HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-01 CC Agenda PacketSeptember 1, 2020 City Council Zoom 4:30 pm Workshop Meeting
September 1, 2020 City Council Zoom 7 pm Meeting
216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8800
www.ci.stillwater.mn.us
PLEASE NOTE: City Council meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view
on Channel 16. Public can participate in the meeting by logging in online at www.zoom.us/join or
by calling 1-312-626-6799 and enter the meeting ID number: 794 206 779
Public comments can be emailed to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 1, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M.
I.CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III.OTHER BUSINESS
1.2021 Budget Workshop
2.Chestnut Street Plaza
IV.RECESS
RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M.
V.CALL TO ORDER
VI.ROLL CALL
VII.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VIII. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS - None
IX.OPEN FORUM – the open forum allows the public to address council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting.
Council may take action, reply or give direction to staff. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
X.CONSENT AGENDA – these items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion with no discussion. A
council member or citizen may request an item to be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.
3.August 18, 2020 special session, closed session and regular session meeting minutes
4.Payment of Bills
5.Acceptance of Work and Final Payment on 2016 Street Improvement Project – Resolution
6.Approval of Seperation Agreement
7.State Historic Preservation Office Certified Local Government Grant Contract for Heritage Preservation
Commision Design Guideline Update – Resolution
XI.STAFF REPORTS
8.Police Chief
9.Fire Chief
10.City Clerk
11.Community Development Director
12.Public Works Director
13.Finance Director
14.City Attorney
15.City Administrator
Page 2 of 2
City Council Meeting Agenda
September 1, 2020
XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS – when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less.
16. CPC Case No. 2020-37 – to consider a request by the City of Stillwater for the consideration of a Zoning
Text Amendment to modify code relating to Preservation Regulations. Notice was published in the
Stillwater Gazette on Friday, August 14, 2020 – Ordinance 1st reading
XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
17. COVID-19 Response Update
a. CARES Act Funding Program
b. Workplace of Tomorrow Team Update
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
18. Declare Costs and Order Hearing on Neal Avenue Improvement Project – 2 Resolutions
19. No Parking Request for Orwell Court North – Resolution
XV. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF STILLWATERChestnut Street Civic PlazaCity Council Meeting09.01.2020
Project SpecificsENVISIONING THE CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZAScope of Work:•Redesign Chestnut Street between Main Street and Lift Bridge concourse as a Civic Plaza•Allow for emergency and maintenance vehicle access to the Lift Bridge•Pedestrian enhancements at Chestnut and Main Street•Additional pedestrian enhancements at the following intersections with Main Street•Mulberry •MyrtleBudget: •$2M Design, Engineering, and ConstructionSchedule:VisioningVisioningConcept DesignConcept DesignFinal Design and EngineeringFinal Design and EngineeringConstructionConstructionJune 2020July -August 2020City Council MeetingSeptember 2020-January 2021Summer/Fall 2021•Olive•Nelson
Downtown Framework PlanENVISIONING THE CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA
COMMUNITY VISIONING SURVEY97 ResponsesDINING AREACASUAL GROUP SEATINGQUIET AREAS
PROJECT SURVEY
PROJECT SURVEY
PROJECT SURVEY
PROJECT SURVEY
PROJECT SURVEYWhere do respondents live? (85 responses)55082: 84% 55042: 7%
PROJECT SURVEYQ6: Are there any other thoughts or considerations you’d like to share regarding the design of the Chestnut Street Civic Plaza?
Seating + Leisure ActivitiesVISIONING –AMENITIES FEEDBACKLikes: 10Dislikes: 0Likes: 10Dislikes: 0Likes: 1Dislikes: 2Likes: 1Dislikes: 2Likes: 7Dislikes: 2Likes: 7Dislikes: 2Likes: 5Dislikes: 1Likes: 5Dislikes: 1Likes: 5Dislikes: 2Likes: 5Dislikes: 2Likes: 5Dislikes: 3Likes: 5Dislikes: 3Likes: 4Dislikes: 4Likes: 4Dislikes: 4Likes: 2Dislikes: 4Likes: 2Dislikes: 4Likes: 7Dislikes: 4Likes: 7Dislikes: 4
Public Art | Plantings | LightingVISIONING -AMENITIESLikes: 5Dislikes: 0Likes: 5Dislikes: 0Likes: 2Dislikes: 0Likes: 2Dislikes: 0Likes: 3Dislikes: 1Likes: 3Dislikes: 1Likes: 7Dislikes: 0Likes: 7Dislikes: 0Likes: 6Dislikes: 2Likes: 6Dislikes: 2Likes: 5Dislikes: 3Likes: 5Dislikes: 3Likes: 8Dislikes: 2Likes: 8Dislikes: 2Likes: 6Dislikes: 1Likes: 6Dislikes: 1Likes: 6Dislikes: 1Likes: 6Dislikes: 1
Public Art + PlantingsVISIONING -AMENITIESLikes: 4Dislikes: 0Likes: 4Dislikes: 0Likes: 6Dislikes: 1Likes: 6Dislikes: 1Likes: 3Dislikes: 1Likes: 3Dislikes: 1Likes: 3Dislikes: 0Likes: 3Dislikes: 0Likes: 4Dislikes: 0Likes: 4Dislikes: 0Likes: 4Dislikes: 1Likes: 4Dislikes: 1Likes: 1Dislikes: 3Likes: 1Dislikes: 3Likes: 3Dislikes: 2Likes: 3Dislikes: 2Likes: 2Dislikes: 2Likes: 2Dislikes: 2
LightingVISIONING –PRECEDENT PLAZASLikes: 6Dislikes: 3Likes: 6Dislikes: 3Likes: 0Dislikes: 2Likes: 0Dislikes: 2Likes: 3Dislikes: 2Likes: 3Dislikes: 2Likes: 4Dislikes: 1Likes: 4Dislikes: 1Likes: 5Dislikes: 2Likes: 5Dislikes: 2Likes: 3Dislikes: 1Likes: 3Dislikes: 1Likes: 1Dislikes: 1Likes: 1Dislikes: 1Likes: 2Dislikes: 4Likes: 2Dislikes: 4Likes: 4Dislikes: 2Likes: 4Dislikes: 2
DESIGN PRINCIPLES1Visioning Comment Themes:•Flexibility (no clutter)•Lighting•Green (trees/plants)•Bike and ped safety•Dining•Shade•Music/Events•Bike parking•Gathering areas•Winter activities•Preserve views•Variety•We want more – Extend to 2ndor 3rdDowntown Value Statements:•Riverfront destination•Outdoor recreation gateway•Lively arts and cultural center•Historic and hip•It’s all right here•Where everyone knows your name•Pedestrians first•Appearances matter•Easy access and orientation•Stillwater for the next generationFlexible234SafeWelcoming place to relaxDesign continuity (fits within existing downtown context)5Capitalize on adjacent spaces
CONCEPT O1
CONCEPT O1
CONCEPT 02
CONCEPT 02
CONCEPT 03
CONCEPT 03
Discussion
Thank You!
Preservation RegulationsZoning Text AmendmentStillwater City CouncilSeptember 1, 2020
Introduction•1973 Original Ordinance Adoption•2040 Comprehensive Plan•HPC/CC Fall, 2019 Workshop•Demolition Moratorium
Project Partners•National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior•MN State Historic Preservation Office •MN Historical Society•Stillwater HPC•Nine Member Advisory Committee•Prior Design and Demolition Permit Applicants
Affected City Code Sections•22‐7: Heritage Preservation Commission•31‐101: Definitions•31‐209: Design Permit•31‐215: Demolition Permit•41‐404: Downtown Design Review District Overlay•41‐405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay
22‐7: Heritage Preservation Commission•Improved nomination requirements•Requirement for site/structure integrity•Requires Design Permits •Establishes program differences•Identifies demolition review requirements•Removes HPC from business park design review•Requires maintenance of older structures
31‐209: Design Permit•Sole HPC permit for modifications aside from demolition•Ties preservation to zoning code•Updated standards:•Four‐sided design•Conformance to neighborhood rhythm, mass and scale•Adherence to adopted guidelines
31‐215: Demolition Permit•Replaces Site Alteration Permit•Generally prohibits demolition•Allows consideration and approval based on:•No economic usefulness•Life, health and safety •Subject to MN’s 60‐day review process
41‐405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay•A new zoning overlay district•Review designs of new residences on vacant lot•Review mechanism for partial demolition
41‐404: DT Design Review District•A new zoning overlay district•No new review requirements•Allows for administrative approval•Specifically tied to adopted guidelines•Update planned for 2020‐2021
Zoning Amendment – Text FindingsThe public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment.
Zoning Amendment – Text FindingsThe amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan.
501 M AIN S TREET N ORTH • S UITE 216 • S TILLWATER • MN • 55082
P . 612 . 759 . 1936
E . JENNIFER @7EDGESDESIGN .COM
August 31, 2020
To: Stillwater City Council Members
Meeting: September 1, 2020
Agenda Item: Chestnut Street Plaza Development / On behalf of Leo’s Patio Access
Planning of the development of Leo’s patio began in February of 2020 prior to and during the Chestnut
Plaza Concept development. The initial design would have included an expansion of food service and
indoor seating on the patio. Unfortunately, due to floodplain restrictions, the elevations required to
comply made it unfeasible to construct an enclosed, conditioned structure, but did not prohibit a
seasonal outdoor structure that could be moved off site if and when necessary. The access to this
structure for removal would be off of Chestnut and moving onto Water Street. This structure would
house a to-go food menu for pick up.
The option of moving the structure closer to Water Street was discussed and rejected as it would
require the relocation of the trash enclosure closer to the patio entrances (not very appetizing or
sanitary) and would create a visual barrier for the patio patrons of the river and the newly renovated
plaza.
The following documents show the location of “Gloria’s To-Go” on the site. (Site Plan) The remainder of
the documents show how the three Chestnut Plaza Concept landscaping plans do not allow for access
for moving the structure off the patio.
We respectfully request that the portion of Chestnut directly in front of the temporary building be clear
of permanent structures / landscaping / utilities to allow access to the patio.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
Jennifer Noden NCIDQ, LEED AP, Allied ASID, Assoc IIDA, NEWH
Principal / Designer
' ' '
r~
SEVE~EDGES
COMMERCIAL+ HOSP I TALITY
INTERIOR DESIG N
A'.., ~~E-rJ.T .1'
M.J'-,1 • ~,ofl-'-(
~..Jr\...1'5\ ~"1
4o't
501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216
STILLWATER, MN 55082
JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN .COM
6 I 2 . 7 5 9 , I 9 3 6
11r---IRRIGATED PLANTER
BED
1r----IRRIGATED
PLANTER WALL
PROJECT :
L E 0 s G R I L L
I 3 I MA IN STREET s
STILLWATER , M N
' .
..
,..
' ' . •
• . . '
..
\ • J .. ~ r+~ .l~o~ .
' '
D A T E :
8-31-2020
SHEET :
SITE PLAN
scale 1 /8" = 1 '-0"
r~
SEVE~EDGES
COMMERCIAL+ HOSP I TALITY
INTER IOR DESIGN
501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216
STILLWATER, MN 55082
JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN .COM
612 .759 .1936
PROJECT :
L E O ' S G R I L L
131 MAIN STREETS
STILLWATER , MN
D A T E :
8-31-2020
SHEET :
CONCEPT 1
scale 3/32" = 1 '-0"
r~ 501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216 PROJECT : D A T E :
STILLWATER, MN 55082 L E 0 s G R I L L 8-31-2020
SEVE~EDGES SHEET :
JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN .COM I 3 I MA IN STREET s CONCEPT 2
COMMERCIAL+ HOSP I TALITY scale 3/32" = 1 '-0" INTER IOR DESIGN 612 .759 .1936 STILLWATER , M N
r~
SEVE~EDGES
COMMERCIAL+ HOSP I TALITY
INTER IOR DESIGN
501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216
STILLWATER, MN 55082
JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN .COM
612 .759 .1936
PROJECT :
LEO'S GRILL
131 MAIN STREETS
STILLWATER , MN
D A T E :
8-31-2020
SHEET :
CONCEPT 3
scale 3/32" = 1 '-0"
Page 1
CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS
Advance Auto Parts Auto Maintenance Supplies 45.24
Advanced Sportswear Polos 279.00
AE2S Construction (EIM)City Hall Phase 3 548.15
Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Aiple house lock 169.80
Aspen Mills Uniforms - Fleischhacker 211.20
Batteries Plus Bulbs Battery 391.80
Brock White Co. LLC AEC Curlex 455.18
CalAtlantic Homes Grading Escrow Refund 4,500.00
Carl Bolander & Sons Shorty Dry Cleaners Demo 40,950.32
CDW Government Inc.Computer supplies and equipment 4,171.24
Cintas Corporation Mat & uniform cleaning service 432.02
City of St. Paul Asphalt 950.18
Comcast Internet & Voice 298.40
Compass Minerals America Inc Salt 6,429.13
Cummins Sales & Service Equipment repair supplies 595.66
Dakota County Technical College Training 400.00
Dogpoopbags.com Dog clean up bags 130.00
ECM Publishers Publications 603.25
Emergency Automotive New squad build 12,401.14
Flaherty & Hood P.A Job eval points 250.00
FleetPride Repair CV heads & bench 2,351.12
Frontier Ag & Turf Equipment repair supplies 345.51
Golden Expert Services Janitor service 3,700.00
Goodyear Commercial Tire Tires 846.44
Grainger Door sweep for FD shop door 43.00
Greater Stillwater Chamber Contribution & refund due to event cancellation 1,050.00
Group Medicareblue RX Retiree Prescriptions Ins 2,415.00
Guardian Supply Uniforms & supplies 859.85
Hardwood Creek Lumber Inc.Pine lath 271.60
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc Professional service 13,040.08
Interstate PowerSysterms Equipment repair supplies 40.41
Lano Equipment Lan Drvln 1,767.01
Lawson Anna Park Fee Refund 85.00
Loffler Companies ExtremeWorks, Copier Lease & Professional Services 24,861.40
Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Labor Relations Services 34.00
Mansfield Oil Company Fuel 10,284.73
Menards Supplies 871.66
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors Maintenance 853.75
MidAmerica Inc Waste processing 248.75
Middle St Croix Watershed WMO Watershed Management payment 21,969.35
Midway Ford 2020 Ford F550 22,811.87
Miller Excavating Street & parking lot projects 479,959.98
MnFIAM Book Store Training materials 53.00
MTI Distributing 6 foot broom 707.20
National Fire Protection Association 2019 NFPA 13 449.91
NPELRA Seminar 99.00
Office Depot Files 76.29
Pioneer Press St. Paul Subscription 119.76
Quadient Leasing Postage machine lease 455.01
Quill Corporation Office supplies 129.45
Page 2
River Valley Printing Inc.Business cards 49.00
Safe Fast Inc Supplies 454.35
Sams Marine Inc Vehicle repair 847.77
SEH Inc North stairway & downtown lighting 11,155.00
Sherwin Williams Paint 653.17
Siegfried Construction Company George Lowell Park Gazebo Roof 1,015.14
SRF Consulting Group ADA Transition Plan 2,201.64
St. Croix Recreation Fun Playgrounds Bike rack 1,618.70
Stillwater & Oak Park Heights CVB Qtrly Lodging Tax 24,292.62
Stillwater Fire Relief Assoc 2019 & 2020 State payments 5,000.00
Stockert Taylor Reimburse for class 215.00
Streichers Supplies 515.94
T.A. Schifsky and Sons 2020 Street Project 359,488.44
TKK Electronics Processors 575.00
Toll Gas and Welding Supply Cylinders 155.00
Triple Valley Ironworks Memorial bench 3,042.00
Tri-State Bobcat Equipment repair 1,072.08
Uline Inc Supplies 650.42
Voyant Communications Phone 540.48
Walmart Community Water 37.74
Waste Management of WI-MN Waste 547.20
Water Works Irrigation LLC Irrigation repair 708.00
Winnick Supply Supplies 144.65
Winslow Miles Refund of overpayment of Tech Fee 25.00
Xcel Energy Energy 28,974.84
REC CENTER
AE2S Construction (EIM)Dome 56,083.42
AT&T Mobility Cell phone 68.72
Cintas Corporation Mat cleaning service 103.00
Comcast TV Internet & Voice 364.82
Dalco Equipment repair supplies 247.90
Grainger Equipment repair supplies 154.18
Ice Sports Industry Membership 36.00
Jaytech Inc Bellacide 287.10
Menards Equipment repair supplies 83.57
Mercury Electric Electrical repair 380.00
Sentry Systems Inc.Alarm monitoring 140.85
Siegfried Construction Company George Concrete sidewalks 2,875.00
St. Croix Boat and Packet Co.Arena billing 49,687.96
Tierney Brothers Inc.Pole stand for TTS tablets 558.00
Wagner Shane Ice Rental Refund 3,888.72
LIBRARY
Amazon Business Supplies & materials 1,294.35
Baker and Taylor Materials 80.00
Culligan of Stillwater Water 27.65
Demco Inc.Processing Supplies 241.47
Faurot Kimberly Staff Reimbursement 213.21
H W Wilson Materials 295.70
Page 3
Kingsley Companies Book Bins Materials 10,082.00
Office of MN IT Services Phone - July 2020 143.70
Otis Elevator Company Elevator Service 598.44
Petrie Angela Staff Reimbursement 56.45
Recorded Books Inc Materials 483.26
Scholastic Inc Materials 299.67
AUGUST MANUALS
ShopPopDisplays Barriers (COVID)8,682.24
CREDIT CARDS
Active911 Inc Subscription 11.16
Amazon.com Supplies 2,031.43
AMEM Membership dues 100.00
American Flagpole & Flag New US flag 45.95
Backgroundchecks.com Back ground checks 315.70
BCA Training Training 75.00
Johnson Trailer Co.Ramp springs 72.20
Logitech Webcams 85.68
Police Bike Store Lighting equipment for patrol bike 649.95
Pony Express Vehicle detailing 417.66
Primary Products Co.Supplies for COVID PPE 522.36
Target COVID supplies for squads 121.02
Walgreens COVID supplies for squads 12.85
Wells Fargo Bank MN NA Bank fee 39.00
Zoom Video Communications Zoom monthly fee 32.11
LIBRARY CREDIT CARDS
Dream Host Web hosting 6.00
Rose Floral Programs - Adult (Friends)30.00
Zoom Video Communications Zoom monthly fee 16.06
ADDENDUM
Greater Stillwater Chamber Annual Renewal 775.00
Minnesota Sodding Company Layout & Stripe 3 soccer fields 983.86
Simplifile Filing fee 50.00
Washington County Public Safety Radio 2nd qtr 5,201.04
TOTAL 1,258,042.43
Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this
1st day of September, 2020
Mayor Ted Kozlowski
216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8800
www.ci.stillwater.mn.us
PLEASE NOTE: City Council meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view
on Channel 16. Public can participate in the meeting by logging in online at www.zoom.us/join or
by calling 1-312-626-6799 and enter the meeting ID number: 794 206 779
Public comments can be emailed to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 1, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. OTHER BUSINESS
1. 2021 Budget Workshop
2. Chestnut Street Plaza
IV. RECESS
RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M.
V. CALL TO ORDER
VI. ROLL CALL
VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VIII. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS - None
IX. OPEN FORUM – the open forum allows the public to address council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting.
Council may take action, reply or give direction to staff. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
X. CONSENT AGENDA – these items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion with no discussion. A
council member or citizen may request an item to be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.
