalf of the Au,,usti Ze Brothers for a FUD so they caY_ develop their pro,.ertj as E_cpee itiuusly as 2ossible A. S IBDI1IS ION 1. The b / section of the rrcr,erty borderi,ig 60th Street North will be a 3.5 acre parcel to ue used for commercial development. 2. 0n the rem;..n_,ns 10 6 acres will oe e 106 luxury three st ry elevator apartment c om2le r with the following a. UNIT COUNT 98 ts,o B. P'. units 2 one B. R. units 6 efficiency units 106 total units 1134 sq. ft. averase 864 sq. ft 475 sq. ft. 30 units open into tnree storj glass atrium and indoor 2,.._rden. -1.11 third floor units L. 7e vautled cei 1_ngs. 29 to rd floor units - 2 B.R., 2 bathrooms hi.v two i_y energy efficient firepl ce bet 'een living room and diLias room. 111 ground floor units h ,Te ya=.tio s . The rern____LL_Lng aaits n_ve oalconies. • • • ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 9316887 3e 2 _.us-ustine orotners PTD con't 3. I��L �� _ a IT IL 1. 75 111_ 001 .1d i1r1:001 i t e t r_um 2. T re ; i 'door L: red tl_ul _ t fo .2.-sor_ 3. Exerci_e room. 4. ITe as __act ,omeiaS s, un�.s 5 Co,.,..1—itj room acid comru,lty Kitchea. Community room San De divided into three rcorus' by fold�_l� partitions. Each room is 2,2 ft. x 36 ft. 6. Irts C r-_ is room 7. lo_'_.sbop. 8. ��,c�,e seater. 9. Try sh chutes elnrtding into tree pickup _nd erj room comma ctors in the e_Ut _nl ,est ,inks on the ;rou.ad floor. 10. Year rouna forced a.'r tin _lad cooling tem in e.,_c n unit. 11. 120 car underground g_rge with. 4 ±t. x 9 ft. storage room _i front of each c~r stall. Ia the ,,_,rage are taro =r '+ ashes. 12. I.a,..imurn 30 old C o ltrol. 13. Lobby <2nd elevator in each tang. (Three) 14. Six Laundry rooms. Tiro each. floor. 15. Pickup aild delivery room is each gyring for moving etc. • • • ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 331 8887 lagL tlne oro t' e,s PUD Cont'd C . OUT D0O? �T SIT IT IES 1. Tiro an is courts. 2. L._r cr _1d l:„T _ �ea. 3. S'ufile r)o __d. 4. Baroe'Le. 5. Horsesicoe. 6. PLhttlrs. 3reen. 7. Jogging -od.th - half r1l.1e foL._d. 8. s_rLLen 1ots. 9. 'Zaximui, l�ndsc�„in; frith ston transyl,.ilting and �reservl�� .:.s r ?n,j of lie t:i es s i ossiole. D. I:,TER I') IL' T I :ZS 1. Bricic and Stucco \!a_1S. 2, Clad ,food s and atrium doors. 3. Cedar trim. 4. 240# sal' sealing as;aa.lt shingle roof 5. T �ri)talsis on mal nteil: ce free mc.Lerl 1s. E ? LDK DEDIC .TI0N 1. 1 5 acres (100f t. x 660 ft.) of land on south side. 2. .8 aces (1151-t. x 300 ft. ) of land on north side. 3. 2.3 acres total. Each lark- to hatie o lar:e )ond. • • • ALBERT LAWRENCE HOFFMEYER ARCHITECT AIA 1039 18TH AVENUE S E MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55414 TELEPHONE 3316887 ::),Se 4 �uoLstine brothers PUD cont'd F. IT T J'3T; OF PI: ', ITC I= T, I T1-S T II" L TD 51T D F I 1_110 I. 1 1. T_e ti_ie borthe s o Hi the land to -, o 1-) � t Ly _dlt c, s', ?folios ed lc_ te, r, f-n?-0 i11: rill `ye tnru 'r co _ie.ational sources. S• 1. T,i J.s is 3 deluxe rental apartment complex which 1,7i11 rent _ t h,ar Let rates and the develo2 rs feel t'le_ e s need. for sacra s. c oriple,. in S t. 11 r a to r. 2. Comr2encerent of con_strlaction is scheduled for the fall of 1988 with comiletion scheduled for Sinof 1989. If Ju n ve , j further questions re sting t^_s -ro ject, please feel free to contact me. S ITT O ITIE V J L VV q.LBIiRT L. -1 I R • i 1 Id . , . . Ni\l' . - Tht e r THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM PLANNING STAFF DATE JUNE 9, 1988 RE SIGN ORDINANCE Please review the remaining sections of the new Sign Ordinance for comment CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • • • 7 Signs for commercial uses with Special Use Permit Signs should minimize impact on surrounding residential area 8 Bed and Breakfast signs with a Special Use Permit PERMITTED SIGNS BY A SIGN PERMIT IN CA DISTRICT For all uses, only the following signs are hereby permitted with a sign permit 1 All commercial, office, and industrial signs Downtown Stillwater are subject to the following conditions A Wall Signs (1) Number There shall be not more than one (1) wall sign for each principal building except that where the building abuts two (2) or more streets, additional such signs, one (1) oriented to each abutting street, shall be permitted (2) Area The gross surface area of a wall sign shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the area of the building wall to which it will be attached, including doors and windows (a) Consists only of individual, outlined alphabetic, numeric, and/or symbolic characters with background (3) Location A wall sign shall not project more than sixteen (16) inches from the wall to which the sign is to be affixed (4) Height A wall sign shall not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is to be affixed or fifteen (15) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever is lower (5) Special Conditions Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more permitted uses, the operator of each such use may install a wall sign for their particular use A sign plan must be submitted for the entire building with the following requirements a The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the building wall to which the signs will be attached b The location, sizes, types, and elevations of all signs c All signs shall be visually consistent in design, color, and scale • • • B Monument Signs (1) Number There shall be no more than (1) monument sign for a principal building and shall not have more than two (2) faces (2) Area The area of a monument sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet (3) Location A monument sign shall be located in any required yard but shall have a setback of fifteen (15) feet from any point of vehicular access, public roadway, or property line (4) Height A monument sign shall not project higher than six (6) feet, as measured from the base of sign or grade of the nearest roadway, whichever is lower (5) Landscaping The area around a monument sign shall be landscaped C Awning, Canopy (1) Number There shall be no more than one (1) awning or canopy sign for each principal building (2) Area The gross surface of an awning or canopy sign shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the gross surface area of the smallest face of the awning or canopy to which such sign is to be affixed (3) Height Awning signs must be no less than seven feet above the grade when overhanging the public right-of-way and shall not project beyond two fee inside the curb line (4) Awning signs or signs may not extend beyond, or cannot be attached to, the underside of the awning D Three Dimensional Sign (1) The total area of a three dimensional sign shall be determined by enclosing the largest cross section of the sign in an easily recognized geometric shape and computing its area shall not exceed nine (9) square feet E Projecting Signs (1) Number There shall be not more than one (1) projecting sign for each building except where the building abuts two (2) or more streets, additional such signs, one (1) orientated to each abutting street shall be permitted (2) Area The gross surface area of a projecting sign shall not exceed nine (9) square feet for each exposed face • • • (3) Height Projecting signs must be no less than nine feet above grade The top of the sign may not be higher than the bottom of the sills of the first level of windows above the first story and not higher than the lowest point of the roof or parapet of a one story building - (4) A projecting sign must be hung at right angles from a building face and shall not project beyond a point two feet inside the curb line and not more than four feet six inches from the building face PERMITTED SIGNS BY A SIGN PERMIT IN ALL IP DISTRICTS All commercial, office and industrial signs in all IP Districts are subject to the following conditions A Wall Signs (1) Number There shall not be more than one (1) wall sign for each building except where the building abuts two (2) or more streets, additional such signs, one (1) oriented to each abutting street shall be permitted (2) Area The gross surface area of a wall sign shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the area of the building wall, including doors and windows, to which the sign is to be affixed or two hundred (200) square feet, whichever is smaller The gross surface area of a wall sign may be increased to twenty (20) percent, except that the gross surface area of the sign shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet, if such wall sign (a) consists only of individual, outlined alphabetic, numeric, and/or symbolic characters without background except provided by the building surface to which the sign is to be affixed, and (b) if illuminated, such illumination is achieved through shielded silhouette lighting, or shielded spot lighting but not any lighting where the light source is visible or exposed on the face or sides of the characters (3) Location A wall sign may be located on the outermost wall of any principal building but shall not project more than sixteen (16) inches from the wall to which the sign is to be affixed The location and arrangement of all wall signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department (4) Height A wall sign shall not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is be be affixed or twenty (20) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is to be affixed, whichever is lower • (5) Special Conditions Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more permitted uses, the operator of each such use may install a wall sign upon his/her proportionate share of the building wall to which the sign is to be affixed A sign plan must be submitted for the entire building with the following requirements a The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the building wall to which the signs will be attached b The locations, sizes, types and elevations of all signs c All signs shall be visually consistent in design, color and scale B Ground Signs (1) Number There shall not be more than one (1) ground sign for each principal building (2) Area The gross surface area of a ground sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet for each exposed face nor exceed an aggregate gross surface area of two hundred (200) square feet (3) Location A ground sign may be located in any required yard with a ten (10) foot setback from the property line for a non -illuminated sign and a twenty-five (25) foot setback from the property line for an illuminated sign (4) Height A ground sign shall not project higher than fifteen (15) feet, as measured from base of sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever is lower C Awning, Canopy (1) Number There shall not be more than one (1) awning or canopy, or sign exceeding an aggregate gross