The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-11-14 CPC PacketZoning Zone r0 } �l Ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA November 9, 1988 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1988 AT 7 00 P M IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 21 NNORTH FOURTH STREET AGENDA Approval of Minutes - October 10, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Case No SUB/88-69 - Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for a twenty lot subdivision located on both sides of Pine Tree Trail and south of Pine Street (Benson's Addition) previously developed in the Single Family Residential R-A District Estate of Gilbert Benson, Owner 2 Case No PUD/88-71 - Final PUD Approval of three story addition to the existing Washington County Government Center located at 14900 North 61st Street in the Single Family Residential R-A, PUD District Washington County, Applicant 3 Case No SUP/88-68 - Special Use Permit for a 308 car parking lot in the Single Family Residential R-A District located east of the County Government Center between Panama and Paris Avenues Washington County, Applicant nTHFR TTFMS - Discussion of dog kennel locations - Approval Planning Institute - Downtown Design Guidelines - Membership on Downtown Plan Implementation Committee and Downtown Design Review Committee CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 • 0 STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Date October 10, 1988 Time 7 00 p m Members Present Gerald Fontaine, Chairman Glenna Bealka Jay Kimble Judy Curtis Nancy Putz Mark Ehlenz Steve Russell, Comm Dev Director Members Absent Rob Hamlin Jean Jacobson Don Valsvik Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mark Ehlenz, seconded by Nancy Putz to approve the minutes of September 12, 1988 as submitted All in favor PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No SUP/88-54 - Special Use Permit to conduct a secretarial service in a residential home Leanne and John Gillstrom presented the request Mrs Gillstrom explained that the business will be very "low- key" Advertising will be by word-of-mouth, and she will pick up and deliver materials, so there will be no excess traffic in the neighborhood There were no comments from audience members, and the Commission could find no problem with the request Motion by Mark Ehlenz to approve the Special Use Permit, seconded by Judy Curtis Motion carried 6-0 Case No SUB/88-53 - Continuation of a request to subdivide a 47,800 square foot lot into two lots Karl Neumeler, property owner, presented the request Mr Neumeier has reoriented the lot lines and changed the square footage of the lots to make lot B buildable Lot A now has 15,000 square feet and Lot B has 29,000 square feet His new plans show the elevation lines and proposed sewer easement for the lots Road access to Lot B would be provided by an easement across Lot A A neighbor of Mr Neumeler, Brian Palmer, asked what square footage of Lot A has a greater than 30% slope Mr Russell answered that, based on the topographical maps, approximately 6,000 square feet has a greater than 30% slope which would leave Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1988 less than the 10,000 square feet required by the Zoning Ordinance Mr Neumeier stated that the amount of square footage with a greater than 30% slope is inconsequential because it is a dip in the property that could be filled in after the basement is dug The Commissioners determined that Lot A does not meet the Zoning Ordinance and discussed whether a modification of the Ordinance is justified in this case Mr Kimble stated that the case could be determined a hardship because of the topography of Lot B The expense of installing sewer lines would be excessive in relation to only one home being built on the lot Mr Russell stated that there may be enough square footage to install a septic system if it remains as one lot Mark Ehlenz made a motion to deny the subdivision request Nancy Putz seconded Motion to deny carried 5-1, Jay Kimble opposed • Case No V/88-57 - Request for a 2 foot, 2 inch variance to sideyard setback requirement at 108 South Sixth Street for a single care garage Julia Crumley, property owner, presented the request • Ms Crumley explained that the garage is already constructed The property lines were not properly located before construction Motion by Nancy Putz to approve the variance request with the condition that an accurate survey be submitted to the Planning Department Seconded by Judy Curtis Motion carried 6-0 Case No V/88-58 - Variance to the Sign Ordinance and Sign Plan for the JC Penney Store at the River Heights Plaza Ken Vin3e, Property Administrator, and Tammy Gannon, Mall Manager, presented the request The request is for a two line sign "J C Penney Catalog Store" The sign is requested in order to distinguish the catalog store from the department store There were no objections from the audience The Commissioners determined that the variance is Justified in this case because the sign is needed to clarify that this is a catalog store Mark Ehlenz made a motion to approve the variance requst Nancy Putz seconded Motion carried 6-0 Case No SUP/V/88-59 - Special Use Permit and Variance for the construction of a woodworking shop and to conduct a "woodworking business" for musical instruments Corey Mohan, owner of the residence, presented the request Thee applicant wishes to construct a woodworking shop on the second floor of an existing garage, and to conduct a "woodworking 