3. August 18, 2020 special session, closed session and regular session meeting minutes
4. Payment of Bills
5. Acceptance of Work and Final Payment on 2016 Street Improvement Project – Resolution
6. Approval of Seperation Agreement
7. State Historic Preservation Office Certified Local Government Grant Contract for Heritage Preservation
Commision Design Guideline Update – Resolution
XI. STAFF REPORTS
8. Police Chief
9. Fire Chief
10. City Clerk
11. Community Development Director
12. Public Works Director
13. Finance Director
14. City Attorney
15. City Administrator
Page 2 of 2
City Council Meeting Agenda
September 1, 2020
XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS – when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less.
16. CPC Case No. 2020-37 – to consider a request by the City of Stillwater for the consideration of a Zoning
Text Amendment to modify code relating to Preservation Regulations. Notice was published in the
Stillwater Gazette on Friday, August 14, 2020 – Ordinance 1st reading
XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
17. COVID-19 Response Update
a. CARES Act Funding Program
b. Workplace of Tomorrow Team Update
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
18. Declare Costs and Order Hearing on Neal Avenue Improvement Project – 2 Resolutions
19. No Parking Request for Orwell Court North – Resolution
XV. ADJOURNMENT
2021 Proposed Budget - UpdatedCITY OF STILLWATERSeptember 1, 2020
2021 Budget Risk AreasLocal Government Aid (LGA)State Transportation AidsHealth Insurance PremiumsRetiree Health Insurance CostSalary AdjustmentsFiscal DisparitiesTax Capacity ValuationRevenue Streams LicensesPermitsFees
Budget FactorsProposed 2021$112,600 Increase/Decrease in Operating Expenditures1% of Levy1% Increase/Decrease in Health Insurance Premium$11,200Retiree Health Insurance8.6% of the LevyLibrary Operating Levy12% of the levy1 % Wage Adjustment≈ $80,000
Strategic PlanAlignment of 2021 Proposed Budget Items DEVELOP ORGANIZATIONOperations & Staffing RequestsCurrent Staffing Levels - continued supportSuccession/Transition PlanningLeadership Development, Staff Training, Knowledge TransferProfessional ServicesOperation Review – IT Department/Enterprise SoftwareCommunications/Branding/Economic Development (Consultant)Public Works/Water Department Transition
Strategic PlanAlignment of 2021 Proposed Budget Items (Continued)STRATEGIC PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATIONCouncil/Staff Strategic Planning Session - facilitatorDevelop Legislative Priorities – funding and policy requestsCapital RequestsHwy 36/Manning DevelopmentChestnut Street PlazaParks Maintenance/ImprovementsAiple PropertyRiverwalk (downtown to Bridgeview Park)Street & Sidewalk Improvement ProgramIT Upgrades
Strategic PlanAlignment of 2021 Proposed Budget Items (Continued)DEVELOP COMMUNITYEconomic DevelopmentDowntown Redevelopment, Housing Affordability & Business Development strategiesComprehensive Plan – Ordinance AmendmentsTrails & Stairs ImprovementsSt. Croix Valley Recreation CenterCurling Facility PlanningSpecial Events Activities and FundingJuly 4thCelebration, Bridge Opening Celebration Ordinance Updates for Building Maintenance and Housing Rental LicensesCommunity Engagement; Diversity, Inclusion, Equity Issues/Policy Review
Property Tax LevyProposed 2021 vs Adopted 20202020Adopted CITY‐WIDE LEVY2021 Requested2021 Proposed $ Increase % Increase$10,587,577General Operating Tax Levy$11,262,184 $11,262,184 $674,607 6.37%$4,022,126Debt Service Tax Levy$3,678,755 $3,678,755 ‐$343,371 ‐8.54%$14,609,703Totals$14,940,939 $14,940,939 $331,236 2.27%2020Adopted PARCEL‐SPECIFIC LEVY2021 Requested2021 Proposed $ Increase % Increase$44,400WMO Tax Levy44,400 44,400 $0 0%
Property Tax LevyRequested 2021CITY‐WIDE LEVYGeneral Revenue Tax Levy$11,262,184Required Debt Service Tax Levy $3,328,755New Debt Service Tax Levy$350,000Total Debt Service Levy $3,678,755TOTAL CITY‐WIDE LEVY $14,940,939Required Debt Service Tax Levy AmountG.O. Capital Outlay 2012A $373,146G.O. Capital Outlay 2014A $712,573G.O. Capital Outlay 2014 (Armory) $85,000G.O. Capital Outlay 2016A $545,055G.O. Capital Outlay 2017A $399,268G.O. Capital Outlay 2009D $300,300G.O. Capital Outlay 2018A $485,276G.O. Capital Outlay 2019A $428,137Total $3,328,7552021 New Bond Issue to fund:2021 Capital Outlay and Street Projects $3,000,000PARCEL‐SPECIFIC LEVYWMO Levy 44,400
Property Tax RateProposed 2021Note: Valuation numbers and fiscal disparity numbers are estimates from Washington County.Formula: Total City Property Tax Levy City’s Taxable Tax Capacity = City Tax RateItemActual Pay 2020Proposed Pay 2021% ChangeProperty Tax Levy $14,609,703 $14,940,939 2.267%Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy‐$1,482,658 $1,455,253 ‐1.848%City’s Portion of Levy=$13,127,045 $13,485,686 2.732%City’s Taxable Tax Capacity÷24,548,654 $25,952,996 5.721%City Tax Rate=53.474% 51.962% ‐2.828%
CONSULTING FEES2021 Operating BudgetDepartment Purpose Requested ProposedMayor/Council Lobbyist $25,000 $0Mayor/Council Strat Plan Facilitator/Brand/POLCO $10,000 $10,000Mayor/Council Economic Development $10,000 $10,000Administration IT Organization/Software Review $15,000 $15,000Community Development Entrance Monument Sign Design $10,000 $10,000Unallocated Training/Education related to current social justice issues $0 $25,000TOTALS $70,000 $70,000
New/Modified PositionsProposedDepartment Position Priority FTE Requested ProposedMIS IT Technician High 1.0 $78,328 $0Inspections Building Inspector High 1.0 $83,707 $0Human Resources HR Assistant Med/High .60 $44,923 $0Fire Fire Services Specialist Critical 0.125 $8,615 $0TOTALS 2.725 $215,573$0LEVY IMPACT $215,573$0
GENERAL FUNDOPERATING REVENUES/EXPENDITURES
2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$8,187,371 Levy 8,746,544 8,746,544 $559,173$480,000 Franchise Fees 480,000 480,000 $0$119,000 Other Property Taxes 73,900 73,900 ‐$45,100$651,005 Licenses and Permits 633,105 633,105 ‐$17,900$1,445,298 Intergovernmental 1,388,140 1,174,824 ‐$270,474$1,222,220 Charges for Services 1,257,571 1,257,571 $35,351$83,500 Fines and Forfeits 78,500 78,500 ‐$5,000$158,450 Miscellaneous 135,800 135,800 ‐$22,650$12,346,844 Total Revenues $12,793,560 $12,580,244 $233,40069%4%1%5%9%10%1%1%2021 Proposed Budget Levy Franchise Fees Other Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits MiscellaneousGENERAL FUNDOperating Revenues$801,740 in Local GovernmentAid (LGA)$588,424 budgeted in General Fund$213,316 budgeted for Capital Outlay
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$206,643 Mayor & Council $192,710 $167,710 ‐$38,933$46,392 Elections $20,380 $20,380 ‐$26,012$386,222 MIS Support Services $469,915 $391,585 $5,363$518,683Finance $537,093 $537,093 $18,410$267,825Human Resources $325,866 $280,944 $13,119$650,543Administration $665,959 $665,959 $15,416$192,265Legal/City Attorney $192,084 $192,084 ‐$181$322,852Plant/City Hall $348,074 $348,074 $25,222$450,640Community Development $466,624 $466,624 $15,984$3,886,084Police $3,900,458 $3,902,081 $15,997$2,140,778Fire $2,213,027 $2,205,047 $64,269$471,774Inspections $542,949 $459,242 ‐$12,532$3,880Emergency Management $3,280 $3,280 ‐$600$412,538Engineering $398,193 $398,193 ‐$14,345$1,234,874Street $1,290,073 $1,290,073 $55,199$1,154,851Unallocated $1,226,875 $1,251,875 $97,024$12,346,844 Total Operating Expenditures 12,793,560 $12,580,244 $233,400GENERAL FUNDOperating Expenditures$0$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,0002020 Adopted 2021 Requested 2021 ProposedOperating ExpendituresElectionsMISFinanceHRAdminLegalPlantComm DevelopPoliceFireInspectionsEmerg MgmtEngineeringStreetUnallocated
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$895,251 Retirees Health Insurance $967,275 $967,275 $72,024$165,500 Services and Charges $165,500 $165,500 $0$5,000 DARTS Bus Loop $5,000 $5,000 $0$15,000 WaCo Historical Society $15,000 $15,000 $0$16,000 Community Thread $16,000 $16,000 $0$11,000 Youth Service Bureau $11,000 $11,000 $0$0 Training/Education $0 $25,000 $25,000$47,100 Miscellaneous $47,100 $47,100 $0$1,154,851 Total Unallocated $1,226,875 $1,251,875 $97,024GENERAL FUNDUnallocated$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,0002020Adopted2021Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresTrainingMiscellaneousServices and ChargesRetiree Health Insurance2021 Budget Impacts-Retiree Health Insurance – 8.6 % of levy.-Washington County Historical Society Capital Campaign requestincludes $10,000 for John Runk Exhibit-Training/Education – Current social justice issues.Enhanced law enforcement trainingLMC Government Alliance on Race & Equity Program
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDSOPERATING REVENUES/EXPENDITURES
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$2,800 Services and Charges $3,020 $3,020 $220$9,200 Miscellaneous $8,980 $8,980 ‐$220$48,800 Fireworks $48,800 $48,800 $0$15,000 Bridge Opening Festival $15,000 $15,000 $0$75,800 Total Expenditures $75,800 $75,800 $0SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDSpecial Events$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,0002020Adopted2021Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresServices and ChargesMiscellaneousBridge Opeing FestivalFireworks2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$48,000 Property Taxes $48,000 $48,000 $0$13,000 Donations $13,000 $13,000 $0$61,000 Total Revenues $61,000 $61,000 $02021 Budget ImpactsPlanned use of Fund Balance for Bridge Opening Festival
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$231,500 Supplies $220,000 $220,000 ‐$11,500$1,307,164 Services and Charges $1,320,533 $1,320,533 $13,369$17,500 Miscellaneous $19,000 $19,000 $1,500$168,622 Debt Service Contribution $165,788 $165,788 ‐$2,834$1,724,786 Total Expenditures $1,725,321 $1,725,321 $535SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDSt Croix Valley Recreation Center$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000$2,000,0002020Adopted2021Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresSuppliesServices and ChargesMiscellaneousDebt Service2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$1,754,700 Charges for Services $1,699,750 $1,699,750 ‐$54,950$30,000 St Croix Soccer Club $30,000 $30,000 $0$1,784,700 Total Revenues $1,729,750 $1,729,750 ‐$54,950$0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000Debt Service Contribution
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$1,101,588 Personnel Services $1,142,255 $1,142,255 $40,667$123,210 Supplies $96,095 $96,095 ‐$27,115$255,097 Services and Charges $184,588 $184,588 ‐$70,509$5,925 Miscellaneous $5,145 $5,145 ‐$780$1,485,820 Total Expenditures $1,428,083 $1,428,083 ‐$57,737SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDLibrary$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,0002020Adopted2020Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresPersonnel ServicesSuppliesServices and ChargesMiscellaneous2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$1,353,200 Property Taxes $1,393,796 $1,393,796 $40,596$120,200 Services and Charges $6,200 $6,200 ‐$114,000$12,420 Miscellaneous $28,087 $28,087 $15,667$1,485,820 Total Revenues $1,428,083 $1,428,083 ‐$57,737$0$500,000$1,000,000$1,500,0002016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Property TaxesAdd'lMOE2021 Budget Impacts3% increase in property taxes (2021 Proposed vs 2020 Adopted)2021 Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement = $852,617
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021Requested2021Proposed Variance$668,243 Personnel Services $697,487 $697,487 $29,244$119,700 Supplies $116,700 $116,700 ‐$3,000$218,063 Services and Charges $231,357 $231,357 $13,294$141,300 Miscellaneous $46,300 $46,300 ‐$95,000$1,147,306 Total Expenditures $1,017,006 $1,091,844 ‐$55,462SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDParks$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,0002020Adopted2021Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresPersonnel ServicesSuppliesServices and ChargesMiscellaneous2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021Requested2021Proposed Variance$984,006 Property Taxes $1,058,844 $1,058,844 $74,838$1,300 Licenses and Permits $1,000 $1,000 ‐$300$28,000 Services and Charges $23,000 $23,000 ‐$5,000$24,000 Miscellaneous $9,000 $9,000 ‐$15,000$1,037,306 Total Revenues $1,091,844 $1,091,844 $54,5382021 Budget Impacts$15,000 – Emerald Ash Borer Treatment$35,000 – Tree Removal
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$15,000 Supplies $15,000 $15,000 $0$15,000 Total Expenditures $15,000 $15,000 $0SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDCommunity Beautification$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,0002020Adopted2021Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresSupplies2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$15,000 Property Taxes $15,000 $15,000 $02021 Budget ImpactsPer Resolution #2011-07, dated January 4, 2011 –requires a minimum $15,000 budget appropriation.
2020 Adopted Expenditure Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$19,180Personnel Services $18,171 $18,171 ‐$1,009$42Services and Charges $25 $25 ‐$17$190,000 Lodging Tax Disbursements $142,500 $142,500 ‐$‐47,500$209,222 Total Expenditures $160,401 $160,696 ‐$48,526SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDLodging Tax$0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,0002020Adopted2021Requested2021ProposedOperating ExpendituresLodging Tax DisbursementsService and ChargesPersonnel Services2020 Adopted Revenue Type2021 Requested2021 Proposed Variance$200,000 Intergovernmental $150,000 $150,000 ‐$50,000
Capital Outlay –Funded with GO DebtComputer Purchases over $500/All Other Purchases $1,000 or more with a useful life of 1 year or more.Department/Fund 2021 Requested 2021 ProposedGeneral FundMayor & City Council $2,500 $2,500MIS $96,000 $78,000Finance $1,800 $1,800Administration $3,900 $3,900Plant/City Hall $15,100 $15,100Community Development $35,700 $35,700Police $283,275 $199,775Fire $115,700 $285,700Building Inspections $7,300 $7,300Engineering $4,900 $4,900Streets $191,650 $145,650Total General Fund $757,825 $780,325St Croix Valley Recreation Center $391,800 $91,800Library $45,000 $45,000Parks $400,000 $350,000Permanent Improvement $3,475,000 $2,315,000Local Government Aid ‐$213,316TOTAL $5,069,625 $3,368,8092021 Budget ImpactsMaximum planned bonding is approximately $3,000,000
Proposed Street ProjectsAnd Funding Sources2021 Proposed Street Improvement Projects2021 BondProceeds2022 Bond ProceedsState Aid Federal MN StateWashington CountySpecial Assessments2021 Annual Street Improvement Project $600,000 $1,800,000Hwy 36/Manning Interchange $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $680,000 $7,000,000 $15,000,000 $7,600,000Curve Crest Blvd Connection/Extension $150,000TOTAL$1,810,000 $1,060,000 $680,000 $7,000,000 $15,000,000 $7,600,000 $1,800,000Capital Improvement Plan - Strategic Plan Element
Other Proposed Projects2021 Proposed Other Projects2021 RequestedGO Funding2021 ProposedGO FundingOther FundingTotal CostAiple Property Park Improvement $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000Lily Lake Final 45 $125,000 $125,000 $525,000 $650,000Chestnut Street Plaza $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000Water Street Elevated Walk $30,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000Downtown Step Replacement $250,000 $125,000 $0 $125,000St Croix Riverbank Stabilization $300,000 $0 $3,600,000 $3,600,000Annual Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project $100,000 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000Rec Center Parking Lot Mill & Overlay $300,000 $0 $300,000 $300,000TOTAL $1,305,000 $505,000 $6,450,000 $6,955,000Capital Improvement Plan - Strategic Plan Element
DATE: August 28, 2020
TO: Mayor & Council Members
SUBJECT: Selection of preferred design for Chestnut Street Plaza
FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
This summer city staff has been working together with the community and a design
team lead by Kathleen Anglo of TKDA to develop three concepts for the Chestnut Street
Plaza. The concepts are framed around community comments and preferences
gathered during two visioning sessions, an open house, and an on-line survey.
While deciding which concept is preferred, City Council will need to consider the status
of bicycles on the plaza. Most bicyclists seem to prefer the design concept that gives
them dedicated bike lanes. But, much of the community that does not plan to use the
plaza primarily for cycling seem to prefer not to have the dedicated bike lanes.
The on-line survey
showed a strong
preference for
Concept 2 and its
dedicated bike
lanes. But, the real-
time inter-actions
with the public at
the open house and
visioning sessions
showed a different
picture. The clear
preference with
these groups was
for Concepts 1 and 3
without bike lanes.
So, the consultant
team and city staff
On-line Survey Summary
Chestnut Street Plaza
Page 2 of 7
think the biking community may be disproportionately represented in the on-line
survey.
There are three options for bicyclists on the plaza. They are:
1) Dedicate bike lanes, such as in Concept 2.
2) Prohibit bikes on the plaza (except when crossing the plaza on Water Street and
when transitioning from the Downtown Promenade to the St Croix Crossing
Loop Trail at the bicycle roundabout). This would mean that bicyclists would
either lock their bikes up at a rack on the plaza or walk them. These options
form the basis of Concepts 1 and 3.
3) Allow mixed pedestrian and bicyclist use. Both would intermingle without
special preference given to either.
The first option is fairly straightforward. The second option invites the question of
enforcement. And with the third option there is the question whether it would work
with all the heavy usage expected. To begin to address this last question, TKDA points
to the Church Street Plaza on the U of M campus in Minneapolis. As with Chestnut
Street, Church Street is no longer available to motorized traffic. It was converted to
mixed pedestrian and bicycle use. Even more so than expected on the Chestnut Street
Plaza, the Church Street Plaza has periods of very heavy usage. Yet, even with mixed
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, it seems to function well.
U of M plaza on Church Street, Mpls
Chestnut Street Plaza
Page 3 of 7
NOTES
CONCEPT 1
The first concept
mirrors several of
the elements of
the Commercial
Street Plaza, as
well as its general
feel. Of the three
concepts, this one
is the most formal
and traditional.
Flexibility for use
as event space is provided for, especially on the segment east of Water Street.
The majority of the Heritage Preservation Commission favors this concept over Concept
3. Though they would encourage the larger bicycle roundabout in Concept 3 to be
incorporated into Concept 1 to slow down all the users at the trail intersection.
Concept 1 – Plan View
Concept 1 – Looking from Main toward Bridge
Chestnut Street Plaza
Page 4 of 7
CONCEPT 2
This concept’s identifying feature is the prominence given to bicyclists with dedicated
bike lanes through the space. The concept directly addresses separation of cyclists and
pedestrians, and it is well supported by the bicycling community. During events the
bike lanes could be closed, and bike traffic could be re-routed.
This design concept received little support during real time public engagement sessions
and no support from the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Concept 2 – Plan View
Concept 1 – Looking from Bridge toward Main
Chestnut Street Plaza
Page 5 of 7
Concept 2– Looking from Main toward Bridge
Concept 2 – Looking from Bridge toward Main
Chestnut Street Plaza
Page 6 of 7
CONCEPT 3
Like Concept 1, Concept 3 views the plaza as predominantly pedestrian. No dedicated
bike lanes are included. But, in contrast to the formality of Concept 1, this design
reflects the more natural lines of the St. Croix River shoreline. It should be noted that
the contrast in “brick” and “cement” colors in this concept does not identify bike versus
pedestrian flow. Instead it is solely for visual relief.