surface area of four (4) square feet for each principal building Awning and canopy signs which are four (4) square feet or less in aggregate gross surface area are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance (2) Area The gross surface area of an awning, canopy, or marquee sign shall not exceed fifty (5) percent of the gross surface area of the smallest face of the awning, canopy or marquee to which such sign is to be affixed (3) Location A sign may be affixed to or located upon any awning canopy, or marquee The location and arrangement of all such signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Building (4) Height An awning, or canopy sign shall not project higher than the top of the awning or canopy to which such sign is to be affixed • • • Permit Required All signs which require a sign permit shall be filed with the Planning Department with a fee of twenty-five (25) dollars The minimum information with regard to the sign proposal including - (1) A drawing of the proposed sign showing dimensions and describing materials, lettering, colors, illumination, and support systems (2) A drawing of the building face and site plan showing the location of the proposed sign on the site or building Special Use Permit Signs which do not conform to the regulations of this section shall file for a Special Use Permit which will receive Planning Commission and City Council review with the following information requested (1) A drawing of the proposed sign, or signs, showing dimensions, and describing materials, lettering, colors, illumination and support systems (2) Photographs of the building face and the building faces of both adjacent buildings (3) A drawing of the building face and site plan showing the location of the proposed sign (4) A cross-section of the building face showing how the sign will be attached (5) Any pictorial proof or other information that the sign is of historical significance or is reproduction of an historic sign (6) A sign program for a building with more than one use, including all signs Non -Conforming Uses (1) Non -conforming sign uses that are lawful on the date of the adoption of this ordinance shall have rights outlined in Chapter 31 01, Subd 9 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to their alternation, extension, restoration and abandonment (2) Any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be guilty of a misdemeanor (3) This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the passage and publication according to law • • • TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM PLANNING STAFF DATE JUNE 8, 1988 RE HAZARDOUS/FLAMMABLE WASTES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS When a citizen opens a business in a residential neighborhood and produces hazardous/flammable wastes (such as furniture refinishing businesses, garage repair etc ) the following authorities must be contacted 1 The County/State Health Department 2 The local Fire Department 3 The local Building Official 4 Planning Department The County strictly regulates how waste materials will be stored They must be stored in approved sealed containers and disposed in such a manner, approved by them, so it will not have a detrimental affect on the environment The Fire Department and Building Official reviews the business by determining if fire walls and additional ventilation are needed because of the waste material produced They also determine if foul odors may be produced The case of Chris Fischer's furniture refinishing business is a good example After Mr Fischer applied for his Special Use Permit to operate his furniture refinishing business, he contacted and met with the County and Gordy Seim, Stillwater Fire Chief He also received comment from Alan Zepper, the Building Official There were conditions of approval placed on Mr Fischer's Special Use Permit which pertained to the flammable/hazardous material They include 1 The use and disposal of flammable and toxic materials shall be approved by the Fire Department, Building Inspection, County and State required authorities 2 The garage shall be secured from general public access 3 The north wall of the garage must be a two hour fire wall 4 The garage must be properly ventilated 5 The Fire Department will make an inspection of the garage with all codes met before the business may open 6 The business will have a six month review • • • Ay May 31, 1988 Wallace Abrahamson, Mayor City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mayor Abrahamson Q0 tarp C\ cis N C t r Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Rooert Streets A., St Paul Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291 6359 Thank you for your comments on our Draft of the Wastewater Policy Plan Your comments and those of other cities and interested parties will be studied and used in our process for preparing the final plan When the staff has prepared a response to all the comments received, we send a copy to you before the Council's Systems Committee deliberates on the staff proposed changes I would like to reassure you now, however, about your concern regarding growth projections for Stillwater and the design of the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant The staff tells me that the figures sent to the City on Feb 29, 1988, will be used in designing the plant capacity As for the year 2010 forecast, this is a very rough, but necessary, attempt at