2 • Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1988 business" for musical instruments Mr Mohan will pick up and deliver the instruments, so there will be no additional traffic in the neighborhood Neighbors have signed a petition granting approval of the plans There are five conditions of approval which the applicant agreed to Motion by Judy Curtis to approve the Special Use Permit and Variance request Seconded by Mark Ehlenz Motion carried 6-0 Case No SUP/88-60 - Special Use Permit for the relocation of the transient boat docks and the Andiamo boat dock City of Stillwater, applicant Steve Russell presented the application for the City Mr Russell explained that this spring the Stillwater Port Authority, in the course of renewing the dock permit for the Stillwater Dock Company, was made aware of problems caused by the present location of the Andiamo boat dock After several meetings, it was determined by the parties involved that the appropriate solution to the problem would be to switch the Andiamo boat dock location with that of the transient boat docks • John Easton, partner in the Stillwater Dock Company, addressed the Commission and stated that the costs involved in switching the docks are estimated at $20,000 to $25,000, and that the costs would be borne by the St Croix Boat and Packet Company, which leases the dock for the Andiamo He explained that he recently r4 learned that the St Croix Boat and Packet Company is no longer willing to pay those costs Mr Easton feels that this expense is not justified for what he feels is a temporary solution to the problem He stated that when the City reacquires the Aiple property, a long-term solution may be reached, and this would cause the docks to be moved once again Mike McGuire, owner of the Dock Cafe, addressed the Commission, and explained that the dock permits were issued based upon the agreement that the docks would be relocated by October 15 Chairman Fontaine stated that he feels the agreement should be adhered to Mr Easton stated that a less costly solution would be to move the Andiamo docks to another location and leave the transient docks where they are Mr Russell stated that at this time, the City must take a position, and report to the Corp of Engineers The Corp will not Stake action until the City states its position Mark Ehlenz made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit, based upon the verbal agreement made in April, seconded by Judy Curtis Motion carried 4-2, Nancy Putz and Glenna Bealka opposed 3 Planning Commission Minutes • October 10, 1988 Case No. V/88-61 - Variance to the rearyard and sideyard setback requirement for construction of a home at 515 South Broadway Thomas Nammacher, property owner, presented the request along with the architect The plans call for removing the present home from the location, and building a Victorian style home which will fit in the character of the surrounding area The variances are requested because of the irregular shaped lot Mary Ann Engebretson, who lives across the street, asked Mr Nammacher where access to the garage would be Chairman Fontaine stated that he received a phone call from Ron Nelson, 509 S Broadway, who is out of town, asking that the Commission request a survey Mrs Engebretson read a letter from Mr Nelson, with the same request Mr Russell explained that this application will require two votes one for the variance and one for a subdivision Maurice Stenerson, 207 E Walnut, asked about the height of the • home One of the conditions of approval is that the house be no higher than 35 feet, and an elevation plan will be submitted before the Council meeting Motion by Nancy Putz to approve the Subdivision request adding lot 5 to lots 22 and 23, Block 42 Seconded by Mark Ehlenz Motion carried 6-0 Motion by Mark Ehlenz to approve the Variance request with the three stated conditions of approval, and a fourth condition requiring a survey Judy Curtis seconded Motion carried 6-0 Case No V/88-62 - Variance to the sideyard and rearyard setback requirements for the construction of a 20 ft x 24 ft garage Robert and Julie Jansen, owners of the property, presented the request The Commission was concerned with additional runoff from the garage, since the yard is low and at times has standing water A neighbor also expressed concern about runoff The applicants explained that runoff from the street comes into their yard Mr Russell will discuss this problem with Public Works Motion by Mark Ehlenz to approve the Variance request Seconded by Glenna Bealka Motion carried 6-0 OTHER ITEMS The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed Downtown Plan Mr Russell gave a presentation on the plan, and 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1988 opened discussion of the Plan Mr Fred Brass, owner of the Village Shop in downtown Stillwater, expressed his concern that the Plan calls for acquiring his property that is currently used for parking Mr Russell stated that this portion of the Plan would be developed in three to four years, and at that time the Plan should have created additional parking downtown Motion by Nancy Putz to adopt Resolution CPC 88-1 recommending approval of the Downtown Plan to the City Council Seconded by Mark Ehlenz Mtoion carried 6-0 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Judy Curtis to adjourn the meeting at 10 35 p m Seconded by Jay Kimble All in favor Submitted by Shelly Schaubach IS Recording Secretary 0 I n U PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO PUD/88-69 Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1988 Project Location Pine Tree Trail, South of Pine Street Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Residential Zoning District RA Flood Plain Yes Applicant's Name Estate of Gilbert Benson Type of Application Subdivision nicrnccinn The request is for a Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for a twenty lot subdivision The request is to make official the previous subdivision development activity that took place without final City approval • The site is located off Pine Tree Trail All lots are developed with single family homes except for three recently annexed lots Lily Lake is located to the rear of Block 1, Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Portions of the lots are in the Flood Plain District and in steep slopes To protect the slopes, it is suggested that an open space easement be considered for the lake and rear portions of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 This easement could substitute for the normal park dedication requirement for the subdivision because of its existing condition The plat has been referred to City departments for review and comments Comments received will be presented at meeting time Finding The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements Recommendation Approval Condition of Approval An open space easement shall be recorded over the rear portions of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to maintain the area in a natural open space appearance Attachment 0 Project Plans ^.. �J PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO PUD/88-71 Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1988 Project Location 14900 North 61st Street Comprehensive Plan District Washington County Office Building Zoning District Applicant's Name RA/PUD Washington County Type of Application Final PUD Project Description Addition of three stories to existing south wing of County Government Center Discussion The application is for final PUD approval for a three story addition containing 61,187 square feet of administrative office space to the existing southern wing of the Washington County Government Center This application should be considered with application Case No SUP/88-68 for a 308 car parking lot Area Description The area around the project site contains a mix of institutional, educational, multi -family and single family uses To the west and north along Oxboro and 62nd Street North are multi -family projects and a church, to the east and south are single family residences and vacant lands Four streets border the Government Center site Oxboro, a forty-five foot wide street, 62nd Street North, forty-five feet and Panama Avenue North, forty-five feet and Upper Street twenty-four feet to the south Access to the site is provided mainly from Fourth Street to 62nd Street The topography of the area slopes generally to the east and south Concept PUD Approval In 1985, the City gave concept approval to a County request to construct the south wing of the Government Center At that time, specific plans were not submitted but a request was made to allow a three story addition, six stories total, at sometime in the future (PUD permit attached) The County has submitted plans for Final PUD Approval of the three story addition Project Description The proposal is for a 61,187 square foot three story addition to the new southern portion of the Government Center (See site plan and building elevations ) The height of the structure as measured from the parking lot along Oxboro, west elevation is six levels and eighty feet, including the mechanical area The addition would be of the same materials as the existing building and be an extension of the existing design No other building cnanges • are proposed on the building site The existing service areas will be used for the addition - water and sewer service are currently provided to the site by Oak Park Heights Parking for the building addition is proposed across Panama Avenue The parking site has been recently annexed to the City Because the site was not in the original PUD application, a separate Special Use Permit is necessary for the parking (see Case No SUP/88-68) a . Project Analysis The project will provide 61,187 square feet of office space The addition will increase the activity at the Government Center by adding employees and visitors or customers According to figures provided by the County, the addition will accommodate an addition of 856 to 1,113 employees 576 are currently employed at the Center Existing and proposed employment and visitor figures were used to estimate the traffic impact on surrounding streets (See attached traffic study ) The figures indicate that the number of trips, generated by the Government Center as a result of the addition will increase from 3,000 to 4,350 average annual daily trips, AADT The distribution of the trips on the local road system is shown on the traffic flow map The figures provided by the County were reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer The figures appear accurate and can be accommodated on the existing road system (see attached letter from Short, Elliott and Hendrickson) Even though parking spaces are vacant and available in the south parking lot, employees are currently parking along Panama This situation will increase as a result of this project It is suggested that parking be prohibited on the east side of Panama Avenue as a condition of project approval Conditions