Considerable flexibility is designed into the east side of the plaza for events and
activities.
Concept 3 – Looking from Main toward Bridge
Concept 3 – Plan View
Chestnut Street Plaza
Page 7 of 7
SPECIFIC REQUEST
City staff requests the Council to select a preferred design concept.
Attachments: Open house comments
On-line survey
bt
Chestnut Street Plaza
Community Open House (08.13.2020)
Feedback
Updated: 08.14.2020
#Concept 01 Concept 02 Concept 03 Concept 01: Likes Concept 01 Dislikes: Concept 02 Likes: Concept 02 Dislikes Concept 03 Likes: Concept 03 Dislikes: Comments on Main St. Improvements Other Comments
1 1 No bike lane/ access to Main Street Good bike access to Main St.Visually very appealing, gray path is great, if made a bike lane to Main St.Gray path too narrow in places for bikes Have bike racks close to Main St. for people to bike to Main St. and visit
businesses
2 1 I liked this a lot This actually is nice, but probably not for Stillwater. Seems too modern for
Stillwater architecture
Nice.
3 1 Good balance for all things Too bike heavy and plain Visually not as appealing
4 1 Flexible event space Not bike friendly Dedicated bike-way and seating Curvy path
5 1 1 Clean, simple look. Consistent with other plaza Unique elements. Relaxed atmosphere More signage to walk bikes. Remove the green walk/bike signs
6 1 Grid layout matches town. Lights strung above are nice. Straight view of
bridge. Street lights
I think there will be issues with bike traffic.bike lane clearly defined. Safer separation form peds. Street lights seems more 'urban'. Lacks character clean design. Interesting visual with curves swings (benches)Like
7 1 I like the space and full pedestrian access Best mix of bikes and pedestrians
8 1 Unnecessary tables dedicated bike lane no benches planters swinging benches (not functional)use of pavers and architecturally interesting
9 1 Seating options aren't as updated The look overall Do it!
10 1 Flowed nicely Too much bike route Not pretty
11 1 Make round space by bridge event space. Lots of space for people walking
and places to sit and rest under trees.
water street access - limit the time it's open or close off entirely. Keep bike
traffic on road
Bike traffic lane. Water Street access. Not enough trees.Swinging benches Bike traffic, Water Street access Like Main Street closed. Dog water area. Need more trash bins.
12 1
13 1 Lovely too traditional Bikeway too linear, not warm Natural features No bikeway Keep outdoor cafes!
14 1 The wide open walkway More open. I like the circular seating/planter area The walk/bike paths seems too narrow. Look like less areas to sit
15 1 Doesn't seem bike friendly Has a lot of gathering space Doesn't seem bike friendly Consider partnering with Loll for outdoor seating. It's a MN Based company
that makes sustainable outdoor seating.
16 1 Consistent with plaza. Accommodates people and bikes safely Not enough seating. Too much emphasis on bikes.Like winding path Swings are fun, but not practical for elderly or families. Planters are too large Be sure it is friendly for pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles. Bump-outs can be
difficult for bikes and other slow moving vehicles to merge into vehicle
traffic.
17 1 1 Bike path _(E-W) no need. Bikers already fly across bridge. Bikers should walk
bikes.
Pedestrian focus Looks good. Eliminate turn lane SB.Prefer pedestrian focused design.
18 1 Brick concept Low seating more focus on bike traffic Lighting Encourages walking through. Would like people to stay.Well done.
19 1 Easy to sit and congregate, buy food and sit down upkeep?biking will be an issue (from a biker)Neutral make it easy to cross
20 1 Most pedestrian friendly. Need to continue wide sidewalks along Main
Street
Very important start to much greater use by pedestrians - need wide
sidewalks. Need to continue seating and dining on Main St.21 1 Lots of trees mixing pedestrians and bikes w/o designated bike path designated bike path no curves. Need traffic calming plantings curves not clear where bikes will go.bump-outs good; widen sidewalks all along Main St.
22 1 Straight path, easy to navigate with traffic No dedicated bike lane Walkway isn't design appealing Design looks great Walkway may get congested.Round about? Sounds difficult with amount of space.
23 1 So straight Bikes being able to ride in common space contours
24 1 Want more communal/open seating Feels a bit too utilitarian - not enough "Stillwater"Doesn't have enough trees Need more trees for a better shaded area of town.
25 1 Formal, yet flexible.Bike riders may not feel comfortable, public may want to 'sign' bikes out.too defined. Too much emphasis on bike lanes limits flexibility a nice combo of definition yet flexible for uses.Modify light sequence to allow ped. Crossing continuously during green
lights (walk signal is on a recall vs. push button actuation)
26 1 too much of a bikeway nice space. Leave open space too many trees
27 1 Not much wood bench seating and picnic tables. Bike path.all of it - curved path, especially the swings want a bike path?
28 1 trees not as good as #3 don't mix bikes and walkers artistic and inviting More trees Ban motorcycles :)
29 1 café lighting, shaded seating all the trees lights, benches, plantings bike lanes don't allow for events open for events & bikes when needed chairs and table styles
30 1 want many trees, flowers, bird city like designated bike path Love swing seats, curved walkway need more plantings, want bike trail Would like to see art - sculptures, kids activities, play area, water attraction.
11 8 13
Concept Preference Concept 01 Comments Concept 02 Comments Concept 03 Comments
Summary of On-Line Survey
Are there things you like about Concept
01?
Are there things you dislike about Concept 01?Are there things you like about Concept
02?
Are there things you dislike about Concept
02?
Are there things you like about Concept 03?Are there things you dislike about Concept
03?
Of the concepts shown, which one do you
think is most appropriate for Chestnut
Street?
Are there any other thoughts or
considerations you’d like to share regarding
the design of the Chestnut Street Civic
Plaza? Is anything missing?
Do you have any comments regarding the
proposed improvements at select
intersections on Main Street?
Please provide your zip code.
Lots of provisions for shade. Space allows for
maximum flexibility.
No designated bicycle pathways. If Chestnut will
ultimately become a bicycle path to 3rd Street, why not
design for that now.
That there is a designated path for bikes, but
still plenty of shade. The plan still appears
flexible enough for a variety of uses.
Plaza space wasted on bike racks. Couldn't they
be moved to between the Promenade and the
parking area?
The idea of asymmetry and using a flowing
shape reminiscent of the river is appealing.
There's no provision for bike traffic. If this is
purposeful, to slow bikers down and have them
walk their bikes, it might work?
Concept 02 A plan for where to put trash bins. This would be
a terrific site for Big Bellies. I don't believe that
there are currently any receptacles in place by
the Lift Bridge. I like the idea of using a lot of
natural wood in the design as a nod to
Stillwater's logging heritage. The wooden
"standing" swing in one of the visuals would be
an appealing play element. What happens if a
concert is going on and an emergency vehicle
needs to get through? Could food trucks be
planned for on Chestnut between Main and 2nd
St. when that phase is undertaken?
They look good to me.55082-4294
aesthetically pleasing No designated bike lane . Coming off the lift bridge,
many bikers will not stop riding.
The designated bike lane Trees growing in areas surrounded by concrete
and bricks. Pick tree varieties which can handle
non porous grounds.
I like the designated bike lane. The curving lane
is more aesthetically pleasing than in concept 2.
Tree roots will be surrounded by concrete. Can
they thrive in this environment? Find varieties
that can handle rough conditions and have deep
roots.
Concept 02 Wish the plaza would continue further west, up
the hill!
Would like to see car prohibited from parking on
Main Street.
55082
Lots of room to walk or bike, without
bumping into furniture.
Unclear how water street cross traffic would be
handled.
Bike lane, follows pattern on lift bridge.Linear furniture blocks access to ice cream shop.Less furniture impeding traffic.No designated bike lane. Unclear how cross
traffic is handled.
Concept 02 Separation of Water Street cross traffic, safety
barriers to limit confused drivers from making
dangerous turns. Will need more trash cans if
gets crowded.
Maintain visibility at corners for autos to clearly
see pedestrians, keep furniture minimal and
restrict parking from being too close.
55038
Plantings and led friendly No cycle access and it's a main route Yes- like Bike trail separate from pedestrian
route . As a bike commuter, like access to
main roads too.
Would like to see more plantings/greens seating
looks ok- tables preferred for snacking-
especially with covid and restaurants close by
Like curved path Think separate designated bike path thru is
necessary so cyclists and pedestrians can co-use
without bumping into each other. Also would
prefer tables in some locations rather than
bench searing only. Easier to picnic and spend a
day enjoying food from local restaurants that
way. Is there close access to restrooms?
Concept 02 Restroom access for public use Overall good plan once folks get used to it-
perhaps make some streets one way? Public
Parking is always an issue- need signage for
free public patking
55082
String lights, flexible event space, pedestrian-
centered, trees/plants
Table seating, no dedicated biking infrastructure I like the integrated (built-in) seating among
the landscaping.
I think the bike lane is too prominent here. It’s in
the center and, as a pedestrian, I’d feel like I’d
have to look over my shoulder a lot as to not get
hit. I also don’t care for the lantern lighting.
I like the swinging benches and the blocky-
integrated seating again.
I dislike the framing the bridge with the curvy
lines on the ground. It’s a bit too whimsical for a
town with such stature and history. And again, I
don’t like the lighting. I think the cafe lights from
Concept 1 works the best!
Concept 01 N/A 55415 but will be 55082 in a few days! :D Hi
Stillwater!
Designated bike lane Bikers Don’t have a designated path Concept 02 No 55115
Lots of pedestrian walking space A little generic looking. Not much character Dedicated bike paths!Not enough greenery I like the curves and fluid nature of the design However, there doesn’t seem to be enough
greenery. Not much visual justification for the
fluid curves
Concept 02 Stillwater is gaining a reputation as a small town
food destination. Any way the design could
accommodate food trucks?
Not at this time 55082
This concept is very pedestrian oriented,
comfortable and attractive.
As a bike rider I am concerned about biker/pedestrian
interactions. I would like this better if at the circle
intersection of the walkway and bikeway and where the
trail from the bridge intersects there were a barrier or
an obstacle in the path that would slow bikers coming
off of the bridge.
I like the designated pathway for bikers
hopefully helping to keep bikers and walkers
separate. very conspicuous and attractive
signage would be helpful (think of signage
like that found on the Grand Rounds trails).
It's a bit more stark and sterile. More tables and
umbrellas would be nice - color, texture and
playfulness.
I like the flow and organic feel of this concept. I
softens the hardness of the brick and pavement.
I worry about biker/walker interactions. The
river-like walkway invites all to traverse it. It is
important to slow the bikers or give them a
separate pathway.
Concept 02 55082
Very much so No, not at all Yes Yes, more trees would be nice To an extent Yes, I don’t like how organic it is. Downtown
Stillwater is, for the most part, straight lines, and
I think this design is too fluid for Stillwater
Concept 01 Nope Nope 55082
No apparent bicycle corridor in this concept Bicycle access to the Lift Bridge from Main
Street
No apparent bicycle access thru this corridor Concept 02 Direct Bicycle access to the bridge is important.Bump outs cause significant narrowing on Main
Street causing bicycles and cars into the
intersections in very close proximity.
55082
Lots of space for pedestrians, plants and
benches
Biking and walking are mixed on the street. The dedicated bike lane. No barrier between people and bikes. Could
include cross walks for pedestrians across the
bike lane.
It’s similar to 1, but curved?It’s not clear if the curved path is for walking,
biking or combined use.
Concept 02 I like the pedestrian friendly changes. 55003
The diagonal crossing is nice to break up the
symmetry a bit.
I think there might be too many trees, and too close to
the buildings. If they're actually there for shade and not
just decoration it might be better to have the trees in a
zig-zag down the middle-ish. There should still be
enough space for a vehicle to drive down the middle
even with them a bit closer.
Oh hey, a single row of trees like I suggested
on the last concept.
Since those lights emit light in all directions they
will contribute to light pollution. More
downward directed lights would be better.
The winding path really helps make it more cozy Fewer trees near the road and more near the
river. The buildings will already block some sun,
so shade is more needed where they aren't.
The road might get a bit thin in the center -
especially with seating there - for a vehicle to
get past. Those swinging benches are a nice
idea but could be a safety hazard if someone
tries to sit down and it moves out from under
them. Use downward facing lights. Don't
contribute to light pollution.
Concept 03 Lights closer to the ground, like shining out from
under benches, can provide safe walking while
keeping the allure of nighttime.
55082
love all the benches and tables. And the bike
racks
I don't see a need for a bike trail down the plaza.
No one rides bike on Main Street. Everyone
comes off the trails
Don't like the swinging benches. Looks like a
hazard for young kids or older adults
Concept 01 55082
dedicated bikeway nope Concept 02 55082
No bike path Dedicated bike path No bike path.Concept 02 Need a bike path Like the curb bump outs 55115
Yep No
Ok but not enough places for people to sit
and visit?? I see two benches? what is that?
Are Leos and Waterstreet Inn Chipping in for this
project? Prime location. Not fair to other businesses?
The picture of top seating lighted from the
bottom that isnt actually in the concept is
magnificent. Is that possible or why is it in
the strip of photos?
Concept 02 A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON WOULD HAVE
BEEN HELPFUL. HARD TO COMPARE WHEN NOT
SIDE BY SIDE.
1223 4th Street North 55082
I like the bike parking and shade trees No designated bike lane which is essential for the
volume of cyclists coming through this area to also keep
peds safe
Designated bike lane As a landscape designer, the seatwall going up
to the edge of the bike lane without room for
designated walking space doesn't make sense,
that's going to create traffic confusion between
beds and cyclists
no not enough bike parking, not enough shade
trees and seating
Concept 02 bike and pedestrian areas need to be very clear,
since this will be a huge area for cycling and
walking alike. Shade trees are critical to ensure
that people actually want to use this area and
hang out downtown since it can get very hot in
the summer
this is a confusing diagram to understand what
the corner bumpouts will actually look like in
perspective, beyond the large bumpout shown
55082
It is cohesive with the other plaza and picnic
tables in Stillwater. Love the trees.
There could be issues with traffic (bikes and peds).
Seems tight on the first image.
Nice designation of the bike path. This will
make the space usable for all.
Less tree coverage than #1. Concerned about
the one-way road going through the middle.
The swing benches and wood additions are very
nice.
Do not like the curve of the path.Concept 02 Very exciting! If it can be made to accommodate
bikes, people and dogs it will be a nice addition.
like the benches and planters no designated bike path like the biking designation don't like the use of wood for benches and
sitting areas
don't like swings or use of wood for benches Concept 02 wish there wasn't an option for driving through
area
540 Eagle Ridge Tr 55082
This accomodates both pedestrians and
bikes.
Great to see that bike racks seem plentiful as
this is a key rider confluence
Pedestrian only is not realistic. There needs to
be a bike connection from city streets to the
bridge and trails.
Concept 02 55082 55082
Nothing special No bike lane Bike lane No No No bike lane Concept 02 Keep a bike lane to help with safety No 55082
Compared to today, it is an improvement,
but it does not direct bicycle traffic in
downtown up Chestnut away from the
River.from the River
See answer 1.Bicycle traffic not headed to Brown’s Creek
needs a preferred conduit away from the
River and out of downtown. Chestnut and
then 3rd St. is that logical conduit. This
concept addresses the issue well.
No. It seems to be the best way to
accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle
traffic of the volume I expect.
Again, an improvement over what’s there today.It does not address the significant bicycle traffic
that will want to get to or from the river from
places other than the trail.
Concept 02 This is a very exciting idea whose time has come!No.55001
I like the tables seating and bench seating
and no bike path
I don't want a bike path that would make it easy
for bikers to ride on downtown main streets
Concept 01 I love the improvement you're planning for
Chestnut St.
55082
Yes. Open, multi use spaces. Seating and places to eat are important. Are more
available?
No It is too chopped up with the bike trail. People
can walk their bike through there. No trail in
there.
No Yes. Seems bland. Concept 01 Thanks for moving this forward. Good idea 55082
8/28/2020
Summary of On-Line Survey
the games/flexible event area; the shade
umbrellas; the lack of a bike lane is good,
bikes whizzing by where kids are playing and
people are strolling makes me
uncomfortable
dislike the squareness of it; don't like the black iron
benches or the amenities--what is the satellite dish
thingy?
like the wooden seating much more than the
black in concept 1. Like the under lighting on
the far left seating platform--would be cool
in a flexible entertainment area. Like the
brown and black picnic tables.
Seems like the bike lane will cut off access to the
businesses on that side. I'd prefer not to have a
bike lane in a pedestrian plaza. Won't the
Brown's Creek trail be connecting at the east
end anyway? This looks like a bike plaza--not
everyone has to bike all the time! Provide good
bike parking, so people can stop and shop, eat,
etc.
Love this one. The curves are really appealing. I
like that there are bike racks but no bike lane to
keep this area pedestrian friendly. Like the
traffic calming design. Like the flexible event
space--although I liked the location in plan 1
better I think. If we don't include an area like
this we will have to jerry rig it later. Love the
swinging benches--those will be so popular--and
the colors and curves in this design. It seems
very welcoming with lots of possibilities.
I really like this one. There is no need to have
bike traffic in the middle of a pedestrian area.
But I bet I'll be outvoted on that. So keep the
lovely curves at least please!!! This design is
classy.
Concept 03 Drinking fountains!!! Please please please. With
bottle refill access and maybe dog water dishes.
Recycling containers! Trash containers,
especially near the trail crossing areas.
Yes to room for street furniture and maybe
even sidewalk dining post-Covid. I like the bump
outs.
55082
Trees Cross traffic of cars between parking lots Openness Only lantern lighting is next to main street
where it will already be illuminated
Nonlinear path Not enough seats Concept 02 To make it a true pedestrian plaza you need to
eliminate the Chestnut cross traffic
Pass time to make street crossing more
pedestrian friendly
55810
The plantings and picnic tables are nice
amenities, softening the hard space.
The walkway is general without designated bike paths.
There will be cyclists coming across Main Street to
access the bridge from the west.
The bike path is a good feature, giving
cyclists coming across Main Street from the
west a safer access vs. pedestrians.
Could use more trees.A good compromise between 1 and 2 with a
softer flow.
Could use cycle lane designations.Concept 02 All are nice concepts. Softening the hardscape is
good.
All are good to slow traffic and make it more
pedestrian friendly. Can the bump-outs handle
the snow removal challenges/damage?
55082
It has a dedicated bike way which will be
safer than #1 and #3 because you know
people will still bike through there.
No There are no dedicated bike lanes. Concept 02 It will be beautiful and thanks for asking. No 55082
Bike lane Concept 02
People already can’t follow the bike lanes
coming across the lift bridge I just can’t see them
doing so under this plan. Seems like a ped/bike
conflict zone, especially with the bike path that
runs parallel with the river.
I like the non-linear design. Curving, smooth
lines will slow people down.
No Concept 03 Pedestrians in Stillwater do not follow the lights
as it is, so I don’t know what you can do to
reduce car/ped conflict.
55082
Need better bike access. It is a bad idea to
have such a prominent bike trail crossing the
river, without a clear approach from the
west
No bike access Clear bike trail Meandering trail, not clearly marked for bikes Concept 02 not having clearly defined bike access is just a
non-starter
55042
Bike path No The swing No Concept 02 The restaurants should have easily wxx as ll up
ordering on that street
No 55082
Bike lane Concept 02 Thank you for the opportunity to see these and
weigh in. It is much appreciated.
54013
Open up the middle for 2 way foot or bike
traffic
No dedicated bike lane Dedicated bike lane Less attractive Clean look No dedicated bike lane Concept 02 I would like to see Belgian style outdoor cafe
seating to stop for a coffee while on a bike ride.