portraying what might be for the purpose of metropolitan system development Official Council population, household and employment forecasts will be prepared in approximately five years when the results of the 1990 Census are available to us The Council will then revise its Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework after which local units of government will be asked to review their own plans You should also note that the Wastewater Policy Plan will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, every five years If you or yo.ir staff have aly Lurt iei questions, feel free to contact James Frost, Council staff at 291-6519 Sincerely, s- IL--t-- Steve Keefe Chair SK mj sa An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 77n z_ -/---/ • .s 417__ • THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA May 16, 1988 Mr Steve Keefe, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St Paul, MN 55101 Dear Chairman Keefe and Commission Members Re Comments on Waste Water Policy Plan The City of Stillwater has reviewed the Waste Water Policy Plan and offer the following comments for Metropolitan Council review The Crty of Stillwater is supportive of the regional concept for sewer service but`want to ensure that Stillwater's specific concerns are addressed in that regional approach Concerns identified in reviewing the Waste Water Policy Plan are in the following areas, growth projections and service capacity, infiltration and inflow (I/I), interceptor extensions and use of SAC charges The Waste Water Policy Plan, on page 31, discusses development and delivery of sewer service issues The section describes the close relationship between the Development and Investment Framework and Waste Water Policy Plan The framework provides the guiding direction and the Waste Water Policy plan implements the framework Here is where Stillwater's concern lies The Development and Investment Framework forecasts a Stillwater population of 13,200 in 1990 and 13,300 in 2000 The Waste Water Policy Plan extends the forecasts to 2010, 14,500 These figures are very low The 1988 Stillwater population estimate of 13,800 is equivalent to the Metropolitan Council forecast for Stillwater population in 2005 This is of particular concern at this time because plans are being drawn for the early 1990's expansion of the Stillwater Waste Water Treatment Facility It is very possible that if existing Metropolitan Council forecasts are used, inadequate sewer capacity will be available for growth Besides the sewer capacity issue, the method used to develop the 2010 forecast is of concern The City of Stillwater is not aware of having the opportunity to comment on the 2010 figures similar to the extensive public input and participation process recently completed for the Development and_Investment Framework The 2010 growth figures are important because they are used as a basis to size sewer services and in effect, extend the City's Comprehensive Plan ten years As described in other Metropolitan Council documents, cities will be required to change local comprehensive sewer plans'to conform with Development Framework and Waste Water Policy Plan documents The 2010 figures, in effect, amend local comprehensive plans without adequate opportunity for local government review and comment _ __ _ CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • • • The reduction of excessive I/I as stated in Policy 5 is an important policy for the efficient use or the Waste Water Treatment System The City agrees with Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) comments supporting the reduction but oppose withholding improvements to communities not in comola an ce with the policy The lower cost of I/I reduction is sufficient incentive for a community to reduce excessive I/I Policy 7 addresses the location and extension of new interceptor sewers to adjoining communities Insofar as the City of Stillwater has already constructed a sewer oversized for future interceptor use to serve Stillwater Township Nest of the City to County Road 15, the City should be assured by the Metropolitan Council that this serer dill indeed be classified as an interceptor in the future The 36" diameter sewer was constructed as a part of the Oak Glen Project along McKusick Road and terminating near Brown's Creek at the west City limits This interceptor provides one connection point for future use by the Township for an extended area aoproximately between County Road 5 and County Road 15 and Trunk Highway 36 and Trunk Highway 96 Policy 10A addresses the sewer service area This policy also states that sizing of the Metropolitan sewer services will be based on population, housing and employment forecast prepared by the Metropolitan Council The City should be assured that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will base the design of the Stillwater Waste Water Treatment Plant at least on the population projection as indicated in a letter from the Metropolitan Council dated February 29, 1988 (attached) If there is a surplus in the SAC -charge fund, the City of Stillwater would be interested in a reduction in SAC -charges that could be provided by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to lower the cost of construction Thank you for the opportunity to comment and the City of Stillwater looks forward to your response Sincerely, Wallace Abrahamson Mayor c c Commissioner Mary Hauser