of Approval 1 Parking shall be prohibited from the east side of Panama Avenue 2 This approval is valid only if Case No SUP/88-68 is approved Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings The final plans are consistent with the preliminary PUD approval The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance Attachments Project Plan PUD Concept Approval Letter from Traffic Engineer Traffic Report E • E 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA 478469 CITY OF STILLWATER In the Matter of the Planning Case No 552 REQUEST BY Washington County - 14900 61st Street No Owner CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL USE PROCEEDINGS ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City Council on the 21st day of August , 19 84, on a request for a Special Use Permit pursuant to the City Code for the following described property All of Block 1, All of Block 4, Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,l0 and North 20 00 feet of Lots 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 and 30 of Block 5, all in McMillan and Cooley's Addition to Stillwater, according to the plat thereof in file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, also that part of vacated Hubert Street and vacated Eugene Street that accrues to the above parcel of land Purpose Concept approval for Planned Unit Development to allow planning for potential of an additional three (3) stories to proposed addition to Courty Office Building Upon motion made and duly approved by the requisite ma3ority of the City Council, it is ordered that a Special Use Permit be granted upon the following conditions (If no conditions, state "None") Foundation and framework of proposed expansion must be suitable for the three (3) additional stories Dated this 24th day of January lg 85 '1194 Mayor rilv9 Fie: � let 7Qk- V. Nz,Nii � A-5 TRAFFIC STUDY WASHINGTON LOUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER JUNE 10, 1988 LWB M .D u, N 1394 1201 4- 9 62nd ST 1169 e1201 13 oEms a O�10v1 u T Ln co � q -4 Ln • .D rn q I7 c*1 (n 617 -� Is T H 36 f c 0 m-'mN (JRM -1 h10i 1058 rnR.0,M.O u� ul 1081 262 q.-�rn rn�c� ..� .-� —4 y WASHINGTON CO GOVERNMENT CENTER f qgmqcq 190 163 60th ST. 149 0 1 �- 478 478 -� 491 570 cn —4 .� 000 = PRESENT AADT 000 YEAR 2008 AADT (R) 000 YEAR 2008 AADT (E) . TRAFFIC PROJECTION BACKGROUND WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER JUNE 101 1988 Present employees Present customers Proposed employees Percerst increase in employees Percent increase in customers Composite increase in traffic Percent increase in traffic - year �� ►� �8 57C 450 856 to 1 1 1: 49/ t a 9Z;/ ._5/ ;,7A to 59A o►/ • 85/ =f empl :Dyees and cust._mer s will dr ive 75/ of the traffic around the Government Center is related except on 4th St , par t of E lst St , Panama and Oxboro Formula fcr deter minina traffic vollirnes = Street volitme times 75/ times 1C7/ or 159/ Formula for, determining year Eo ()8 traffic v=-litmec, _ above volume times 1Z-4/ Proposed employees based on "Restrained" growth and "Expanded" growth See attached tables • WCGC LWH p H Toe 9 ,111l/,11,,,,1,,1,11,/ll]I1/)ll,lll„11,,,1ill,I]]Jlllllllll]])ll,l,lt/1,,,,,,, ,,,, ,Il„HINGTON TCOUNTY GOVERNMEht CEN ER SPACt NEEDS EIPANDED SERVICES EXPAhOED SERVICEa - Departmental EmptMarch 1988 E M P L 0 Y M E h I -- HISTORICAL. ----------------------------- PROIECTIOhb tOvERNMthT CENTER ----- --- ------ ----- ------------------ ------------ - -- - - ----------- -- crHRTMthTb 1775 196 tyd4 1963 1966 190 t5oo 9a7 19i,, 19vl 19tic t94J 1954 Iv9J 19vo 1917 Ivvc 131 UVU ---------- - - --- -- } •Cu0UNT1NG -- - ----- 10 - - 10 ---- 15 - - ----- 15 to -- -- lb - - 2u -- -- 21 ----- 10 ---- 17 - -- 33 -- �b - 3a -- 4U -- 4 - 4. 46 - - 40 u",h(STRA'ION 6 3 3 5 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 b b b d t IU COMMIbSIOi+tMb 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 b 6 6 , 7 d d tU 15 10 lb to 16 14 14 15 16 11 18 18 IS l8 to 15 2V IV �SSEbaOR 1URhtt 16 10 1.0 1 2U 25 7ti JG 34 35 36 54 J6 0, 57 o 0 04 bb rub tun/ H 10 23 24 14 2tl 26 Ju 3u JI 31 34 3e Jb J0 3b J/ J J/ J/ LEN MHL SERVI[tb 3 4 4 b 6 7 b 9 11 It 11 to 15 15 15 It to le 17 uun AOI'IN 29 31 34 Jb 39 47 49 5c 54 54 55 57 59 6, b3 6, 6/ ev 10 JJJttrlwh'r 17 11 10 10 11 21 11 It 11 11 14 24 14 14 74 1/ 4t 1/ 2l COur Str,v,,.h 27 32 32 37 37 37 40 41 43 44 46 49 of 53 5o 5b ov oU 01. IdMAN REbut,h-t� > 5 6 / 7 7 8 b 6 9 5 9 5 9 IV lu IL lu tud TRAth,NJ 8 y lu 6 6 12 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 16 Id I6 19 MbM th�U btr,Vllt6 o tl b 1J 1J 14 15 16 to I/ I/ 1u IV IV Ll 11 1/ 11 12 eLANNINU to I If `7 11 13 Lo 15 10 1/ 19 19 19 ly 2u V 20 1V �,� MtH-tM J6 J6 44 49 4/ 41 4b 41 54 37 oY b, 61 60 bb 0,I tJ /1 .Kb-ULDLIb & FkC 1 13 14 Ib I/ LU t ct 2J 14 15 Lb 16 1b 0 JtJ n J,L u nt.ur(u-r lV lu 9 9 1 IU 11 11 tJ 14 11 16 16 tt 11 16 lb 1b 19 SHtnt r uFr,Lt] 4o 87 F 5J 94 94 100 IUL IOt Ill Ito Itb 115 129 134 13t 14U 141 J t10t,t.(HL JtNJ .L 9c b4 9L 90 10 tJc I LJ tb 124 12b lj5 IJv 144 147 1J 104 Itl 164 bUKVtfun r 14 11 11 It 14 to to lb 10 19 2U 1u 10 1U 1l ct 1t ct IVLTEHHho btRV,tt 1 1 1 J 4 J J J 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 bUOIUOIA.S ---4 J7J 4Jb 45b 5uo 512 ---1 5J1 516 bu0 626 66V 6d/ 744 - 765 767 61U 841 6bv b74 8Yt "ATLLLIT. DtPAK,MENTS `tAU XIthblJt+ DUE WOrO-Muwto 31 eus wJkro PHtvK bUSTOTAL '`�' TutA. 6 t 2 J 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ,. 