Love the curb bump outs - go for it! Let’s make
Stillwater a place optimized for foot traffic and
bike traffic. Open to zones that exclude car
traffic.
55073
Yes, bike lane Concept 02
Bicycle path 55082-1642
Trees Open space Clean look Bike traffic confusion Clear bike lane. Wood benches and tables To open looking, not enough trees.Love this concept. Great space with lanes.
swing benches are amazing!
space out the plantings more so trees don't
appear so bunched together.
Concept 03 (Sam Bloomer road?) I wish this road/street
would be closed to car traffic. It is such a nice
street to walk, especially went to lower areas
are flooded.
I believe to improvements look great. I feel the
addition of cross walk light should be
considered. The cross walks can be very
dangerous. I have had many cars not stop and I
believe the lights would help.
55082
This concept pays much closer attention to
the needs of cyclists.
Concept 02 Curb bump-outs are dangerous for cyclists.55082
Dedicated paths to each traffic. Foot and
bike. Not mixed.
Bike path.Seems like too much dedicated to bike. Not
good mix of 2.
Concept 02 This is long term thinking..make sure materials
will last and not look warnout in 3-5 years. High
quality construction. Not low bid.
Make it easy for foot traffic traverse the area.
This will ensure word gets out to bring in tourists
to walkability of town.
55082
The overhead sting lighting Appreciate the dedicated bike lane to Main
Street, but suggest the following be resolved
via design - 1) emphasize traffic to utilize
promenade, 2) minimize ped conflicts within
plaza, 3) address abrupt bicycle terminus at
Main street.
Not following the intent of the bicycle crossing
at Water Street.
Organic feel/lines Swing features Small planter at center at promenade
intersection feels out of scale (to small).
Concept 02 Please include more shade and provisions ($) for
a sustainable canopy Account for snow
removal/storage and plan space and surface
accordingly
55082
Bike path Concept 02 55082
Seating No bike lane Seating No ..Concept 02 I believe both seating and a bike like are
necessary components.
No 55082
Plenty of seating.Traffic crossing walkway on Water Street.The dedicated bike way. It would be
ridiculous not to have a bike way since the
plaza is an access to the Loop trail.
Traffic crossing on Water Street Not really.Seems like a lot of wasted space, and... traffic
crossing on Water Street!
Concept 02 Keep vehicles off of it. Pedestrians and vehicles
don't mix.
Just concern about how it might effect
businesses currently using Main Street for
expanded outside seating.
55082
I like the seating and the plantings.Don't see how walkers and bikers are separated as they
approach and leave bridge.
I like the dedicated bike lane and the design
of the part where it swerves left through
plantings.
No. Flexible event space and swinging benches.Won't be safe for both bikers and walkers as the
path narrows and swerves.
Concept 02 Notification about location of public restroom.
Water fountains.
814 EVERETT ST N 55082-4420
Like the trees.Too straight, no break from looking like a street.Totally opposed to concept to direct bike traffic
to Main Street. Why? Main Street not set up
for bike traffic. Bikers will be riding on sidewalk,
a dangerous situation. Then if bikers want to go
into businesses on Main Street, they'll have to
park bikes on sidewalk. It's already a problem
for walkers to find a way to walk around bikes
parked on the sidewalk. We need to encourage
bikers to park their bikes and walk, not bike, the
Main Street sidewalks.
Best plan. Doesn't look like a straight street.
Has a more European Plaza appeal. Our
favorite.
No. Concept 03 55082
Openness No hike lanes Bike Lanes No bike lanes, narrowness Concept 02 EV charging 55082
Open areas, bike parking Seems dated in seating and planting design Bike lane, plantings, seating The way finding of the circle seems weird... only
bikes? Bike and pedestrians bottle neck?
The swings! I don’t like the bright furniture or random chairs,
the curve of the bike lane seems unnecessarily
congested, runners and walkers would have to
weave around it and bikers would get pissed
people are just ambling through it
Concept 02 It would be best for all plantings to be native
and perennial, less maintenance better for
water reduction. All seating and amenities
should be made of sustainable materials with a
long life cycle.
No 55082
Yes, I believe that bike paths are very
important to include leading up to and
coming from the restored lift bridge. Bike
safety is important to me and my family.
Concept 02 55082
Bland No. I really dislike this one. It’s a glorified
bikelane.
Too much focus on bikes, not enough on
pedestrians
Large areas for table seating No interactive water feature for kids to play on
on a hot day.
Concept 03 I really hate #2 55082
I don't think bicycles need to be directed
through the plaza to main street. A natural
gathering and leisure space should be
emphasized. It should be free of the hyper-
vigilance required to avoid bicyclists, many who
seem to have little regard for pedestrians.
Bicyclists should not be riding through the Main
Street intersection anyway.
The larger round-about is more visually
appealing. It would encourage a leisurely
gathering and viewing area from which to enjoy
the scenic amenities. It appears that cyclists
could be easily directed north and south away
from the plaza where congregation could more
easily occur( pandemic not withstanding). I see
no need to direct cyclists straight to the Main
Street intersection.
No Concept 03 Perhaps a small alcove or something to
encourage street musicians or performers.
Something for a non-political casual listening
entertainment venue which would meet certain
city guidelines.
None 55082
Would prefer plantings vs bike path. People can
walk their bikes to Main Street.
Concept 01
Trees bike path not enough trees overhead view looks like a strip mall in Duluth, should be more
Stillwateresque
Concept 02 54082
The number of bikers using the WI loop and
lift bridge is really remarkable. So, we know
there are going to be bikes coming off the
bridge. This concept accommodates that fact
and sets lanes to avoid conflicts between
bikes/pedestrians. Best to deal with the
multiple use directly.
It is straight and more linear than 3. But I think
that is a necessary trade off to manage bikes and
peds.
Concept 02 It is going to be a really nice amenity for
Stillwater and will be popular. Like the Brown's
Creek trail, we can anticipate a lot of use - best
to envision and plan for that fact. Thank you.
I like the bumped out curbs. I nice way to aide
in increased foot traffic. Could use them now!
55082
8/28/2020
Summary of On-Line Survey
More shade than the other plans. Seating is
more comfortable with backs for us old
people. Looks more in keeping with the style
of downtown Stillwater.
No The trees The bike path is unnecessary. Few people are
accessing the bridge from main. It's a dead end
path. Terrible seating. Needs more benches and
tables. It's not inviting. Looks sterile.
The curvy path not enough shade. Hot pink chairs look garish in
a outdoor setting
Concept 01 Really hot so shade is imperative. I was out
there many times this summer. Some seating
should accommodate old people with backs so
we can sit for more than 5 minutes if we like. I
would hope this would be a no smoking area.
no.55082
Trees pinning both sides. Shade from the
sun.
Straight shot to the bridge. Would be nice to break it up
at least minimally
The break of a circle on one side, really like
the fact there is a dedicated bike path.
The fact that the dedicated bike path doesn't
account for the promenade. Lack of trees in
second side in place of the flowers.
Trees in both sides. The curve leading into the
wall area
Lack of dedicated bike path. Like the raised beds
of flowers from option 2 in the circle on the
bridge side. The small section of flowers feel off.
Concept 02 Concern over a bike path that goes to the
promenade, and terminating at the main road
through downtown stillwater
I think shade is important to that area, and while
we need to allow access for mndot vehicles I do
feel the hard angles are less visually interesting
then the curves
55082
Public seating, plantings, lights. Looks very rhythmic. Architectural seating, bike lane, variety in
aesthetic.
Architectural seating, variety of shapes. Concept 02 Area for kids? Don’t make it too formal. It should
feel alive.
I think they are needed. So much traffic and
always a lot of people.
55082
Concept 02
Bike path Curvy paths Concept 03 Make it clear where bikes are allowed and bike
paths
Where will all the through car traffic go?55082
Bicycle lane between the Lift Bridge and
Main Street.
Concept 02
All No Better with swerve No Best of three Nope Concept 03 Get started asap Nope 55042
The seating areas No bike lane The bike lane Lack of tables and seating in Concept #1 Lack of bike lane. The walking and biking space
appears narrower at points than either Concept
#1 and Concept #2
See number 5. I switched my answers. Lack of
bike land and bike and footpath seems too
narrow at some point.
Concept 02 It would be great if you could combine the
tables and seating in Concept #1 with a bike lane
as in Concept #2
No 55082
dedicated bike lane will keep people safer.Concept 02 924 4th St. N.55082
Seems nice but nothing special Bikes! Concept 02 55082
The umbrella tables, the trees, and the
bench seating. I also like the look of the brick
on the walkway.
I like having the dedicated bike trails, but it
kind of makes it feel like it's still a road
instead of a plaza.
I think it would be nicer to have the whole space
available for people to congregate and enjoy
time with friends and family.
I like the swinging benches I don't like all the grey. The brick colored
pavement was better.
Concept 01 Are there opportunities for stormwater
infiltration? Tree trenches with engineered soil
beneath? Or could some of the paved area
feature porous paver stones? Another related
idea would be to install a green trelis along one
of the sides of the buildings to bring in more
plants. This wouldn't help with stormwater but
would bring more green into the downtown
area.
sounds good!55082
Plants, Seating, large walk way No dedicated bike path, signs, or racks. plants, seating, walk and bike space, bike
racks, signs
Plants, seating Not great for bikes. Concept 02 Information Kiosk for tourists and bicyclists. I like the bump-outs. 55082
Sidewalk chess very straight/linear; bicycle path is not obvious bicycle/walking path obvious; some
landscaping, but still open spaces for viewing
distances; rectangular benches/tables
miss the idea of sidewalk chess curved lines are pleasing; swinging bench Flexible space seems small here and in concept
1... maybe trying to do too many things in
limited space
Concept 02 Fixed seating is a must for strength and security.
Could combine portions of designs for
combination of straight and curved seating.
Reflective markings built into seating and
entrance pillars
no...looks good Strongly suggest dropping the
speed limit to 20 or 25mph!!!
55082
Not really Seems a little blah I like the number of benches - the more
benches the better - even more than chairs
and tables.
I’m not sure I love the bike path but if it’s not
there, there needs to be some accommodation
for bike traffic to the bridge. If this concept is
NOT selected, there needs to be a quick
implementation plan for bikes - maybe next to
the parking lot in front of the Freight House (like
a continuation of the Brown’s Creek Trail.
Looks like lots of benches which is great!!Can’t tell if the sidewalk will be open to bikes
but don’t think it should be.
Concept 02 No. Thanks for asking!No 55082
Like the seating and landscaping No
Looks nice but......there appears to be no clear path for cyclists like the idea of a dedicated bike path looks good to me looks nice no dedicated bike path will lead to more
conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians.
Concept 02 Stillwater has established a nice multi-use path
system but some of these plans seem to dump
bicycle traffic into an unregulated area which
will lead to confusion and possible conflicts.
Looks reasonable 55125
Confusion on where bikers should be as they come from
the lift bridge. I was under the impression that the lift
bridge was supposed to have a large bike presence.
Clear markings on the ground where bikes
and pedestrians should be
Design is eye pleasing Not functional; bikers will be annoyed
pedestrians are in the way and pedestrians will
be concerned about being ran into.
Concept 02 I almost got ran into by a biker while in town
yesterday. There needs to be clear lane markers
for bikers and pedestrians.
55082
The 'softness' and shade the trees provide
on BOTH side of the plaza.
There is no way of getting bicycles from the bridge to
Main Street and beyond... and bikes WILL
(unfortunately) go direct even if signage says otherwise.
A designated bike path from the bridge to
Main Street (and beyond). Larger bike racks
could be placed on Main Street to draw
bikes in that direction to help support the
businesses there.
The 'hardness' of the south side of the plaza,
with having no trees. It seems like there should
be enough room on the south side for trees to
be planted, and bike don't need the height
under branches that motorized vehicles do.
The 'softness' of the plan.Bikes and pedestrians would not mix well in this
plan, and cyclists WILL want to ride their bikes
not matter what the signage says!
Concept 02 A decent/appropriate amount of bike racks at
the Main Street end of the plaza.
Curb 'bump-outs' on the east side of Main Street
at Chestnut and Nelson should be large enough
to each accommodate a 10-bike rack.
55082
Clear bike lane Concept 02 55082
No it would just create a unorganized mass
of people moving in each direction
It has no seperation of bikes/pedestrians Yes bikes are separated from pedestrians,
will no longer have to dodge pedestrians on
my way to work
Bike path is curved While better than 1 it still seems designed to
create traffic necks in the flow of people
No bike lane Concept 02 The design of chestnut Street should encourage
the considerable volume of cyclists to leave the
riverfront and ride to main Street bars and
restaurants.
Any improvements should leave room for future
addition of bike lanes
55082
The long sight-line lack of designated bike lane Love the bike lane and roundabout! Will
look really cool at night with lightposts.
Might be more visually appealing with a
symmetrical second row of trees.
This is the most visually "fun" design The swinging benches are interesting but might
feel a little out of place practically
Concept 02 Water fountain Love it!55413
I dislike using so much space for a bicycle lane.
This space on Chestnut St should be used for
pedestrians, seating, plantings. Most bicycles
using the bridge would go to the existing bike
lane, not out to Main St, so using up so much of
this space for a bike lane is unnecessary.
This options seems the most inviting for a
welcoming town center. I like the curved paths,
curved benches, and swinging benches.
I like the table and chairs, but would pick a
different color, not hot pink.
Concept 03 55082
I don’t like the idea of a designated bike way.
That only benefits some people and not all
residents.
Concept 01 Have some overhangs of some sort that can
provide shade in the area.
I really like the idea of adding some bump outs
and space for furniture or outside space for
shops and restraints to use. They could possibly
be used for events and entertainment.
55082
I like adding trees and the pavers.I'd like to see a clear bike lane.I like the bike lane and racks. The loop is
such a great addition to our community, and
many bikers already use it. It's important to
have designated space for them.
It's attractive.I'd like to see designated bike lanes and bike
racks.
Concept 02 Thanks for the opportunity for input.
Beautiful pavers on grid, lots of bike parking,
great seating with the tables
dedicated bike and pedestrian paths that take you to
the trails - I believe water street will be bike and the
current trail will be pedestrian?
Like the dedicated paths for bikers and
pedestirans
Landscaping and seating could be more robust.
Not sure why the path is funneling bikers onto
Main Street. Pedestrians for sure, but biking on
main is a little tricky. Maybe route bikers to bike
path since many are not from Stillwater.
Terrific use of the space, interesting and diverse
layout.
Again, bike traffic. Route to bike path.Concept 02 no 55082
Classiness of the design; European look;
surfacing pattern is flattering- it and the
landscaping (trees, planters) are
symmetrical), leaving the open sightlines to
the bridge and river from Main Street.
No The trees only lining one side is a little more
modern looking, and would allow more
views of River & So. Lowell. Dedicated bike
path. Less tables for City Workers to keep
clean
Non-symetrical, less tables for bistro-
esque/European experience
Built in seating.The more artistic curves of the surfacing pattern
and lines within decor may date faster than
more classic shapes. It may become outdated
within a decade. Rather, include built in displays
for the local art (sculptures, etc) instead of
applying an artistic interpretation within the
architecture, site amenities and architecture
Concept 01 Built in displays for local artists, clear
landmarks/pathways for Brown's Creek Trail
path to cross, Maybe back-to-back benches
down the center, Street signs/way-finder signs
(for North Lowell and South Lowell parks, since
this is the border of each; Established local
business providers like the Coop Grocery store,
library on 3rd St, post office, police station, local
Maple Brewery, etc. )
Bike racks on the Main Street boulevard should
be kept to a minimal, as they and their contents
will be bulky. As fairs and tourism comes back in
future years, those corners tend to be
overflowing with pedestrians and bike racks will
be in the way. If you have more space there,
consider implementing better/clearly
identifiable recycling receptacles at each trash
receptacle site so that our Green Cities status is
visible downtown as well.
54017; born/raised/work in 55082
I think the bike lanes in Concept 2 are
essential in Stillwater
Concept 02 All good ideas 55082
Concept 01
Aesthetics No No No Flow Concept 01 55082
Maintenance for the city will be the easiest.
This is important as side walks age and cycle
hot and cold temps they need repair. Each
option has a cost to maintain. This has to be
considered by the city board.
Undefined bike and ped. Walking riding ares if this area
is going to be open to people riding there bikes.
There is more space on the side of the street
for tables chairs etc. for people who buy at
the restaurants where they are located.
People with food in hand have close access
to seating and don’t have to worry about
bike traffic.
To much space for bike traffic, bikers should
have to dis-mount from their bikes through this
area, or not be allowed. Bikes now have motors
on them and travel to fast as it is on the trails.
Where do the bikers go once they get Main
Street. Bikers will be piled up there with no
where to go while they are riding.
Very interesting look . Could be very beautiful
for walkers. Like the fact that it shows no bike
lane, which means no bikers.
Base road/walkway could be very high cost of
maintenance over the years. Stillwater is so full
of bad sidewalks, stairs, streets etc. already.
Concept 01 If bikers and walkers are sharing this space,
bikers must yield to walkers that does not
happen on the trails. I am not sure why bikers
need to be on the proposed section, there is no
where for them to go.
I wish sidewalks could get widened where
possible, they are to narrow as the city
continues to attract more pedestrian traffic.
Take all parking off of Main Street, in the heart
of downtown.
55082
8/28/2020
Summary of On-Line Survey
I like the open space, but is there enough
seating to allow people to gather (once it's
appropriate to do so)
There doesn't seem to be a dedicated bike lane, will bike
riding be allowed on the plaza? Also, a concern I have is
that the seating along the plaza may appear to belong to
the businesses that line the plaza.
I like the dedicated bike lane, and the
separation from the north side businesses
with the plantings and bench seating.
The space next to Gartner studios looks barren
and uninviting.
I like the interest that a curved path provides
and the swings on the south side of the path.
My concern is that the tables will seem to
belong to the businesses that are on the north
side of the plaza.
Concept 03 I would like to see some unconventional seating
options, in addition to regular style seating.
There is open space for cubes that can be used
for seating and provide architectural interest.
I appreciate the concepts of the bump outs but I
have concerns that it is an opportunity to junk
up the street with signage and tables from the
businesses on the Olive and Chestnut
intersections.
55082
The trees - places to sit Lacks imagination bike lane makes sense for Stillwater No umbrellas Much more artist and appealing. The curves
make for a much better design and keep it from
looking like a modified "street"
I'm not sure about a lack of a bike trail - but
perhaps foot traffic only will be safer.
Concept 03 1200 Creekside Crossing 55082
I like the tables with shade coverings and the
benches with back support
I don't think bicyclists should be riding their bikes on this
section. so maybe signage to walk your bike with clear
markings for peds as well.
clear markings for peds route of travel; again
I don't think bicyclists should be riding on
this plaza.
Do not like the seatings without back support.visually the most attractive looking again lack of back support on proposed bench Concept 03 Just that bicyclists should walk their bikes in this
whole area except perhaps when navigating on
current bike trail near bridge. shaded places to
sit are good as street is east west and will have
sun during the hottest part of the summer most
of the day.
no 55082
Pavers No bike lane Dedicated bike lane & the plantar in front of
the former wedge & wheel space
No Plantar Missing a bike lane, Stillwater is becoming a
premier biking destination in the twin cities.
Need to accommodate bikes in the design
Concept 02 I like the idea of space to lock bikes on the
corner.
55082
No Bike lane needed Bike friendly Concept 02 55082
I like the benches and sitting areas. there are bike racks, but no path for the bikers which
seems bad.
Like that there is a bike lane since so many
bikes are now doing the bike loop across the
river. I like the curved lines of the plantar
boxes
Miss a few table seating areas . can there be
trees on both sides of the bike path?
I like the plantar boxes with flowers and plants .
i like the curves
No bike path. So many bikes in Stillwater now.
we are a great biking destination these days.
Concept 02 55082
No.....Too straight forward.....open to accidents with little
thought to bikers who invariably cross into pedestrian
lanes...visually unappealing....canopies could be
introduce d....speed bumps...
Safer, rotary will help lessen
collisions....plan seems more thoughtful and
appealing
Concept 2 is the best of the three plans Rotary, safety considerations, visually appealing Concept 02 As a biker, pedestrian and former horse rider on
Browns Creek and Gateway.....I have been
concerned for some time about the arrogance
and disrespect by groups of cyclists.....which I’ll
refer to as the Lance Armstrong wannabes, who
ride in groups, do not announce themselves or if
they do....the pedestrians and dog walkers have
little time to react. Some walkers have ear buds
or limited hearing and may not hear
approaching riders....I have frequently seen
walkers jump out of the way onto the grass to
avoid being hit by groups of riders. Speed has
not been addressed either. Horses can be
spooked by riders with flags, goggles,
unconventional bikes, etc. Horse riders are
asked to pay to use the dirt trails and display a
pass......shouldn’t bikers do the same?
Not at this time 55082
I dislike the lack of defined bike lanes creating confusion
and safety concerns for both walkers and bikers.
Defined bike lanes and separate walking
lanes are important for safety, especially as
Chestnut Street leads to the bridge with
defined lanes. The walk/bike lanes have
much use by both groups.
I think this is the best concept.Attractive for meandering. Not good for mixing
meandering pedestrians with people who are
using the space for exercise, whether walking or
biking.
I dislike the lack of defined space for bikers and
for walkers.
Concept 02 55082
Ok No bike lane Openess Seating missing?Greenery Natives I hope No Concept 02 Bike racks Imprived signage How pedestrian friendly ? Can’t tell Are there
bike lanes?
55082
Have ample bike racks and clearly marked
bike lanes and pedestrian walkways.
Have easily operated control signals/directions when
emergency and MDOT/maintenance vehicles are moving
onto plaza.
Concept 01 Get plenty of shade trees that are positioned to
cool the seating areas and to add to the early
maturity of the new public space.
The red brick walkways and the addition of
trees are great.
Not dislikes, but rather questions/concerns. Will need to
be sure to select appropriate tree species and leave
adequate space for them. Of the three, this concept
seems the most plain (?).
The bike lane is a good addition.Could the bike lane have a few more curves
rather than being chalk line straight? That would
enable a few trees to be added to the south side
of the plaza. I think it could be done while still
leaving a small 'viewshed' from Main St to the
river.
I like the winding nature of the pathway through
the area.
Seems to have the most hard surface of the
three concepts?
Concept 02 Not sure how it could be worked in, but all three
visions have a very modern feel - how does that
link up with the historic nature of downtown?
Are there any historical features of that street
that could be worked in?
I agree with the overall intent of these
improvements, but I think as long as the
highway goes through downtown, it will be
challenging to consider it a 'pedestrian first'
area. Is it possible at a minimum to divert heavy
truck traffic to some kind of bypass?
55082
Prefer this concept because it includes space
for bicycle traffic and storage.
Concept 02 55082
Different colored pavement Not a marked bike passageway Well-marked bike lane to provide safety and
clear direction to businesses.
No Artistic Not as clear directionally Concept 02 I look forward to seeing the project completed.
So far I have appreciated all the work and design
concepts implemented to enhance Stillwater
55082
Cohesive boring no just a bike path with trees, cyclists wouldn't slow
down, would feel entitled
most attractive more plantings would be more interesting Concept 03 the challenge is maintaining the feel of a plaza, a
public gathering place, with a bike path
no 55082
Tables for seating are nice.No defined bike path Easy to find bike racks, defined bike path
and walking path.
Needs more planted trees.Concept 02 55042
No Yes.No Yes No Yes. All of this is political bs.Leave things alone! Our taxes are high enough.Leave it as it is.55082
Yes Yes - it does not address electric vehicle charging.Yes Yes - it does not address electric vehicle
charging.
Yes yes - it does not address electric vehicle
charging. View looking east is to cramped. view
looking west was better as a straight path.
Concept 02 I agree to go with the choice that keeps bikes
and pedestrians safest from traffic (and traffic
protected from bikes and pedestrians) I believe
you said that was Concept 2. Also, hope you
address electric vehicle charging soon.
No 54017 (home) and 55082 (work)
Open spaces, and also trees No bicycle lane, divided use Invites multiple types of use; open to one
side and bounded on the other creates an
inviting and functional space.
No, great concept Not much Everything Concept 02 I would reinforce the idea of making it inviting to
multiple types of users, with room for
pedestrians as well as bicycles and different
types of seating. It is difficult to imagine
precisely how a public space will be utilized, so
providing options allows for people to decide
how they feel comfortable in the space. Also,
Paris has public ping pong tables in many of
their parks, consider putting something like that
in.
Looks good 55082
Has bike lane all the way to main street Concept 02 Bikers should get off their bikes and walk them
to Main Street,
No bike lane Bike lane!No bike lane Concept 02 55082
Walking space Where's the bike lane to and from the bridge?The bike lane.No.Bike lane Not sure if pedestrians will understand that
there's a bike lane
Concept 02 Dining structures should be solid this candle and
weather proof.
Not at this time.54082
It looks nice As a bicyclist looking forward to riding the new trail
across the bridge, not having a separate clearly marked
bike lane is concerning.
The bike path!The bike path needs to be clearly marked and
some way to keep it separate from pedestrians
walking. Perhaps low planters on both sides of
the path.
Looks nice Without a clear bike path, riders to and from the
bridge crossing will be mixing with inattentive
pedestrians, a potentially dangerous situation.
Concept 02 The new bike trail around the river will bring a
lot of bicyclists into downtown Stillwater. These
sections need to be well designed for the safety
of both bicyclists & pedestrians.
This project has so much potential to increase
tourism in downtown Stillwater and add to the
local economy. I'm concerned about the
increased traffic and availability of parking. Bike
tourists can come into downtown having parked
in outlying lots, so there will need to be enough
places for them to securely lock their bikes so
they can feel comfortable walking around town,
browsing stores and eating in restaurants.
55125
It’s ok No bike path It has a bike path More tables needed No I don’t like the curve path Concept 02 More places to sit No 55082
Yes Not particularly Yes Not particularly Yes No Concept 03 No No 55082
Plenty of pedestrian space No bike lane The seating and bike lane The path looks cool No bike lane, the path looks cool but it doesn’t
seem practical
Concept 02 Have plenty of green: trees, flowers etc 55082
Openness Lack of a clear bike lane Yes-clear bike lane No Yes curvilinear lines No clear bike lane Concept 02 No No 55082
Concept 02 55082
no direct access for bicycles to main street direct access to main st for bicycles seating and event space handling no segregated bike lane - bikers will dead end
after coming off of bridge if heading downtown
Concept 02 more trees, if the growth factor hasn't restricted
that already
anything that slows / calms traffic is good -
anything that inhibits truck traffic is good
55082
I like the open areas, seems roomy but
enough walking area for people and home
walkers
I think some more small plots of flowers would add to it
or pots of flowers
More like what I have in mind, seating and
flowers
No I like this one I feel it gives an edge to
pedestrians with more seating and flowers
No Concept 03 More shelters from the sun be it umbrellas or
share trees.
No 55082
no bike lane bike lane-lots of outdoor seating no Concept 02 55042
8/28/2020
Summary of On-Line Survey
I like how open it is. It feels like it can
"breathe". Stillwater draws a lot of people
and I think, like an open concept living room,
more open space and less obstacles is
better. I really like the brick work too. This
just looks so photogenic with the extremely
long line of sight off into the distance too. It
will be a go to for photos. People can
certainly still walk or even slowly ride their
bikes around, but we should optimize this
space for pedestrians. It always feels
dangerous to have a bike path in the middle
of a pedestrian zone, both for the bikes and
walkers with kids and strollers.
No I tend to really like it. The open concept, brick plan
and unobstructed views make it the best option.
Stillwater is an active healthy community
and I appreciate the consideration for bikers.
I don't hate this plan. To me the risk in
creating a bike lane is that people are going
to be milling all over down there, and, while
bikers will have the rightaway, in practical
terms, that can be a setup for accidents. It's
a short stretch that isn't critical to any key
bike routes, so I'd just say let them walk or
slowly ride in that area if need be, and
optimize for foot traffic. For the section that
edges the river, there should definitely be a
path that people can use to bike or run on.
That is part of a key loop for people who
bike and run.
Basically just the bike path seems risky. For the
section that edges with the river, I like the
unobstructed open feel of Concept 01 better.
The ledges in Concept 02 will be a hangout
where people stop moving, other people will
skateboard, or they will construct it with skate
stoppers, and that all just looks kind of janky to
me. Visually, it is less appealing than Concept 01
from a photogenic standpoint too. I do think
there should be some sort of bike path running
parallel with the river though.
It's an upgrade from the current state.Curvy/wavy stuff seems less functional and less
timeless in style to me. People will need to be
watching the ground to know where to walk.
Not my fav.
Concept 01
benches, table no stormwater management: where are rain gardens?bike lane provides safety planters should provide stormwater treatment.
Design does not offer environmental benefit.
We need to demonstrate environmental
stewardship and care for the river
no Where is demonstration of environmental
stewardship? Please include rain gardens.
Concept 02 Visible demonstration of Stillwater's
commitment to protecting the river. Include
rain gardens or other water quality practices.
include raingardens. Stillwater needs to
demonstrate visible practices that care for the
river. Downtown is a wasteland of concrete and
hard surfaces. All stormwater drains to river
without treatment.
55082
Yes - no car traffic! It's very attractive to the
eye
Are vehicles still able to get across Chestnut from Water
Street going in either direction? To access parking?
Yes that the bike/walking path coming off
the bridge has a continuous path to the
Stillwater Loop Trail
Yes, the bikepath does not need to go to Main
Street. We have enough trouble on Main Street
with pedestrians crossing when they shouldn't
be - we do not need bikes up on Main Street.
No really Too much concrete Concept 01 It looks beautiful! Yes I like this idea! As a resident of Stillwater
who is downtown daily - the worst part is the
pedestrian traffic crossing Main street. People
do not obey the crosswalk signs - making
vehicles miss the lights. There definitely needs
something to be done about this issue.
55082
Designated bike lane to help direct
pedestrian vs bike traffic.
Concept 02 55042
I like the tree along the blvd. I like the
seating area concept. I like the all brick look.
I don't like the bikepath going thru. It doesn't
look inviting for people to sit and relax. There
are miles of trail. This doesn't need to be
another.
It looks inviting. I like the tree layout. Appears
that the seating is separate from the bike path.
The hanging benches. Concept 01
No bike route.Bike route!Lantern ligjtong No bike route Concept 02 Make bike route, bike racks, trees/plants a
priority.
55082
Bike lane, seating,plantings.No, it clearly separates bikes from pedestrians.Concept 02 No, this is long overdue to improve the
congestion at crossings.
55082
style No bike parking Clearly marked bike path Concept 02 Add bike parking
Concept 02
bike lane Concept 02 55082-4032
Concept 02 55082
Concept 02
From a cyclist point of view: 1. Bike racks need to be
located further away from the bridge exit/entrance. 2.
A more visual delineation for pedestrians and cyclists as
to where it would be safest to travel. 3. Water street
crossing is an issue! Bridge over the street or traffic
control lights? Restrict it to emergency and delivery
vehicles only?
It looks like a very user friendly
arrangement. Definite paths for pedestrians
and cyclists. The additional bike racks closer
to Main Street is a plus. The “round about”
has the potential to simplify the existing
chaos at the end of the bridge between
pedestrians and cyclists.
More educational/informational signage as to
where it is ok to walk or pedal is needed. “Path
Etiquette or Protocal” is essential for
successfully integrating bipeds and bicycles!
It is esthetically pleasing but this has the looks of
a “yellow brick road” and we all know what
happened along the route! Lot’s of potential for
accidents.
Concept 02 Block, control or build a cycle+pedestrian bridge
over the top of Water Street. There are all ready
too many inattentive drivers searching for a
parking spot! I have had to stop short on my
bicycle many times to avoid being hit by a motor
vehicle looking to park. And this was before the
bridge loop was completed!
Expansion of parking spots is OK. Could there be
more signage for entering and exiting the
existingparking lots on the N and S side of Main
Street
55042
I like the trees and the bike racks.No clear path for bikes from the bridge to Main Street,
they will be wandering all over the place and creating a
hazard to navigation.
There is a clear route for bikes and a
roundabout to make sure they don't just
speed through the area.
No, this one is fine. Has trees and bike parking
too.
It's a nice wandering path, but unfortunately out
of place here. Nobody will know where to walk
or ride. Everyone will get in each others' way.
See above Concept 02 Thank you for all your hard work!This is fantastic!! We definitely need this extra
level of buffer between people and the insane
truck traffic, etc.
55082
worry that bikers don't have designated space to ride
and peds will be run over
I like the bike path seems like there are fewer place to sit than with
the other plans - important to provide enough
seating
The path could be used by bikers. And I like the
curves of the path.
But the curve will make the bikers less likely to
follow the curves.
Concept 02 Considering how many bikers use the paths
through Stillwater it's important to
accommodate them - especially to keep them
off the narrow streets and out or the parking
lots where it's more dangerous.
55082
Open concept and nice trees and shade NO DESIGNATED BIKE LANE - to much confusion for all
and safety is a big concern
LOVE the bike lane so it helps to separate
them from walkers creating more safety to
the area. Love the bike lane on water street.
More shade trees as bikers can ride under them.
Add lockers to the bricked side of the building
for walkers and bikers to buy things downtown
and store them while biking/walking. More bike
racks closer to downtown.
It is artsy and fun. Looks really nice. No designated places for bikes...again MASS
confusion of who goes where and safety
concerns.
Concept 02 Lockers for all somewhere, more bike racks. I like the bump out concept. It will make cars
slow down and give peds and bikers better
access to Main St.
55082
There is not a means for bicyclists to travel between the
lift bridge and Main Street. This is critical if we want all
of the people bicycling the loop and trails to go to Main
Street businesses. Parking your bikes two blocks away
and walking to Main Street will not be desirable for
bicyclists.
The bicycle lane is very good. It is shown off-
center of the plaza, and the location could
be optimum. The roundabout near the lift
bridge and trail markings look very good.
Along with the trail, it looks like very good
planning for pedestrians with trees and
space. The narrowed Water Street auto
crossing may minimize traffic crossing the
plaza.
It is confusing whether the promenade will be
shut off for bicyclists now (it looks like it) and
moving the bicycle trail to Water Street. This
needs to be thought through more on the full
trail connection beyond the plaza. The
designated locations for bike racks can be
shifted around the plaza, but with the bicycle
trail going to Main Street, there should be
consideration for bike racks at, or near, Main
Street.
The "curvy" design of the path, along with
multiple tree locations seem aesthetically
pleasing.
The path is not designated as an actual bicycle
path (too narrow in spots, no lane marking, no
signage) so although there is a "path" it is not a
bicycle path. It could be turned into a bicycle
path, which would be good. Without lane
markings and signage, it would potentially be
chaotic and confusing to pedestrians and
bicycles. It also looks to connect to the
promenade. If the promenade is not used for
bicycles, this connection to the path on the plaza
would not work for bicycles.
Concept 02 Addition thought should be given to
"enhancements" after choosing the concept.
Any concept without consideration for bicycles
to travel to Main Street would be detrimental to
bicycling in Stillwater and downtown. Beyond
the concept chosen, much attention should be
given to aesthetics (maps, murals on big building
walls, benches, trees, flower planters) which will
greatly enhance the space.
The improvements sound very good. Timing and
traffic signals for pedestrian/bicycle crossing is
very important. Street furniture and amenities
all along Main Street (especially at the corners)
will also add to the attractiveness of the street.
55082
I like the benches and pedestrian area I don't like the one way and taking more parking away.the flowers that the one way through is a one way I like that it's the most open of the 3 I don't like the one way Concept 03 I like 1 and 3 the best - don't care for 2 at all.
Parking is an issue and making that a one way
could be challenging
Consistent look with plaza by Valley
Bookseller
Dedicated bike space Event space Concept 02 55082
The walkway reflects the buildings around it
and also reminds me of the high school. I
like all of the trees and the lights. It reminds
me of other vacation spots.
No I guess I like that there are clear areas for
riding a bike, although I generally prefer
people park their bikes in town or drive
slowly in pedestrian areas.
I don’t like the trees all on the left and the lights
all on the right. It’s not cozy and intimate like
concept 1.
I like all of the trees. I like how the pathway has
a more natural shape.
I do not like the red accents of the chairs.Concept 01 Make it safe for children. I do not like walking with my kids downtown
Stillwater. Anything that makes the corners and
intersections safer for pedestrians has my full
support.
55082
I like the benches, tables, trees lights, and
gardens
Patio tables feel like they are in the middle of the road-
could use some enclosure
Raised wood garden benches Very much dislike the idea of having a bike trail
down the center. Feels like a less predestination
friendly space for foot travel and lounging
Curved benches and raised wood garden
benches are very nice way to get extra use out
of garden space. The curved brick trail is
especially nice. Draws your eye to the bridge as
a focal point. The swinging benches are fun
None that come to mind. No pink benches
though!
Concept 03 I would like to discourage bike travel on the
plaza. Cyclists will not pair well with a plaza
designed for games and lounging. The bike racks
near the circle plaza by the bridge are a very
good idea.
Northbound left turn lanes with a blocked
sidewalk to discourage right side passing are a
very good idea. Maybe have a crosswalk
indicator button on Olive to signal when
pedestrians are trying to cross. Olive street
should be a westbound one way street. Trying to
turn right or left onto main street while driving
east on Olive is difficult to see around parked
vehicles coming from the north on main Street.
55082
Open and unstructured Kinda boring Bike path Feels too modern Curved path, nice tables Concept 03 Let’s close more streets like we do for Covid and
have more of these
Smaller street and bigger sidewalks. Slow traffic
to 15mph. Shared bike signage
55082
No bike lane Dedicated bike lane Concept 02
It’s just ok I don’t like the seating options Plantings Looks a little too modern Yes! This is my favorite one. It’s a good blend of
the first two, I really like the seating.
I wish it had string patio lighting Concept 03 Looks good!55082
I like that there no bike lane in this concept.
So don't have to worry about bike racing
through the plaza
Everything looks good I don't like the bike lane The gray walk way Concept 01 55082
Symmetry, and no bike path No No Bike path, trees on one side Trees Too busy in design Concept 01 Plaza will be beautiful. What about plans to
redo sidewalks on Main Street, get rid of weeds,
individual stores sprucing up store fronts and
keeping it clean and weed free to make the rest
of downtown not look so junky. Hanging
summer flower baskets( like Bayport). Nice
Christmas lights and decorations.
No, looks good 55082
8/28/2020
Summary of On-Line Survey
Not really! Needs more parking and less
open space.
Most of it Too much biking area and the benches look
like a skateboarders playground
Not enough parking Like the plantings and ample seating. Needs
more lighting for all hours and trash cans for the
drunks!!!!
Needs more parking!!!!!!Concept 03 Need more Parking Lighting Trash cans Less
biking areas. They go too fast through and scare
pedestrians Please add the parking you are
taking away!!!!! Aldo have you talked to the
businesses nearby? No you have not! Please
contact the pole barn ASAP to discuss! This
affects businesses too and will put a huge strain
on them!