4 4 5/ 51 56 5b 57 5/ 58 5tl 59 6L 61 61 61 6+ b4 05 be 00 4 4 0 6 6 7 8 11 12 I. 4 14 14 14 10 to to to 67 57 66 67 be 06 70 73 75 77 79 8U 6u 81 b+ 85 bb 66 505 515 5oo 579 577 o44 670 b9v 715 /04 6 1 J 64 bo d9 7.5 145 96V 964 "•uPULATtON 1000 0, ll1 v 119 o lit / 114 o tit, J 1J1 05 1J5 y 31 6 14., ,4o 1 144 1 15, , 155 3 15b J lol 1 loJ o too n e 1/4 0 -PER CAPITA RATIOS ,.o- rrouse ratio JJ 0 Jo o J7 6 40 , 4u 4 40 5 41 4 42 Y 4J o 45 4 46 U 46 5 48 8 49 7 5u 6 4 "1 7 Old olio 41 42 J 4a 4 45 4 45 6 47 4 47 , 4d �, 51 ., 5 - 04 1 54 1 55 1 5o t 5o v 5Y 1 �tJ to rite it 079 Lto•a►iec DLL, 6 Mo1 are not inclueeo ho►eat table 6 Cottaoe Grove Mimes arc inc,uaeo aoove i1LLLL((L[((LIILL( L LLIM IL [ t([L(L(t1t([L(LL((LLLt(I(tL1( 11(Et(85[t[(ttfl(t Lr[LL L[ LrLILILtI LLtlLttt LLLI t L Lttl -c rre Reso,ut on Inc, Barron Asche,an, Interviews II Ltt LLL(10 , L LL1L11LLLL(L(L[LLL(LLLLLI ((((flttlltt„ I( L[tL(IfttIIILLILLL L(LLtL L L L L t L L L L L L L ILL t t L L t I L L t I ttLt1 t L L L T* 9 continued llll�llll]111]]]lllll],l]l,l]]]ttlll,il]]ll lJ]]l)]tlllttJll,l{Jtl�,l„ J,,,,, „ t ]ll Il,ttltlll,lllt , -r,hGTOh COUNTY GOVERNMEh, CEV ER aFAuE NELUa ,trHhuED SERVICES EXPANM SERVICES - Departmental EnplMarcm I EMFLO}MEh, htSTOR LAL ---- - -------------------- - -- ------ vERNMENi CENTER Wu =FARTMtNTS 1975 CUJN,INu UMINiSIRH ON CUMM SSIONEN:i ASSESSOR tTURhEr LDtiORITRtASJRtR CENTR-L SERvLLta UUn, HDMtI+ uulclf H1 LOUMT StHviuES uMNN RESOuRLES Do iRAINiNG r W IN►u SERVILES FLNNN1Nu 3gLIC H-NLTM kK5 dL.ub` b rHL R;LUMDt; zHEntFF-OF ICEz IbULI4L aER�ILEs SUMVt1OM rvt ;AS SEl,,LE ..LoTUTAL3 itLLITt uErHR,MEN', Nu taTEhS,Oh �'U6LIL MORKS-MGWTS PU6 WURKzi rARKa SUdTGIhL 6 5 15 18 25 J 29 17 LI 5 15 36 v 46 4L 9 4 1981 1984 10 ,u 3 3 5 5 16 16 Lb 2u [3 24 4 4 31 34 19 [U J2 '2 5 � d 9 8 6 13 9 36 44 13 14 Lu 9 b., oy 84 Yu ll ll L l a7 43d 4:)b 1985 1986 1987 198o MI 2002 15 15 lb i8 51 54 5 5 8 8 IQ t0 5 5 5 lu 16 16 14 14 21 22 20 10 25 27 b8 71 24 28 6 3U 3d 3d 6 6 7 d 17 / 38 39 47 49 71 72 [� L, 21 21 30 3u J/ 37 '/ 4u 63 b5 6 { 7 7 10 1u 10 8 6 I LO 20 l3 {3 1� 15 L3 23 9 9 11 l5 2L 22 49 47 41 46 78 81 16 17 2u L, 3u �4 9 1 11, 1 1V I ,a 94 94 Iuu 14b 151 96 1V0 lu4 10Y Ib9 175 I, I{ 14 15 71 /1 L 2 [ 4 4 5vv 5,L 5 1 Jib yLJ 150 EMO/ 2001 L0042005200b- 2007 20ub 10,UOL - - - 58 6, 64 b6 7u 1L j 6 l0 11 it 11 I1 11 0 6 l�10 0 lu 10 U, 0 5 r.J 2J L4 25 2b c' 1 4 75 8 b4 86 b8 91 4 6 36 3y 39 4u 41 4J J 11 18 16 18 19 19 , u 74 75 it 79 bl 84 4 4 3u 3G 3u 13 JJ 33 1 7 66 67 by 71 72 74 3 Y it II 11 12 12 I[ u 6 it :1 [ L2 LL L4 1 24 24 L5 25 26 Lb l 4 2L 22 25 25 25 25 1 3 84 6b 88 91 95 9v 5 2 34 34 35 35 36 36 9 LU LL L/ 2J 24 2J 1 J 154 15b 16u 163 165 169 8 9 idu 18t 19L Iii Lu LUh ,u 1 21 21 LL 2L LL L 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 u 2 9/6 1,004 1,04L 1,056 I,u84 1,113 5b h 6 L L 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 u t 57 51 Dd D8 57 a7 68 7u 71 7, 7J 74 74 /b S u 6 6 19 LO 14 16 18 1 - -4- 67 ---4- 57 - - bb --- 67 - -6- 6b ---7 66 --- 91 --- 94 --21 96 -L2- 9/ --23- 100 - IUL ----- lu4 ---- 108 ---- O / u'AL au� 3,:) 7bb 51ti ]97 b44 I,UI6 1,044 1,01L I {GI 1 132 1,16u 1,18b L LL, 64 6 POPULATION 000 SI 112 9 119 6 121 7 124 6 127 3 13, 05 135 9 174 3 176 � 178 8 Idl C 181 3 185 1 187 0 ISO 9 - M CAPITA RATIOS LOU tnouse ratio 33 u 36 6 37 b 4L 1 4L 2 40 5 42 4 04 4 50 1 O5 d 56 5/ L 57 8 58 4 58 9 iota ratio 41 L 41 4J 4 45 4 45 6 4 4 Y + bu b of 3 bL o, d 63 4 64 u 64 6 I ate{lite in 1979 u oraries, DLC, a MS{ are not inciuoed Forest aKe 6 Cot,age brove employees are incluaed above , L L I I L L t LLt( LttILL, L( LtLL( tL(( Lt(1LLL IILLIILILLtt(LIiLLLLLLLIttiLifi (tLILtLtLt tt L L L L t t LLLLiLLLLILL,LLLLLttttLLLttL 3wL, a Zeso �Lior ,nc bar or Hsrhmar interviews tLLtLLLILLL Ltttt, LL (L,LtLk LttLL L LLLLLL L ttLL LLILLtL L it L L L t tL LL LtLLLL tLLLLtL t L, LL e 10 LL((t[I(It[IIIIIIttLLLI[LIII(f[I(IILI[LL[[ LILIILLL(LIIIII/tIIL(L(LLItIL II 1IL If LtIILIIIIIIILIILILIII[ 14oTRAihED SniNGiON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SPACE NEEDS Ma•cn 198b GROWTH Departmental Emoloyment Prolecttonc EMPLOYMENT HISTORICAL PRGJtC'IONS ------- ------------------ - - ----- -- - - - - ----- - ------------ ------ -- -- - --------- - LOVtRNMENT CENTER DtPARTMENTS 1979 1983 1984 1985 196b 1987 1986 19bv 199( 1991 L99, 191 199t 1q9` ," b ,9P/ ,996 145+ 210 ------------ --------- ACCOUhT1hG ----- - - --- 10 ----- 10 ----- 15 -- 15 ---- - Ib ----- 18 --- [0 - - 22 - 25 -- - c7 - - [a [9 - - 0 - 30 .,L - i -- )'t - - QJ HuMINISinA,ION b 3 5 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 9 V 1 r Lunn aS I OhERS 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ►ZD;-:Sur 13 Ib 16 1b 16 14 14 I7 16 17 17 1/ 18 Ib Ib III l9 I Iti A, ORht% ,6 2u 2u [u 21j 25 2y 30 �4 35 36 36 38 ,y 41 4, 4 4 4b AUDITuR/TREA4uREn [5 23 14 24 [6 28 3u 3u �1 32 34 34 36 ,,6 Jo o/ 3, 3, JI LtNIRA,. bERvILES 4 4 6 6 7 6 8 9 lu 11 12 15 15 15 16 16 to 11 COuRT aDMIN 29 31 )4 38 39 4/ 49 52 54 54 55 55 57 58 av 61 t b4 09 uuulLiAnt 17 19 20 20 21 [1 21 21 [I 21 21 21 c4 24 24 [4 24 44 27 LuUN SGRV,,t� 27 0[ 32 37 37 37 40 40 41 42 77 43 44 45 45 4b 4b 4/ 4b 5° nUMtiA R bUdRI-ca 5 5 b 7 7 7 / 7 7 8 8 6 6 8 9 9 ME ,,.,b 1KkIh h_ b 11 IU 6 b Ic I I[ l3 13 1� 14 14 14 15 ,5 '7 15 9bM, INFU �r�+,iLca , b 8 1., 13 14 IS lb tb l/ l/ l8 lb 18 l� ,Y ,y cu cu VO4NN hu Y r Y 11 17 I] 15 16 11 17 Id I Ib la Ib ,y II TPU _ - ItA-Trf 36 �6 44 49 47 41 4o 4,t ;4 57 5Y 51 (31 61 64 6o bo o/ 6b q*WKS Btu, 6 rac 9 13 14 16 17 10 11 [l 23 24 25 26 [6 [6 29 3u 3u 30 30 RuEr. 10 10 9 