It’s horrible that you are not talking to the
businesses directly affected
55082
One way street on water street Less access to parking One way on water street Bike paths, less access to parking I like this one the best, one way street on water
street
Less access to parking Concept 03 Is this necessary? Stillwater has to do better at
parking first. Look to Hudson. They’ve got it
figured out.
No 55082
Looks nice Doesn't look bike friendly in the least.Yes. More open. Bike and walk areas No No Too complex. Keep it simple Concept 02 Why introduce designs that aren't bike friendly
when we're encouraging people to ride their
bikes in Stillwater?
Stop taking away more and more driving room 55082
8/28/2020
216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-8800
www.ci.stillwater.mn.us
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 18, 2020
SPECIAL MEETING 3:30 P.M.
Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 3:33 p.m.
Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Polehna and Weidner
Absent: None
Staff present: City Administrator McCarty
City Clerk Wolf
City Attorney Land
Community Development Director Turnblad
Finance Director Provos
Fire Chief Glaser
Human Resources Manager Robole
Public Works Director Sanders
St. Croix Recreation Center Manager Brady
Library Director Troendle
Library Board Member Bell
OTHER BUSINESS
Preliminary 2021 Budget Workshop
City Administrator McCarty presented the preliminary 2021 budget recommendations,
which include two levy impact alternatives (0% levy adjustment and +2.26% levy
adjustment). He reviewed budget risk areas for 2021 and budget mitigation measures taken
in 2020/potential 2021; and budget factors as related to the Strategic Plan.
Finance Director Provos explained the proposed property tax levy, both the zero percent
levy increase option, and the 2.26% increase option reflecting departmental requests. Even
with the conservative numbers, the tax rate would go down almost 3%. This would be the
lowest tax rate in at least 11 years even with increasing the levy 2.26%.
City Administrator McCarty described the budget requests and “costs to continue.”
Councilmember Weidner asked if there is a specific priority project that would require a
lobbyist for 2021; and Mr. McCarty replied other than the unfinished Highway 36/Manning
Avenue project, the Council has not identified any projects as a priority for lobbying in 2021.
Councilmember Polehna noted that the legislature approved funds for Lake City riverfront
redevelopment, and maybe Stillwater should be seeking State funding for the Aiple
property; and Mr. McCarty responded that the lobbyist contract provides for the lobbyist to
continue working on whatever issues the Council directs, as long as legislature is in session.
He went on to review requests for new or modified staff positions and stated that, given the
risk factors, it may be difficult to fund new positions.
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 2 of 9
Councilmember Collins inquired who sets the priority for staffing requests; and Mr. McCarty
replied what is being reviewed now is requests from department heads, all of which impact
the levy.
Ms. Provos discussed general fund revenues and expenditures, comparing the 2021
requested and the 2020 adopted. Overall, staff is predicting revenues to go up roughly
$500,000 and are therefore recommending a conservative approach to revenues for next
year.
City Administrator McCarty went over the general fund account and special revenue funds
in detail. Community agencies have all requested the same amount as last year. Retiree
health insurance premium costs will increase approximately $70,000. The total retiree
health insurance cost is nearing $1 million, just over 8.5% of total levy for the City. He
reviewed special revenue funds.
St. Croix Recreation Center Manager Brady reported that revenue expectations for the Rec
Center for 2021 have been lowered and staff is trying to hold the line on expenses.
Library Director Troendle indicated that the library had projected 40 weddings would be
held in 2020, but there were only eight events for 2020. The Library Board made the
decision to terminate without cause the event management contract, and paused events. A
new library events task force was formed to determine how to best move forward. They are
discussing various options for 2021, including reducing hours of operation, personnel
hours, and changing ways the library serves the public.
City Administrator McCarty added that the library’s proposed budget shows a 0% levy
increase and a proposed “cost to continue,” however it is really not the full cost to continue
based on the loss of their other revenue. The maintenance of effort formula, which the State
requires the City to maintain the library, has not changed for years.
City Administrator McCarty went on to discuss the special revenue funds and the Capital
Outlay budget. Staff believes $3 million should be the upper limit, but there are many
requests.
Public Works Director Sanders gave an overview of proposed capital projects.
Councilmember Weidner asked about the status of the St. Croix Riverbank stabilization
project; and Mr. Sanders answered that the endangered species reviews have been
completed and submitted to the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). Staff is waiting for the review comments. The project should be
constructed yet this winter, and staff is working on obtaining an appraisal to determine a
cost to work on the area in front of the Dock Café where the City does not have an easement.
City Administrator McCarty discussed the Enterprise Funds.
Councilmember Polehna inquired about the replacement of downtown lights; and Mr.
Sanders responded that staff met with a consultant regarding the type of pole and light
fixture to use, and an estimate is being written. He will have a report for the Council next
month.
City Administrator McCarty added that street light replacement will be a big capital project,
way over $1 million. Staff is looking at a possible alternative to bonding, in conjunction with
the energy savings plan done by Ameresco. He then explained the Parking Fund and Parking
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 3 of 9
Ramp Fund. Both are stable enough currently to manage operating expenses and some
capital expenses. In summary, he asked the Council to consider which direction they are
leaning in regard to the two levy scenarios, 0% increase and +2.26% roughly. There is still
work to do on employee health insurance and other elements. The Council must adopt a
preliminary 2021 budget and certify the maximum City property tax levy to the County by
September 30, 2020 and must hold the Truth in Taxation meeting in December for adoption
of the final 2021 Stillwater City budget.
RECESS
Mayor Kozlowski recessed the meeting to closed session at 4:56 p.m.
RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Polehna and Weidner
Absent: None
Staff present: City Administrator McCarty
City Clerk Wolf
City Attorney Land
Community Development Director Turnblad
Finance Director Provos
Fire Chief Glaser
Human Resources Manager Robole
Public Works Director Sanders
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
August 4, 2020 regular, closed and recessed session meeting minutes
Payment of Bills
Ordinance 1145, An ordinance amending Stillwater City Code Chapter 31 by
amending Section 31-210 regarding Planned Unit Development Standards,
amending Section 31-315 relating to Allowable Uses in Residential Zoning Districts,
amending Section 31-325 relating to Allowable Uses in Non-Residential Districts,
and adding Section 31-326 Creating a HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District,
Case No. 2020-09
Ordinance 1146, An ordinance of the City of Stillwater, Washington County,
Minnesota annexing land located in Stillwater Township, Washington County,
Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.033 subdivision 2(3), Permitting
Annexation by Ordinance, Case No. 2020-10
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 4 of 9
Ordinance 1147, An ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Section 31-300
entitled Establishment of Districts by rezoning approximately Thirty-Five Acres to
HMU, Highway Mixed Use and R-O-W, Right of Way, Case No. 2020-10
Ordinance 1148, An ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101,
entitled Definitions by amending the definition for Setback, Building Line, Case No.
2020-23
Ordinance 1149, An ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Section 31-300
entitled Establishment of Districts by rezoning Lot 17, Block 11, Sabins Addition to
RB, Two-Family Residential, Case No. 2020-27
Encroachment Agreement for 1447 Macey Way
Sanitary Sewer Adjustments
Sporting St. Croix Soccer Club Agreement Amendment
Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt the
Consent Agenda. All in favor.
STAFF REPORTS
Fire Chief Glaser reported there were many storm damage calls over the weekend; the
Department escorted the National Guard leaving for their deployment; a $1,000 matching
grant was received from the Department of Natural Resources to replace firefighting
equipment; and reimbursement of $200 per firefighter for training, totaling $7,800, will be
coming from MFTE.
RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS
Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce Budget Request - Robin Anthony, Executive Director
Ms. Robin Anthony stated that as a not-for-profit 501c(6), the Chamber did not qualify for
business loans or the payment protection program during this pandemic. She explained how
the loss of community events has negatively impacted the Chamber’s 2020 financials, and
requested a one-time contribution of $1,000.
City Attorney Land confirmed that the contribution would be considered a valid public
expenditure to support economic development.
Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to donate $1,000 to the
Greater Stillwater Chamber. All in favor.
STAFF REPORTS CONTINUED
City Clerk Wolf provided Primary Election statistics and thanked election judges and staff
for their efforts, especially working with new equipment and in the midst of the pandemic.
Community Development Director Turnblad stated that the Chestnut Street Plaza Design
public meeting had a great turnout and input is still being taken on the City website. The
preferred design will be presented at the September 1 City Council meeting.
City Attorney Land reported that the Charter Commission approved the Ordinance
Amendment repealing the Water Department from the Charter, which is the first step in the
water department transition.
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 5 of 9
City Administrator McCarty gave an update on the Public Works/Water Board transition
plan. The first reading and public hearing will be September 15, the second reading
September 29.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
COVID-19 Response Update
• Events
Noting that the Council cancelled all events through September, Mr. McCarty asked the
Council to consider the Fall Art Fair and Harvest Fest. The governor has not changed the
executive order on gatherings. Downtown has been very busy on weekends without any
formal events. Adding thousands more people with events could generate public health
concerns.
Ms. Robin. Anthony, Greater Stillwater Chamber, pointed out that there are currently only
60 artists signed up for the Fall Art Fair. She learned the State is now allowing for up to
1,500 people in an area, but in controlled pods of 250 people. There could still be concerns
about public perception. All the other art festivals across the State have been cancelled.
Councilmember Junker remarked the Art Fair is a fabulous event, but he is concerned about
public perception if the City allows the event.
Councilmember Collins commented that it is a tough call, but the responsible thing is to
continue to cancel events at least through October if not beyond.
Councilmember Weidner agreed that canceling the events is wise and helps the Chamber
know what to work on and not work on.
Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to cancel all events
through November 1. All in favor.
• CARES Act Funding Program
City Administrator McCarty reminded the Council that the City’s reimbursement of $1.5
million CARES Act Funds has been received. Staff is still investigating alternatives for what
level of support to provide for public safety costs out of the CARES funds, and still waiting
for guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department regarding disbursement criteria. Staff does
not yet have a final recommendation on an allocation for business support. Washington
County is taking applications from businesses county-wide and could help the City manage
requests. Christie Rosckes of the Convention and Visitor Bureau has requested $146,000 to
meet their 2020 budget. He has discussed this with Ms. Rosckes and she will provide
additional background. The City also had a request from hospital systems, which are eligible
for some CARES Act funding support, but it is not certain whether cities of Stillwater’s size
may provide this support.
Ms. Rosckes told the Council she is pulling together information, but wants Council to know
the dollar amount being requested is largely related to the 50% drop in lodging.
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 6 of 9
NEW BUSINESS
Declare Costs and Order Hearing on 2020 Street Improvement Project
Public Works Director Sanders provided that the 2020 Street improvement Project is
scheduled to be completed by the end of October, 2020. Staff has projected the total cost of
the project to be $2.3 million. Staff recommends that Council declare costs, authorize the
preparation of the assessment roll, and call for a hearing.
Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt Resolution
2020-074, Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed
Assessment for 2020 Street Improvement Project (Project 2020-02); and Resolution 2020-
075, Resolution Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 2020 Street Improvement
Project (Project 2020-02). All in favor.
Greeley Street Lift Station Improvements
Public Works Director Sanders explained that in 2020 the City budgeted $300,000 for Lift
Station improvements and the Greeley Street lift station was selected for replacement. Staff
is requesting approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to bid. Bid results
will be presented to Council at the September 15th meeting.
Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Resolution
2020-076, Approve Plans & Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Greeley
Street Lift Station Improvement Project. All in favor.
Parking Capacity Study
Lance Bernard, Project Manager, HKGi summarized the study and explained the nine
strategies proposed to improve parking availability for the general public by shifting the
heavy parking demand in core areas to more underutilized areas like the parking ramp and
less used lots.
Councilmember Weidner questioned the recommendation to reduce the time allowed for
on-street parking to two hours, and the comparison to other communities in the study. He
pointed out that other communities do not have the same makeup of restaurants to shops
and stores that Stillwater does. Downtown Stillwater does not have convenience stores, dry
cleaners and so on. There are a lot of sit-down bars and restaurants whose customers park
more than two hours; and Mr. Bernard responded that it really is about the user. On-street
parking should be managed for the short term user doing pickup and quick errands. Three
hour parking supports a longer term user using that space that could otherwise be turning
over more frequently.
Councilmember Weidner asked why it should be turning over more frequently; and Mr.
Bernard answered that the type of users staying in a downtown setting over two hours
really should be parking in a lot or ramp - that is a general parking practice across the
industry.
Councilmember Junker stated there are 1,959 parking spaces in downtown Stillwater of
which 416 (21%) is three-hour parking. There are 239 on-street all-day spaces so there are
655 parking spaces on street total. The Downtown Parking Commission saw the need to try
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 7 of 9
to get the 600+ street parking spaces to move more frequently and get people into the lesser
used spaces.
Councilmember Weidner reiterated that two-hour on-street parking is not adequate for
restaurants, which make up a large percentage of downtown businesses. Going to two-hour
on-street parking would make it less attractive for people to eat in downtown Stillwater.
Councilmember Junker noted that going from three-hour to two-hour on-street parking
changes the mindset of employee parking. All nine recommended strategies come together
for the big picture of downtown parking.
Mr. Bernard stated that all these strategies have to work together in synergy. He then
discussed enforcement and technology and how to monitor those who extend their time in
parking restricted areas. Typically without regular enforcement, 30-40% of the parking
users overstay their time. Parking enforcement helps temper the habitual offenders who
may park beyond the time restrictions. This ties into conversations about employee parking
on the street. He then reviewed the current parking ordinances and explained a parking tool
that was developed for City staff to use to better understand where there are opportunities
for new uses that come into downtown. He went on to discuss customer service strategy,
including ideas of how to improve customer service, looking at more marketing materials,
potential valet services and so on. He addressed ways to better manage employee parking,
higher parking demand times, how to avoid employees taking prime spots. There are ways
in which the business parking permit program might be refined to get employees to those
under-utilized lots.
Mayor Kozlowski remarked that figuring out where employees and downtown residents can
park safely is key to the whole plan.
Mr. Bernard responded that the study presented a few ideas about how to expand the
parking fee into some of the core lots that get more people into the fringe lots that are under-
utilized. This study is not making recommendations for any on street parking meters or fees.
The recommendation is to maintain current pricing in pay lots and expand fees to Lots 3, 4,
and 5.
Councilmember Polehna recalled that people came unglued the last time the Council
discussed charging in those lots.
Mr. Bernard stated that as those strategies were presented to business groups, there were
comments both for and against. Each of these strategies will require collaboration with the
businesses to unroll some of these changes if that is the direction the Downtown Parking
Commission and Council want to go. Regarding event parking, the study looked at how to
mitigate parking choke points during events, opportunities like shuttle services and
exploring government center lots. An employee parking program is probably one of the top
priorities in moving forward.
Councilmember Polehna commented that regarding Strategy 2, wayfinding, there are signs
on Third and Second Streets and Main directing people to the ramp that are hard to see.
Mr. Bernard acknowledged there are inconsistencies on signage downtown. Developing a
more consistent wayfinding plan is the core of that recommendation. He summarized that
the study was recognized as Phase 1. In a second phase, the City can start to get much more
detailed into some of these strategies.
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 8 of 9
Community Development Director Turnblad explained that the next step is to accept the
study and direct the Downtown Parking Commission to put together a work plan and decide
which strategies to implement first.
Mayor Kozlowski indicated that the City needs to know how many downtown employees
there are.
Councilmember Weidner pointed out that there are too many holes in the report to accept
it. If the strategies all have to work in synergy and the City decides to do only one or two,
then what does that do? The study is very basic. He thought the study was going to be more
than just the basics.
Councilmember Junker offered that the Downtown Parking Commission can help decide
which strategies to work on first and come back to Council with deeper strategies.
Councilmember Polehna questioned how the study is different than what was done before.
Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to accept the Parking
Capacity Study and direct the Downtown Parking Commission to develop a work plan. Motion
passed.
Ayes: Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Polehna and Mayor Kozlowski
Nays: Councilmember Weidner
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
Yellow Ribbon Update
Councilmember Polehna stated the Yellow Ribbon Committee fed 550 people for the
military deployment event. He thanked the local businesses that donated food and money.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adjourn to closed
session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §13D.03 for Labor Negotiations Strategy. Motion
passed.
Ayes: Councilmembers Collins, Junker Polehna and Mayor Kozlowski
Nays: Councilmember Weidner
The meeting was adjourned to closed session at 8:45 p.m.
Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Weidner and Polehna
Also present: City Administrator McCarty, Human Resources Manager Robole, City Labor
Attorney Hansen.
RECESS
Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adjourn. All in
favor. The meeting was adjourn at 9:33 p.m.
City Council Meeting August 18, 2020
Page 9 of 9
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
Resolution 2020-074, Resolution Declaring Cost To Be Assessed and Ordering
Preparation Of Proposed Assessment For 2020 Street Improvement Project
(Project 2020-02)
Resolution 2020-075, Resolution Calling For Hearing on Proposed Assessment for
2020 Street Improvement Project (Project 2020-02)
Resolution 2020-076, Approve Plans & Specifications and Ordering Advertisement
for Bids for Greeley Street Lift Station Improvement Project
Ordinance 1145, An ordinance amending Stillwater City Code Chapter 31 by
amending Section 31-210 regarding Planned Unit Development Standards,
amending Section 31-315 relating to Allowable Uses in Residential Zoning Districts,
amending Section 31-325 relating to Allowable Uses in Non-Residential Districts,
and adding Section 31-326 Creating a HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District,
Case No. 2020-09
Ordinance 1146, An ordinance of the City of Stillwater, Washington County,
Minnesota annexing land located in Stillwater Township, Washington County,
Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.033 subdivision 2(3), Permitting
Annexation by Ordinance, Case No. 2020-10
Ordinance 1147, An ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Section 31-300
entitled Establishment of Districts by rezoning approximately Thirty-Five Acres to
HMU, Highway Mixed Use and R-O-W, Right of Way, Case No. 2020-10
Ordinance 1148, An ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101,
entitled Definitions by amending the definition for Setback, Building Line, Case No.
2020-23
Ordinance 1149, An ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Section 31-300
entitled Establishment of Districts by rezoning Lot 17, Block 11, Sabins Addition to
RB, Two-Family Residential, Case No. 2020-27
Page 1
CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS
Advance Auto Parts Auto Maintenance Supplies 45.24
Advanced Sportswear Polos 279.00
AE2S Construction (EIM)City Hall Phase 3 548.15
Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Aiple house lock 169.80
Aspen Mills Uniforms - Fleischhacker 211.20
Batteries Plus Bulbs Battery 391.80
Brock White Co. LLC AEC Curlex 455.18
CalAtlantic Homes Grading Escrow Refund 4,500.00
Carl Bolander & Sons Shorty Dry Cleaners Demo 40,950.32
CDW Government Inc.Computer supplies and equipment 4,171.24
Cintas Corporation Mat & uniform cleaning service 432.02
City of St. Paul Asphalt 950.18
Comcast Internet & Voice 298.40
Compass Minerals America Inc Salt 6,429.13
Cummins Sales & Service Equipment repair supplies 595.66
Dakota County Technical College Training 400.00
Dogpoopbags.com Dog clean up bags 130.00
ECM Publishers Publications 603.25
Emergency Automotive New squad build 12,401.14
Flaherty & Hood P.A Job eval points 250.00
FleetPride Repair CV heads & bench 2,351.12
Frontier Ag & Turf Equipment repair supplies 345.51
Golden Expert Services Janitor service 3,700.00
Goodyear Commercial Tire Tires 846.44
Grainger Door sweep for FD shop door 43.00
Greater Stillwater Chamber Contribution & refund due to event cancellation 1,050.00
Group Medicareblue RX Retiree Prescriptions Ins 2,415.00
Guardian Supply Uniforms & supplies 859.85
Hardwood Creek Lumber Inc.Pine lath 271.60
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc Professional service 13,040.08
Interstate PowerSysterms Equipment repair supplies 40.41
Lano Equipment Lan Drvln 1,767.01
Lawson Anna Park Fee Refund 85.00
Loffler Companies ExtremeWorks, Copier Lease & Professional Services 24,861.40
Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Labor Relations Services 34.00
Mansfield Oil Company Fuel 10,284.73
Menards Supplies 871.66
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors Maintenance 853.75
MidAmerica Inc Waste processing 248.75
Middle St Croix Watershed WMO Watershed Management payment 21,969.35
Midway Ford 2020 Ford F550 22,811.87
Miller Excavating Street & parking lot projects 479,959.98
MnFIAM Book Store Training materials 53.00
MTI Distributing 6 foot broom 707.20
National Fire Protection Association 2019 NFPA 13 449.91
NPELRA Seminar 99.00
Office Depot Files 76.29
Pioneer Press St. Paul Subscription 119.76
Quadient Leasing Postage machine lease 455.01
Page 2
Quill Corporation Office supplies 129.45
River Valley Printing Inc.Business cards 49.00
Safe Fast Inc Supplies 454.35
Sams Marine Inc Vehicle repair 847.77
SEH Inc North stairway & downtown lighting 11,155.00
Sherwin Williams Paint 653.17
Siegfried Construction Company George Lowell Park Gazebo Roof 1,015.14
SRF Consulting Group ADA Transition Plan 2,201.64
St. Croix Recreation Fun Playgrounds Bike rack 1,618.70
Stillwater & Oak Park Heights CVB Qtrly Lodging Tax 24,292.62
Stillwater Fire Relief Assoc 2019 & 2020 State payments 5,000.00
Stockert Taylor Reimburse for class 215.00
Streichers Supplies 515.94
T.A. Schifsky and Sons 2020 Street Project 359,488.44
TKK Electronics Processors 575.00
Toll Gas and Welding Supply Cylinders 155.00
Triple Valley Ironworks Memorial bench 3,042.00
Tri-State Bobcat Equipment repair 1,072.08
Uline Inc Supplies 650.42
Voyant Communications Phone 540.48
Walmart Community Water 37.74
Waste Management of WI-MN Waste 547.20
Water Works Irrigation LLC Irrigation repair 708.00
Winnick Supply Supplies 144.65
Winslow Miles Refund of overpayment of Tech Fee 25.00
Xcel Energy Energy 28,974.84
REC CENTER
AE2S Construction (EIM)Dome 56,083.42
AT&T Mobility Cell phone 68.72
Cintas Corporation Mat cleaning service 103.00
Comcast TV Internet & Voice 364.82
Dalco Equipment repair supplies 247.90
Grainger Equipment repair supplies 154.18
Ice Sports Industry Membership 36.00
Jaytech Inc Bellacide 287.10
Menards Equipment repair supplies 83.57
Mercury Electric Electrical repair 380.00
Sentry Systems Inc.Alarm monitoring 140.85
Siegfried Construction Company George Concrete sidewalks 2,875.00
St. Croix Boat and Packet Co.Arena billing 49,687.96
Tierney Brothers Inc.Pole stand for TTS tablets 558.00
Wagner Shane Ice Rental Refund 3,888.72
LIBRARY
Amazon Business Supplies & materials 1,294.35
Baker and Taylor Materials 80.00
Culligan of Stillwater Water 27.65
Demco Inc.Processing Supplies 241.47
Page 3
Faurot Kimberly Staff Reimbursement 213.21
H W Wilson Materials 295.70
Kingsley Companies Book Bins Materials 10,082.00
Office of MN IT Services Phone - July 2020 143.70
Otis Elevator Company Elevator Service 598.44
Petrie Angela Staff Reimbursement 56.45
Recorded Books Inc Materials 483.26
Scholastic Inc Materials 299.67
AUGUST MANUALS
ShopPopDisplays Barriers (COVID)8,682.24
CREDIT CARDS
Active911 Inc Subscription 11.16
Amazon.com Supplies 2,031.43
AMEM Membership dues 100.00
American Flagpole & Flag New US flag 45.95
Backgroundchecks.com Back ground checks 315.70
BCA Training Training 75.00
Johnson Trailer Co.Ramp springs 72.20
Logitech Webcams 85.68
Police Bike Store Lighting equipment for patrol bike 649.95
Pony Express Vehicle detailing 417.66
Primary Products Co.Supplies for COVID PPE 522.36
Target COVID supplies for squads 121.02
Walgreens COVID supplies for squads 12.85
Wells Fargo Bank MN NA Bank fee 39.00
Zoom Video Communications Zoom monthly fee 32.11
LIBRARY CREDIT CARDS
Dream Host Web hosting 6.00
Rose Floral Programs - Adult (Friends)30.00
Zoom Video Communications Zoom monthly fee 16.06
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
c;Jr7·
S hawn Sanders Di rector of Public Works
DATE: August 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Work and Final Payment
2016 Street Improvement Project No. 2016-02
DISCUSSION
The work on the 2016 Street Improvement Proj"ect has been completed. The contractor has
submitted their final application and required information to finalize the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council accept the work and authorize final payment to Miller Excavating
Inc. in the amount of $35,324.34.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with the recommendation, Council should pass Resolution 2020-
ACCEPTING WORK AND ORDERING FINAL PAYMENT FOR 2016 STRET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ( PROJECT 2016-02)
PLANNING REPORT
TO: City Council
MEETING DATE: September 1, 2020
REQUEST: Approval of the State Historic Preservation Office Certified Local Government
Contract for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Design Guidelines
Update Project
REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
The City has been working on updating its preservation-related ordinances throughout 2020. Once this
has been accomplished, the HPC would like to consolidate and update several different sets of design
guidelines into a single reference document. This is called out as a work plan item for the City to
accomplish in the first 1-3 years after the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s adoption.
GUIDELINE UPDATE
With assistance of a consultant, the City will combine all adopted and draft design guidelines into a
single reference document. A specific goal of the reference document will tie established design
guidelines to the standards set forth in the City Code. This will not involve significant alterations of, or
additions to, previously adopted guidelines.
Though overlap may occur and the chosen consultant may choose to modify it, it is anticipated the
project will progress as per the following schedule:
2020
September: General Project Administration
October: Procurement Period
November: Consultant Selection/Contracting
December: Guideline Framework Development
2021:
January: HPC Consultation
February: Guideline Update
March: HPC Feedback
April: Guideline Finalization
May: Commission Hearing
June: Council Hearing & Adoption
It will cost a total of $26,708 to complete this project. City staff has applied for and been awarded
$16,025 to offset the costs. The Community Development Department has requested $5,000 in the
2021 draft budget; the remaining $5,683 will either be in the form of cash match from the Department’s
professional services fund or in-kind (i.e. staff, HPC commissioner, and other volunteer time)
Page 2 of 2
COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the Council move to approve the $16,025 State Historic Preservation Office’s grant
for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Design Guidelines Update project and authorize the
city planner to execute the grant contract.
Attachments: Resolution
Contract
RESOLUTION 2020 -
APPROVING THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the Historic Resources chapter of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls
for the consolidation and update of the City’s design guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission has been awarded a
$16,025 Certified Local Government grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to help
offset the costs associated with the design guideline update.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, MN that the grant contract
between the City of Stillwater and the State Historic Preservation Office for the Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission Design Guidelines Update, as on file with the City Clerk, is
hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor and the City Planner are hereby authorized
to sign said grant contract on behalf of the City of Stillwater.
Adopted by the Stillwater City Council on this 1st day o f September, 2020.
_________________________________
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 1
Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Design
Guidelines Update
SHPO-CLG FY20 Application
City of Stillwater
Mr. Ted Kozlowski
216 4th St N
Stillwater
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-4898
O: 6514308820
Ms. Abbi Jo Wittman
216 4th St N
Stillwater
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-4898
awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us
O: 6514308822
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 2
FollowUp Form
Grantee Information and Contract
Project Name
Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Design Guidelines Update
City Name, Address, and County
Stillwater (216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082), Washington County
This Agreement is made by and between the State Historic Preservation Office (hereinafter called State), and the
City. Pursuant to authority granted by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Recitals
1.Under Minn. Stat. 471.193- Municipal Heritage Preservation act the State is empowered to enter into this grant
2.The State is in need of historic preservation services to protect the valued resources of Minnesota’s buildings and
structures.
3.Pursuant to the Act, the State has been allocated $107,000 in funds in Fiscal Year 2020 by the United States
Department of the Interior, of which, a minimum of 10 percent must be transferred for use by Certified Local
Governments for qualifying historic preservation activities between July 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021; and
4.The City has applied for and been granted Certified Local Government Status and has made application for
Certified Local Government funds to be utilized in carrying out the project described in the grantees' application.
5. The City represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to
the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn.Stat.§16B.98, Subd.1, the City agrees to minimize administrative
costs as a condition of this grant.
Grant Contract
Effective Date*
08/03/2020
1 Term of Grant Contract
1.1 Effective Date: No payments will be made until Effective Date, or the date the State obtains all required
signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 5, whichever is later. Per Minn.Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 7, no payments
will be made to the Grantee until this grant contract is fully executed. The Grantee must not begin work under
this grant contract until this contract is fully executed and the Grantee has been notified by the State’s
Authorized Representative to begin the work.
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 3
Expiration Date*
07/31/2021
1.2 Expiration date: or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8.
Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 12. Publicity and Endorsement;
13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 15 Data Disclosure.
2 City's Duties
The City, who is not a state employee, will: Comply with required grants management policies and procedures set
forth through Minn.Stat.§16B.97, Subd. 4 (a) (1).
2.1 Project Description
A. The Grant Time Period, Work Summary, Photograph Guidelines (where applicable), Consultations and Progress
Reports, Final Products, and Final Project Reports are attached hereto and made a part hereof.
B. The City agrees the project will be carried out as described in the Work Summary, unless modified pursuant to
the provisions of Section 5 of this contract.
C. The State will reimburse the City for the budget costs identified as Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) federal
dollars in the Project Description, following submittal of materials as described in Section 4 of this Agreement.
Final products which do not conform to the terms and conditions of this Agreement or which do not meet the
applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards will not be reimbursed.
2.2 Final Report
A Final Project Report must be submitted at the conclusion of the project along with the financial documentation
and request for payment. The report should summarize the history of the project, its execution and evaluate its
overall success. Explain any issues or problems that the project encountered, and how they were (or were not)
overcome. If this was Phase I of a larger project, explain the anticipated next steps to complete the project. Note
any local or regional media coverage of the project, and include copies of printed articles or photographs, if
possible.
Grant Contract Attachment
Stillwater FY20 contract.docx
2.3 Assurances
A. The City assures that all work carried out on this project will conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Archeology and Historic Preservation (as published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1983) and that the
project personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (as published in the
Federal Register of September 29, 1983) as stipulated in the Project Description.
B.The City assures that this project will be administered and conducted in accordance with the following
1. 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
(Uniform Guidance).
a. In addition to the requirements of these regulations the City will allow a minimum of two weeks between
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 4
the date bid solicitations are published and the date bidders must respond; and allow eighteen calendar days
between the date invitations are mailed to potential bidders and the date bidders must respond.
2.Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Grants Manual (June 2007), describes the framework for the operation of the
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grants-in-aid program authorized by the Act, found online at
www.nps.gov/preservation-grants/HPF_Manual.pdf.
C. The City acknowledges that this project is being supported, in part, with funds from the United States
Department of the Interior. As a condition of receiving such funds, the City assures compliance with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of
1975.
The City also agrees as follows:
In the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work hereunder, no contractor, material
supplier or vendor shall, by reason of race, creed or color, discriminate against any person or persons who are
citizens of the United States, or resident aliens, who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the
employment relates.
No contractor, material supplier or vendor shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the
employment of any person or persons identified in the preceding paragraph, or on being hired, prevent, or
conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race,
creed or color.
The violation of this section is a misdemeanor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
This Agreement may be canceled or terminated by the State, and all money due, or to become due hereunder may
be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms of this section.
D. The City agrees to make repayment of grant funds to the State if terms and conditions of this Agreement are not
followed or costs claimed are subsequently disallowed.
E. The City, in accordance with provisions of 18 USC 1913 regarding lobbying, assures that no part of grant budget
will be used directly or indirectly or to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter,
printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a member of Congress,
to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the
introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation. This shall not prevent
communicating to members of Congress on the request of any member or to Congress, through the proper official
channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the
public business.
F. The City assures that transferred federal monies will not be applied as part of the matching (applicant) share,
and that monies used as match on other federal grants will not be used as matching (applicant) share on this
project.
3 Time
The City must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance of this
grant contract, time is of the essence.
Amount Awarded
$16,025.00
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 5
4 Consideration and Payment
4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows:
(a) Compensation: The Grantee will be paid within 30 days of requesting reimbursement, with total obligation to
the Grantee not to exceed Grant Amount.
(b) Travel Expenses
Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the City as a result of this
grant contract will not exceed the amount on the approved budget, provided that the City will be reimbursed for
travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current
"Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). The
City will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received
the State’s prior written approval for out of state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for
determining whether travel is out of state.
(c) Timesheets
If City staff or members of the HPC charge time to the project as match in direct fulfillment of the project, copies of
all timesheets documenting time charged must be submitted. The timesheets must be signed by whoever reviews
and signs timesheets (supervisor, personnel officer, etc.). The timesheets must clearly identify the month, date,
and the hours spent on the project for which time is charged. Hourly pay rate (including benefits) of each
employee charging time to the grant must be indicated so that expenditures can be verified. Be sure that the work
performed is within the contract period; any expenditures of time beyond those dates cannot be reimbursed.
(d) Consultants
Provide copies of invoices from consultants for services rendered. Invoices should clearly identify the time period
during which the work was performed and the hourly rate at which work is charged, again so that expenditures
can be verified. SHPO/the State can only reimburse wages at not more than an hourly rate as directed by the
National Park Service each federal fiscal year. For fiscal year 2021 grants, the rate is $79.68/hour. Invoices from
consultant(s) must include their signature and must also be within the contract time period.
(e) Total Obligation
The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the City under this grant contract will
not exceed the grant amount.
Payments under this grant contract will be made from federal funds obtained by the State through Title: Historic
Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid CFDA number 15.904 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. The City is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts
full financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the City’s failure to comply with federal requirements.
Supporting documentation (proof of payment and proof of expense) for all costs claimed in this request (including
for match and in-kind expenses), must be attached. Each supporting document should be labeled with the
appropriate approved budget line item expense. Please fill out the Value of In-Kind and/or Donated Services Time
Sheet and/or the Value of Donated Supplies and Materials forms when applicable.
4.2 Payment
(a) Invoices and Supporting Documentation
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 6
The State will promptly pay the City after the City presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed
and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted timely and
must clearly state the grant amount being requested as well as documenting any match. Payment cannot be made
until all required information has been submitted to the State for review and approval.
Supporting documentation (proof of payment and proof of expense) for all costs claimed in payment requests
(including for match and in-kind expenses), must be attached. Each supporting document should be labeled with
the appropriate Approved Project Budget Line-Item Expense. Please fill out Value of In-Kind and/or Donated
Services Time Sheet and/or the Value of Donated Supplies and Materials forms when applicable.
(b) Federal Funds
Payments under this grant contract will be made from federal funds obtained by the State through Title: Historic
Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid CFDA number 15.904 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. The City is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts
full financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the City’s failure to comply with federal requirements.
(c) Unexpended Funds
The City must promptly return to the State any unexpended funds that have not been accounted for annually in a
financial report to the State due at grant closeout.
(d) Contracting and Bidding Requirements
Per Minn. Stat.§471.345, the City must do the following if contracting funds from this grant contract agreement
for any supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance
of real or personal property.
(a)If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $100,000, a formal notice and bidding process must be
conducted in which sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice. Municipalities may, as a best value alternative,
award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the
best value under a request for proposals as described in Minn. Stat.§16C.28, Subd. 1, paragraph (a), clause (2)
(b) If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $25,000 but not $100,000, the contract may be made
either upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale
when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive
bidding. All quotations obtained shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt
thereof. Municipalities may, as a best value alternative, award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or
maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals as described
in Minn. Stat.§16C.28, Subd. 1, paragraph (a), clause (2) and paragraph (c).
(c)If the amount of the contract is estimated to be $25,000 or less, the contract may be made either upon
quotation or in the open market, in the discretion of the governing body. If the contract is made upon quotation it
shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept on file for a period of at least
one year after their receipt. Alternatively, municipalities may award a contract for construction, alteration, repair,
or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals as
described in Minn. Stat.§16C.28, Subd. 1, paragraph (a), clause (2)
(d) Support documentation of the bidding process utilized to contract services must be included in the City’s
financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if applicable.
(e) For projects that include construction work of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per; Minn. Stat.
§§177.41 through 177.44 consequently, the bid request must state the project is subject to prevailing wage. These
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 7
rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the
community as a whole. A prevailing wage form should accompany these bid submittals.
(f)The City agrees not to contract with any party which is debarred or suspended or is otherwise excluded from or
ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, Debarment and
Suspension.
Current lists of such parties are available online at the Minnesota Department of Administration website
http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/debarredreport.asp
4.3 Payments to Individuals
The Grantee must ensure that every individual receiving money from this grant in exchange for work, services,
performances or participation, complete IRS form W-4, W-8 or W-9, depending upon the individual’s employment
or citizenship status. All payments to individuals must comply with federal and state tax laws and reporting
requirements.
5 Conditions of Payment
All services provided by the City under this grant contract must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as
determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The City will not receive payment for work found
by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. All reporting involved with
the project must be submitted to SHPO.
Authorized Representative*
Grantee's Authorized Representative
Mayor Ted Kozlowski
6 Authorized Representative
The State's Authorized Representative is Amy Spong, Department of Administration, 203 Administration Building,
50 Sherburne Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-201-3288 or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to
monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this grant contract. If
the services are reasonably satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each
invoice submitted for payment.
The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is See Above. If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any
time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State.
Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete
7.1 Assignment
The City shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior
written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract, or
their successors in office.
7.2 Amendments
Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and
approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office.
A. Any significant variations from the approved work summary, products, budget, and performance/reporting
milestones described in Attachment A which are experienced or anticipated during the course of the project and
any significant problems, delays, or adverse conditions which materially affect planned performance should be
submitted in writing to Mike Koop, State Historic Preservation Office, Grants Office, 50 Sherburne Avenue, Saint
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 8
Paul, Minnesota, 55155. The State will respond in writing, either approving or not approving the changes, and may
amend the contract if deemed necessary. The City is aware that some changes may require approval by the
National Park Service and agrees to submit any necessary changes as early as possible during the project
period. Variations which are not known until the conclusion of the project may be submitted with the final
Request for Reimbursement; however, the City understands that costs may be disallowed if changes are not
approved.
B. If any part of the budgeted federal grant funds will not be used, the City must notify the State at least sixty (60)
days before the project's ending date. Failure of the City to notify the State may result in the loss of federal funds
to the state, and may have an adverse effect on future applications for CLG funds by the City.
7.3 Waiver
If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the
State’s right to enforce it.
7.4 Grant Contract Complete
This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other
understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
8 Liability
8.1 The City must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or
causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant
contract by the City or the City’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies
the City may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract.
8.2 The City will indemnify and save and hold the Department of the Interior harmless from any and all claims or
causes of action arising from the performance of this project by the City.
9 Audit
9.1 State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd.8, the City’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and
practices of the City or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction are subject to examination by
the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end
of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state
and program retention requirements, whichever is later.