9 9 10 LI 12 I� 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 1/ 17 1/ SHER1 r u tLcn 4b 85 wi rj 94 94 100 lOu 101 106 lug 110 ll; Ilb 121 122 ,[% 124 l[4 SbUL(A, StRvlCtS 9, 84 90 Yb luu 101 109 113 115 118 l[4 127 t28 130 131 I IJL 13 Ij3 21 yuRvEYOR 9 it 11 11 it 14 15 15 (b 16 19 I'/ 19 19 19 -[u 20 [u cl tVETtHAN: SERv,Lt 4 2 2 -[ 2 [ 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 �UBTOTALS - --- 374 --- - 436 ---- 458 ----- 500 ----- 512 ----- 531 - -- 576 -- - 594 -- -- 616 ----- 642 ---- 666 ----- 676 ---- 701 -- -� 706 - 725 - -- 738 747 - --- 75b - - /7b 'N EL,iTt Dtr4rtTMthlS Au c1ftNSION PUBL,L wGnK:) ntgnways PubL1t. WORKS-rafks Ub 014L ,u1kL. POPULATION (000 S) FtA LAPITA RATIOS TI Lour,nouse ratio ga Tote, ratio 6 2 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 57 51 56 58 5/ 57 5b 56 59 of 61 01 61 61 b, o be bi 4 4 0 6 6 7 9 lu 1[ l) 14 15 15 to Ib to Of I, 67 57 66 67 66 66 71 71 75 1b 79 6u Bu 81 61 b4 bo 6/ 5u5 5,s 56o 579 597 644 60 686 717 744 755 781 7bo 806 821 b.,l 64, bbi l,,L y ,ly 6 1[1 / t[4 6 121 � 1.), 05 I�Z 9 ,3y d IQ 0 146 L45 1 15 c 55 3 5o j ibl 1 16., b oo ., loy 17 0 3, 0 3b 6 �7 6 4u L 4u 2 40 5 41 4 4, 4 41 6 4, 5 43 7 43 8 44 1 44 2 44 J 44 5 4 6 44 Is 44 Y 42 2 41 3 45 4 45 4 45 6 4/ 4 47 6 46 1 49 1 4y 1 49 6 50 3 49 8 50 u 5u 1 4v i 4Y T :0 [ t„te,11 to to 1979 Note Ltorarles 6LL it M51 not incluoe^ forest LaKe 6 Lottaoe brove enp ovees induced aoove LLLL(L(L(LLILLLL,LL(I((LII(L(LL(([[LL[L,(tl((L([LLILII([Ltttfl(IL(IIIL(IIILt(tIILItILLIILLtit,ttL([l((LLt(LILLLL(LLLL( q„urce nesotutton Inc, Barton Aschman Associates, Interviews IL[Ll[LLLttt tLU IItII((LL((I(t(LICEL[ILLILIL[[[[([[[IIf(MILLI LI.LiL(([[ILf((fLL(I(t([IL(f//ILItI([L,t[It1LL/LiLLL L[L L[LLL L'tL,LL le 10 continued min f�(f((f(f(((((((([[[tl([[ff(([f((f(((iil(flfllffli(iiflilt[L(llllf(ff(l(lfllff(llllllf[ltl(flf(f(f(([[lfffllLllllL LI M,F,ISMINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SPACE NEEDS i RAINtD GROWTH Departmental Employment Projections EM►LGYMENI HtSIORIIAL uOvtRNMENT CENTER --------- -------------- ------ -- - - ------ ------ - - - ----- -- -- - -- --- ---- utrHRTMtNTS--------- 1779 1983 1984 1985 1986 198/ 1988 --- 2001 2001 200,, 2004 2005 Mb 200, 2vOb t2pl, 10,000 ALLU X IhG Iv 10 la to Lb 18 ---- JJ ----- 34 - --- 35 - -- Jb --- 17 --- 37 -- - 38 - --- 38 U 40 th,7inA lun c J 3 5 b e 8 9 10 10 It, 10 10 IV Iv u LL,MM,77,uN�Mb 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 NSotoSuM In to to to to 14 14 ly lY 19 19 L, , 4110tc y Ib [u 2u [U c0 23 29 5u 5, 5n no 5! oL al 19 bi , u Mid Ur lAtk7 ri:; 25 cJ [4 24 2b 28 uu 3b 3b Jb 3tl 3Y 31 J J LtN MuL jEAVIL=- 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 1/ 17 17 16 18 IC lY 19 Luun ADMIN 24 J1 34 Jb Jy 4/ 49 71 71 74 /5 In 76 lb /9 4 JUUI Aril 1/ 19 10 cu [1 21 21 L, 27 0 [, 27 [/ It / r 1 4 LUU1 SERv, Ea 27 iz 44 J7 31 37 4u nJ 54 55 56 ob 59 o9 60 J 2 nuMHh Rt5Jur7Lt5 5 5 b 7 7 7 9 9 lu 10 10 11 I, Il Jub Twhilhu - 6 9 lu b b 12 15 10 16 16 16 16 16 16 U b u Mur INFO ZLPVIL-5 5 d 6 la LJ 14 15 [U 20 C0 21 Cl 21 21 CI b I I rLa6h hu IJ 1 Y 9 9 11 15 ly I9 20 20 21 i1 if 21 l I 11 J4 IL MtHLill Jb Jb 44 4,1 4, 41 46 by 71 7c 7.) 74 7b 1/ )b I 07 d1oL a ac y (J ,4 6 cu 1., JV 14 35 14 �4 34 34 34 b JMULM IL IV y y Y 10 if 1/ Id l6 18 Id 1e 11 1Y I v `nEnll*'-urr L a 40 c'1 b4 vJ y4 Y4 tul 110 I[J lLb 117 l[d L[9 lJv LJ l0u '•`tL atRvlLtS ct tld y( Y6 l0u jut toy li4 134 1�5 Jb 13/ lug I 7unv YUM Y 11 11 11 11 14 15 c c 21 c [- IJa [[ ly 1-atiNo brRv1Lt 4 [ [ 2 ) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 q U 7 JN1 111L5 30 4Jd 4nc JVL 1, Oil n10 /b: 710 Ell 8cu Bat 84U 84Y 8nb 4 -- A t LITt Ot�anrMth 7 Hu t;,ENStON o 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 u, 61 IC WOO a Mlgnways 57 51 58 58 -3 0/ -4 o/ 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 , 4 "UBLIL aJR(S Ra ►s 4 4 6 0 6 7 t0 20 20 21 21 21 21 2 - -- -- )u v A 07 bb 6' 60 - 6c ---- d1 ---- 6/ ---- 87 -- -- tl9 - b9 --- 61 - -- -- TOTAL 505 511 not, 571 597 644 b,c 880 898 9u4 92u 329 93b 94 nu 0 ' rj-u NTION 1000 0/ r-M CHPITA RATIOS ourtnouse ratio ' a, ratio Ili 5 115 b fit 7 le4 6 127 J IJ1 t, 1J., v 74,) 1/b o I/8 6 IS, 1v l6u J ISO 116/ L lob, J v :6 b 7 o 4u , 4u [ 4u o 41 4 40 45 1 45 u a, t 45 , 45 2 45 1' 45 4c z 4 4, 4 4-, 4 41 b 4, 4 50 LI 50 1 nu 2 50 ' 00 2 50 2 50 1 50 L +-alewte 1n h71 Note Libraries, DLL I nsl not lncluaea Fores' Lake I Lot'age Grove employees lnctuaec above L 1 1(ILII f ( 1111 IILL((tLM Lt(l LILI'lrlLLllllfL(lll'(fltri(fl (tlllltf(llttl L(tL rlL L L L L ILLll LL Lltlt Lrce Aesalu- or Inc Barton AScrur Associates Ln erVlewS 111 tlLt t11,10 l'tt, 1,' ttLLrllllllL It hi L L Lf llfflit t(tl,lrt,LL(fLlLL L 88 • E 0 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO SUP/88-68 Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1988 Project Location East of County Government Center between Panama and Paris Avenues Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Zoning District RA Applicant's Name Washington County Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description Special Use Permit for a 308 car parking lot in Single Family Residential District Discussion The application is for a 308 car parking lot on a 2 5 acre site The lot would be serviced by two driveways off of Panama Avenue Besides the lot, two sidewalk areas are shown connecting the parking lot to the Government Center entrance The lot is lit by nine 30 ft light standards Landscaping is shown on the Panama Avenue and southern boundary of the site Analysis The parking lot is a very efficient design maximizing the number of spaces on the 2 5 acre site Although this lot is most likely employee parking, additional landscaping similar to the landscaping in the lot west of the Government Center should be provided This is particularly important for the south side of the lot, next to the residential area The parking lot should be set back twenty feet from the front property line to provide for ingress and egress from Panama It is understood that the residence to the north of the proposed lot is owned by the County and will be demolished during further stages of Government Center expansion If the residence is not removed and it remains in residential use, a six foot fence should be constructed separating the parking lot from the residence Berming and excavation of the lot or shrubs should be used to contain the car lights in the lot area The height of the parking lot lights should be reduced from the proposed thirty feet to twenty feet to minimize the impact on surrounding residential areas To assist parkers in getting to work, it is suggested a sidewalk be provided on the east side of Panama in front of the parking lot and that parking be prohibited on both sides of the street crossing Recommendation Approval with conditions • Conditions of Approval 1 The parking lot landscape plan shall be revised to include the following elements as approved by the Community Development Director - Provide in lot landscaping similar to the west parking lot - Contain car headlights on site through berming, lot excavation, low fencing (three foot maximum) or landscaping - The parking lot shall be setback twenty feet from the Panama front property line - Additional landscape screening shall be provided along the south and north boundaries of the lot (If the residence to the north is removed and existing trees remain, no additional landscaping is necessary except for headlight screening 2 A sidewalk shall be constructed along Panama Avenue in front of the parking lot 3 The parking lot light standards shall be reduced to twenty feet in height 4 Parking lot construction shall meet City standards for surfacing and curbing 5 Parking lot construction and landscaping shall be completed before administrative building occupancy 6 The recommendations from the City Engineer dated November 1, 1988 regarding drainage shall be incorporated in the final drainage plans Findings The project, as conditioned, is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance ATTACHMENTS Project Plans Letter from City Engineer/drainage • • IMF gffgev�r ENGINEERS A ARCHITECTS f PLANNERS November 1, 1988 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55717 612 484 0272 RE CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING CASE NO SUP/88-68 SEH FILE PLANNING CASE REVIEW Mr Steve Russell Community Development Coordinator City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Russell We have reviewed the site plan concept for the Washington County Government Center expansion (SUP/88-68) We have reviewed this concept site plan for conformance with drainage requirements for the City of Stillwater We find that the pond as shown for detention purposes has a water surface area of approximately 0 21 acres We have determined that there is about 5 1 acres of turf area draining to this detention area and about 3 acres of paved and impervious area • consisting primarily of the proposed 308 car parking lot We estimate the detention basin should be about 1 acre, average area, and have a bottom elevation of approximately 854 with a top elevation of approximately 860 This will provide at least 2 feet of freeboard for a 100 year design storm We would also recommend a control structure be constructed as an outlet and a piped outlet instead of the open ditch indicated to the existing 48" storm sewer We are enclosing a drawing with our design concept indicated in red The parking lot grades are quite steep They range from 6% to 7% Parking lot grades of 2% to 4% are more desirable If all the flow from the parking area is to be channeled into a single catch basin, this one structure should have a large opening to receive the water as quickly as possible Overall the architects concepts of drainage and parking lot layout are satisfactory and generally meet the requirements of the City of Stillwater Our traffic department will review the parking lot layout and traffic impact from the addition and report to you separately If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned Sincerely, ichard E Moore City Engineer REM/cmb Enclosure SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS HENDRICKSON INC MINNESOTA WISCONSIN 1 a ter • THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA • TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE NOVEMBER 10, 1988 SUBJECT DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES Attached for your information and comment, is the beginning of a Design Guide for Downtown that will be used to guide design quality A representative from the Planning Commission will be on the Design Review Committee CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 T�o �v•r,%ou.� StjL G�oa�cti 1'es'lql-j 4"zool,�IeIINes el lA41 Ike I bA& is r Pi d'r �1(`� CJ S (?AA IC v (Y�'�Cl�� 1,4 l I I Signage I�2of✓to�-e: G,I►•IPI—� o Relate all signs to their surroundings 1n terms of I51C- Q A&l: size, shape, color, texture, and lighting so that they I are complementary to the overall design of the building LaTo and are not in visual competition with other conforming v' signs in the area Signs should be an integral part of a �� the building and site design ° LY o Signage should have the capability of being lit for evening visibility o Any external spot or floodlighting of signs should be done so that the light source is screened from direct view, and so that the light is directed against the ��IIII sign and does not shine into adjacent property or Y� distract motorists or pedestrians. A— o Internally illuminated signs are prohibited o Sign programs are required for buildings which house more than one business Signs need not match, but should be compatible with the building design and each other o If banners and flags are placed on a building they must be included and reviewed as part of the building sign plan 0 0 0 Materials An infill facade should be original adjacent facades out against the others. composed of materials similar to New buildings should not stand o An infill building and materials similar to (Example Local brick or not stand out against the the general area facade should be composed of original adjacent facades stone) New buildings should others but be compatible with - --- �� il�►��wvuv�l—�� ✓��1►-�Illf'<r� NIA'1"Y�{�IPcI��J Windows o A minimum of 60 percent of the street level Main Street facade shall be transparent and on side streets or rear, 30 percent o Reflective glass is prohibited o For an infill building, window and door frames should be wood, appropriately colored or bronze -tone aluminum or vinyl clad. o Mirrored or heavily -tinted glass on the first floor or street level should not be used because it conveys a conflicting modern design feeling It also creates a blank wall effect which may be offensive to the pedestrian 0 • 0 Blank Walls o Blank walls shall be limited to prevent the disruption of existing patterns and to avoid an uninviting street environment Street facades can be enhanced with detailing, artwork, landscaping or other visually interesting features P.uv l E�;'L-A,4-J k- kJk.LL<, OI-4 G✓��5 }" I�A�iD-G 1j 0 0 0 J�.vvIP s�j'PSA�i� 1%I��'1 A�AG�W"r P�UIL�Ii.l�s IT Cr till %0* DU I LP iIJ LIIJ� W li"V-i" Setback o Infill buildings shall be built to the Main Street front property line, flush to adjacent buildings Exceptions may be granted if the setback is pedestrian oriented and contributes to the quality and character of Main Street o Arcades adjacent to Main Street sidewalks are encouraged to increase the effective width of the narrow sidewalks and provide a sheltered pedestrian path along store display windows , o No side setbacks are allowed unless next !to a public pedestrian way 0 Landscaping o Landscaping treatment shall be provided to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas, screen util- ity areas and enhance streetscape treatment Lt,, r,, 1j 4 �'_ � �m�',o.. - -- ilev�iu� ulsU�-L �f� t=�t�t � i ►� • i i Proportion The proportion pathetic to the of infill buildings should be sym- proportion of their neighbors Lighting o Lighting can add special character to the nighttime appearance of the Downtown It can illuminate building entrances, pedestrian walkways, advertising or floodlight special buildings A coordinated lighting plan should be submitted for review with building plans Lighting fixtures should be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the project Colored lighting should be avoided to achieve harmony with streetlighting in the Downtown Area HISTORICAL STREET LIGHTING 0 • • 2 s r tell FIRMS Awnings o Awnings add color and shade to a building facade as well as provide an area for signage Awnings should complement the building, shape and color. r 0 • Height o The height of new buildings shall conform to the average height of buildings on the block street face "0%WanWTM o The height of new buildings shall be four (4) stories and 50 feet maximum or two (2) stories minimum and within ten percent (10%) of existing adjacent buildings 0 0 - 1 �{ 13 ZM ,,. � .,.+r•r` •,,ii�. •`. -� . '''�� :�vr-` '�. ��ii �--�7•-Iu-*fir' •�C "t_.....��__ ' •�� :,/ v; - '�+- •`'� .r: r ._... I .�..•-- M, }, z s—I—�:su-Iz-r.�—z:c1'''I ,,a ��•,� titi _ '' S. --'-'•�-r.+_--s.. 'Ti }v`''•:tias t • ` ��.. —I iT �r� t �j�(�j�a'7�' .•� . �•IT 1�1ldM�Il1U •� � i 1 � ;fl.a.'..f�.. iEt ��•p .'c �. -r•1,rI• _ °cF1 pus IJLr1.•�lt.f�7 t � •� 1�� 1� i�t1, -1 /1 j Tom. J�: �: 1' � rw.}"14-�•'��+�,W�,w _ ' !' �... '!�I_': __'.tr�w4�= �T.l' r_.. 'z•._ • � ,;C`:1••''��: C"r.vz --.-s.�t+'I+-c _ �i'r�=� �-.� �':il;.i,..:..-.•'dT / 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 • • / Pedestrian -Oriented Design The design of the building should help make the street enjoyable, visually interesting and comfortable Individual buildings should be integrated with the streetscape to bring activity in the building in direct contact with the people on the street Trademark Building Design Trademark buildings are prohibited • • 0 Roofs o Infill building roofs shall be flat or gently pitched and hidden behind flat parapet walls Roof edges should be related in size and proportion to adjacent buildings Ago I r.� I ►,J I I ffI6-NMLS Facade Openings o The size and proportion of windows and door openings of an infill building should be similar to those on the adjacent facades o Storefront restoration should return the facade to its original character as appropriate. 0 0 Exterior Surfaces o The use of surface treatments for walkways, entrances and patios should be a design feature of the building