9.2 Federal Audits
A. For cities who expend $750,000 or more a year in Federal funds, the City must submit single or program-specific
audits completed pursuant to Uniform Grant Guidance for all fiscal years that include the project period. These
must be submitted to Mike Koop, State Historic Preservation Office, 50 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota
55155 within one hundred and twenty (120) days of their completion.
B. The City agrees to maintain records to document any matching funds claimed as part of the project. The City
further agrees to secure reasonable written proof of the value of Staff or Volunteer Labor, and for Donated
Materials contributed to the project.
C. The City agrees that accounts and supporting documents relating to project expenditures will be adequate to
permit an accurate and expeditious audit. An audit may be made at any time by the State, its designated
representatives, or any applicable agency of the State of Minnesota
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 9
10 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property
10.1 Government Data Practices
The City and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it
applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected,
received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the City under this grant contract. The civil remedies of
Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the City or the State. If the
City receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the City must immediately notify the
State. The State will give the City instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before
the data is released. The City’s response to the request shall comply with applicable law
10.2. Intellectual Property Rights
The State retains ownership of all intellectual property created with these grant funds. The State gives the City an
unlimited license to use of all intellectual property created with these grant funds for authorized governmental
purposes.
11 Workers’ Compensation
The City certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation
insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that
may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by
any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s
obligation or responsibility.
12 Publicity and Endorsement
12.1 Publicity
Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring agency
and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For
purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports,
signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the City individually or jointly with others, or any
subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract.
All projects primarily funded by state grant appropriation must publicly credit the State of Minnesota, including on
the City’s website when practicable.
12.2 Federal Funding
A.Public Law 101-517, Title V, Section 511, states: When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals,
bid solicitations and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal
money, all grantees receiving Federal funds, including but not limited to State and local governments, shall clearly
state (1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or project which will be financed with Federal money, (2)
the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program, and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total
costs of the project or program that will be furnished by nongovernmental sources.
B.The City agrees any publications, studies, reports, presentations, films, audio visual materials, exhibits, or other
material prepared with grant assistance will contain an acknowledgment of HPF grant funds and nondiscrimination
policy as follows:
"The activity that is the subject of this (type of publication) has been financed (in part/entirely) with Federal funds
from the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.”
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 10
"This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U. S. Department of
the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its federally assisted
programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described
above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, U. S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.”
12.3 Endorsement
The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.
13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal
proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with
competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
14 Termination
14.1 Termination by the State
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to
the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for
services satisfactorily performed.
14.2 Termination for Cause
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply
with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for
which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the
interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all
or part of the funds already disbursed.
14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if:
(a)Funding for the Grant is withdrawn by the U.S. Department of Interior.
(b) Or, if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered
here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the City. The State is not obligated to pay for any
services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the City will be entitled
to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds
are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the contract is terminated because of the
decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must
provide the City notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice.
15 Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social
security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already
provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state
obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforce¬ment of federal and state tax laws which
could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any.
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 11
Signatures
1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. § § 16A.15 and 16C.05.
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
Laura Goiffon
DATE
08/18/2020
SWIFT Grant contract No. -
181891/300-10130
2. GRANTEE
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee
as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances.
_________________________
By: Ted Kozlowski
Title: Mayor
Date: September 1, 2020
_________________________
By: Beth Wolf
Title: City Clerk
Date: September 1, 2020
3. STATE AGENCY
_________________________
By:
(with delegated authority)
Title:
Date:
Abbi Jo Wittman City of Stillwater
Printed On: 27 August 2020 SHPO-CLG FY20 Application 12
File Attachment Summary
Applicant File Uploads
• Stillwater FY20 contract.docx
Grant Time Period: July 1, 2020 to July 31, 2021
Work Summary: The purpose of this project is to prepare design guidelines for the Stillwater
Commercial Historic District for the City of Stillwater. The project will be accomplished under the
supervision of personnel meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.
Consultations and Progress Reports:
1. The City will inform the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the name and qualifications
of the consultant with whom it has contracted within 15 days of the contract’s execution. The
City will at the same time provide a copy of the contract and a complete report on the
procurement process demonstrating compliance with Federal competitive procurement
requirements.
2. The City will submit a brief Monthly Progress Report to the SHPO by the 15th of each month for
the duration of the project period. Product submittals will accompany the monthly reports as
specified below.
3. By January 2021 the City will submit a) a description of the public engagement process to be
used in order to obtain input from stakeholders and the public; and b) a Table of Contents with
a list of chapters to be included in the design guidelines along with a breakout of topics within
each chapter in as much detail as possible to the SHPO for review (Milestone 1).
4. By April 2021 the City will submit a draft of a minimum of two chapters of the design guidelines
to the SHPO for review (Milestone 2).
5. By June 2021 the City will submit a draft of the complete design guidelines document to the
SHPO for review (Milestone 3).
The SHPO may request other written progress reports and on-site review of project progress, as
necessary.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: City Council CASE NO.: 2020-37
REPORT DATE: August 28, 2020
MEETING DATE: September 1, 2020
APPLICANT: City of Stillwater
LANDOWNER: Citywide
REQUEST: Consideration of City Code and Zoning Text Amendments updating the
City’s preservation regulations
LOCATION: Citywide
DISTRICT: Citywide
REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
INTRODUCTION
As the Council is aware, in consultation with an advisory committee, the HPC and the general
public including business members and property owners in the downtown core, the City has been
working on preservation-related ordinance (including design and demolition permitting)
amendments for the better part of one year. This was not only the first goal of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan’s Historic Preservation chapter, but a directive of the Council with the
demolition permit moratorium enacted in the fall of 2019. The ordinance update is intended to
be an overhaul of the existing ordinances for better clarity and understanding but to not
substantially change the existing preservation program. Staff has aimed to incorporate
comments from the general public, ordinance update committee members and the HPC based on
guidance from City Attorney Kori Land. Enclosed is the final version for consideration by the
Planning Commission (PC) who will make recommendation to the City Council (CC).
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The City is requesting consideration of City Code and Zoning Text Amendment to repeal and
replace the City’s existing preservation-related ordinances related to design and demolition
permitting as well as the creation of two new zoning overlay districts.
ANALYSIS
A summary of the proposed amendments is included within this section. Where there is conflict
or substantive change from the existing regulations, staff has identified such.
22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission
Originally adopted in 1973 and minimally altered since that time, this is the enabling
ordinance, granting the HPC the right to conduct certain preservation-related activities within
the community.
The City has expanded the nomination process, identifying persons who can nominate
structures within the community. Nomination criteria has been updated to reflect local goals
while requiring site integrity (such as retaining original features or maintaining original
location) as a component of consideration. The code clearly states when design permits are
required for locally-listed structures and sites. It also identifies the City’s Heirloom and
Landmark Sites program, codifying the differences between these two different types of
historic resources.
This ordinance specifically calls out the HPC’s role in demolition permit review throughout
the community and design permit review in established preservation related zoning overlay
districts (i.e. Downtown Design Review and Neighborhood Conservation). The section
drops the HPC’s previous role in review of design alterations that occur in the West
Stillwater Business Park; review of the design of these structures will occur at the staff and
Planning Commission level.
Lastly, it requires owners of National Register-listed structures and sites, heritage
preservation sites, and buildings or structures of potential historic significance to maintain
their properties as to prevent deterioration. This is a new requirement in the code but one
which the HPC and staff believe is important to the long-term vitality of the City’s oldest
neighborhoods.
31-209: Design Permit
Design permits, a function of zoning, have been reviewed and approved by the HPC for
decades. However, there was not a strong tie to the HPC enabling ordinance nor a
differentiation from Site Alteration Permits (a permit required for changes to a designated
historic site). From here on out, all actions requiring review by the HPC (with the exception
of complete demolition), regardless of a building, site or structure’s designation, will require
a design permit; site alteration permits will no longer be referenced in the City Code.
Standards have been updated requiring four-sided design, compatibility to neighborhood
rhythm, mass and scale, and substantial conformance to adopted guidelines; these standards
will be applicable to all design permit requests.
31-215: Demolition Permit
This code section will repeal and replace the existing demolition review ordinance, making
demolition permit review a part of the Zoning Code. Subject to the State of MN’s 60-day
review, the new review process will significantly reduce the amount time demolition review
and permitting can take.
The ordinance is clear that demolition is generally prohibited to help achieve community
goals focused on community sustainability, protection of affordable housing and the
preservation of community character of Stillwater’s residential neighborhoods. However, it
does allow a property owner (or the City, in the case of neglect) the right to request
demolition permit review for a heritage preservation site or a pre-1946 structure. The
process can align with a designation process, if a Councilor, HPC member, or HPC staff
liaison requests but it does not require designation consideration.
The process leans on city staff to prepare (or have prepared by a consultant, if needed)
historical, condition and appraisal reports for the city consideration of the demolition permit
application (which is required to have reconstruction plans and cost comparison included).
The HPC will consider the matter in a public hearing and, in the event they would like to
deny the demolition, forward their recommendation onto the City Council. Prior to
approving a demolition permit, the City must determine the demolition is supportive of the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and there is a situation substantially inadequate
to specific health and/or safety needs or that denial of the demolition permit would deprive
the owner of all reasonable use.
41-404: Downtown Design Review District Overlay
This is a new section of the City’s Zoning Code and helps strengthen the tie between the
City’s preservation regulations and zoning functions (including applications reviewed by the
Planning Commission). For this district, the overlay is merely to conduct review of design
permit applications for properties in the district. Staff has included HPC review of both
private and public projects (similar to the existing ordinance). The code section is
specifically tied to previously-adopted guidelines which are anticipated to be updated 2020-
2021.
41-405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay
This overlay will continue the HPC’s practice of reviewing the design of new homes on
vacant lots in the oldest part of Stillwater. It also allows for the HPC to review Design
Permits for partial demolition (i.e. alteration of greater than 20% of a front/exterior facing
façade or 30% of the total façade) as this is currently a function of the City’s existing
demolition ordinance. The only substantial change is the HPC is proposing to reduce the
overall demolition review down from 50% of the total exterior façade. The rationale for this
is inappropriate additions can have a significant impact on the overall character of the
structure and the neighborhood.
ANALYSIS
As noted, the regulations are not intended to be changed as to alter the HPC’s current operations
significantly. However, some changes were necessary to help clear up confusion, to create
greater flexibility, and to increase the HPC’s review of alterations to older buildings, sites and
structures. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance amending any of the provisions of this chapter,
the city council must find that:
The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment.
The City’s current HPC-enabling ordinance is nearly 50 years old and has had only minor
modifications since adoption. However, within that time period the City has created
preservation- and design review-related regulations in dozens of other City Code sections.
This has created a patchwork preservation program that is hard to understand and difficult to
administer. When combined with the City’s lengthy and cumbersome demolition review
process, the City’s preservation program has not exemplified good preservation regulation.
The general welfare of the community warrant this amendment.
The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the
comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Historic Resources, specifically outlines a ten-year work
plan for the HPC. While the chapter notes the City has not designated any structures or sites
since the late 1990s, it acknowledges the City’s preservation regulations are not well-defined.
The first work plan item was to update the preservation program so the HPC would be in a
better position to consider nominations of structures and sites as it continued to survey
neighborhoods.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the following options available to them:
1. If the Council finds the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning
practice permit the amendment and that the proposed amendment is in general
conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the
comprehensive plan, the Council may move to approve the 1st reading of the attached
ordinance with or without modifications.
2. Make findings that the public necessity, general community welfare and good zoning
practice do not permit the amendment or that the proposed amendment is not in general
conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the
comprehensive plan, and deny the requested ordinance amendment.
3. Table consideration for more information.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the
amendment and that the amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies
set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan.
Planning Commission
On August 26 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the Zoning Text
Amendments. After receiving no public comment, the Planning Commission forwarded a
favorable recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Heritage Preservation Commission
At their regular meeting on August 19th the Heritage Preservation Commission recommended the
Planning Commission approve the enclosed ordinance amendments.
Staff
Staff recommends the City Council move to approve the 1st reading of the attached ordinance.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
1
ORDINANCE NO._________
CITY OF STILLWATER
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS
REPEALING AND REPLACING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTIONS 22-7
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION, SECTION 31-209 DESIGN PERMIT,
AND SECTION 31-215 SITE ALTERATION PERMIT, ENACTING SECTIONS 31-404
DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT OVERLAY AND 31-405
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY, AMENDING SECTION
31-101 DEFINITIONS, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 34 BUILDING DEMOLITION
The City Council of Stillwater does ordain:
SECTION 1. Stillwater City Code Section 22-7, Heritage Preservation Commission is
hereby repealed and replaced as follows:
Sec. 22-7. - Heritage preservation commission.
Subd. 1. Commission established. City of Stillwater Ordinance #506 established the
Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission in 1973.
Subd. 2. Declaration of public policy and purpose. The city council declares that the
preservation, protection, perpetuation and use of areas, lands, places, buildings,
structures, districts or other objects having a special historical, community or
aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity, and is required in the interest of the
health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the community. The purposes of the
heritage preservation commission are to:
(1) Safeguard the city's heritage by preserving sites and structures that reflect
elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, visual or
architectural history;
(2) Protect and enhance the city's appeal and attraction to residents, visitors and
tourists and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry;
(3) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city;
(4) Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past; and
(5) Promote preservation and continued use of historic sites and structures for the
education and general welfare of the city's residents.
Subd. 3. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section,
shall have the definitions ascribed to them in this subdivision, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(1) Alter or alteration means to change the exterior of an existing building,
structure, or site, including features that materially modify its historic
appearance or construction.
2
(2) Building, structure, or site of potential historic significance means a
building, structure or site, or a portion of same, with a construction date of 50
or more years ago.
(3) Character defining features. The particular materials, ornamentation and
architectural features that together define the historic character of the
building, site, or district.
(4) Commission means the heritage preservation commission of the City of
Stillwater.
(5) Contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site that
adds to the overall character and significance of an historic district due to its
historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological, or engineering significance
and its compatibility with other buildings, structures and sites within a
historic district. A contributing structure has intact major character defining
features and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally
reversible. Historic materials may have been covered over but evidence
indicates they are intact.
(6) Demolition means any act or process that destroys in part or in whole.
(7) Demolition by neglect means the long-term neglect of a building, site or
structure that contributes to a level of dilapidation so severe that
rehabilitation of the building, site or structure may no longer be a viable
option.
(8) Design permit means the written approval of a permit application for
proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site or a contributing building,
structure or site within a historic district, based on findings that the work is
appropriate and does not adversely affect the heritage preservation site.
(9) Heirloom home means a house that has good historical physical integrity and
represents one of the architectural styles of the late nineteenth century or the
first half of the twentieth century.
(10) Heritage preservation site means any areas, lands, places, buildings,
structures, districts or other objects that has been duly designated a local
heritage preservation site by the city council because of its historical,
cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering significance, pursuant to
subdivision 5(2) of this section.
(11) Historic context means a summary document created for planning purposes
that groups information about historical properties based on a shared theme,
specific time period and geographical area.
(12) Historic district means a collection of all contributing and non-contributing
properties within a defined area designated as a historic district by the city
council because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or
engineering significance. A historic district is a type of heritage preservation
site, subject to all heritage preservation site regulations, and may contain
independently designated heritage preservation sites.
3
(13) Historic resource means any building or structure that is not currently
designated as a heritage preservation site, but which may be worthy of such
designation because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological
or engineering significance.
(14) Integrity means a site’s ability to convey its significance through retention of
the physical aspects of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association.
(15) Inventory means the City’s listing of locally designated heritage preservation
sites and districts, including contributing properties within a district.
(16) Landmark site means a site that is among the most historically and
architecturally significant properties in Stillwater. A landmark retains its
architectural integrity and has a strong connection to the history of the city.
(17) Non-contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site
that does not have architectural or historic significance, and does not add to
the overall character and significance of an historic district, due to a lack of
architectural or historical integrity or its incompatibility with other buildings,
structures and sites. Non-contributing buildings can include, but not be
limited to, those with incompatible additions or exterior alterations, have lost
original integrity, or are outside a district's period of significance.
(18) Period of significance means the span of time that properties attain the
character defining features that qualify them for designation.
(19) Significance means the importance of a heritage preservation site, historic
district, or historic resource.
(20) Staff means designated Community Development Department staff liaison to
the heritage preservation commission or designee.
(21) Survey means a systematic examination of an area designed to gather
information about historic properties sufficient to evaluate them against
predetermined criteria of significance within specific historic contexts.
Subd. 4. Powers and duties of the commission. The commission shall have the following
powers and duties, in addition to those otherwise specified in this section:
(1) Survey. The commission shall survey all areas, lands, places, buildings,
structures, districts or other objects in the city which the commission, on the
basis of information available or presented to it, has reason to believe are
significant to the city's culture, social, economic, religious, political or
architectural history. Surveys are intended to identify potential sites and
districts that have the potential for local designation as a heritage preservation
site. The city clerk's office is designated as the repository.
(2) Designation. The commission shall recommend to the City Council areas,
lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects to be considered
for designation as a local heritage preservation site or district. The commission
4
shall also recommend to the City Council any city-initiated nominations to the
National Register of Historic Places.
(3) Recognition. The commission shall maintain a listing of recognized historical
properties that constitutes the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites program.
The commission shall review and approve or deny applications submitted by
property owners to participate in the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites
program, as outlined in City Code Section 22-7 Subd. 6.
(4) Review of permits. In order to protect the architectural and historic character
of designated local heritage preservation sites, the commission shall conduct
review of applications for demolition, as outlined in City Code Section 31—
215, and design permits and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
issuance of design permits. The commission shall also protect the unique
character of Stillwater’s downtown and residential neighborhoods through the
review and approval or denial of:
a. Demolition permits required in City Code Section 31-215
b. Design permits for required projects in the following:
i. Downtown design review overlay district
ii. Neighborhood conservation overlay district
(5) Advocacy. The commission shall continually survey all areas to determine
needed and desirable improvements of older buildings throughout the city,
acting in a resource and advisory capacity to owners of historically significant
sites regarding their preservation, restoration and rehabilitation.
(6) Recommendations. The commission may request the City Council:
a. Acquire by purchase, gift, or bequest, of a fee or lesser interest, including
preservation restrictions, in designated properties and adjacent or
associated lands which are important for the preservation and use of the
designated properties.
b. Use the City Council’s power of eminent domain to maintain or preserve
designated properties, properties eligible for designation, and adjacent or
associated lands be acquired by gift, negotiation or by eminent domain as
provided for in Minn. Stat. Ch. 117.
(7) Public education. The commission strive to develop programming for the
continuing education of the city's residents with respect to the city's cultural,
architectural, archaeological, and engineering heritage. The commission shall
share the history of Stillwater, including its individual sites and
neighborhoods, through a broad variety of mediums.
(8) Record keeping. The commission shall keep current a public inventory of
locally designated heritage preservation sites and districts, including
contributing sites within districts. The commission may on a continuing basis
collect and review certain city planning and development records, documents,
5
studies, models, maps, plans and drawings to be entered into the public library
historical archives as a permanent record of city history and development.
(9) Annual reporting. An annual report shall be prepared by October 31st of each
year as required in accordance with Minnesota Statues 471.193, subd. 6 for
submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and shall file a copy with
the city clerk for distribution to the City Council.
Subd. 5. Designation of heritage preservation sites. Heritage preservation sites shall be
designated as follows:
(1) Nomination. The nomination of a heritage preservation site, which may include
areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects at least 50
years old or older, shall be made to the commission on a nomination application
form and include all supporting documentation. The nomination of a heritage
preservation site shall be submitted by one or more of the following:
a. A member of the heritage preservation commission.
b. A member of the city council.
c. The HPC staff liaison.
d. Any person with a legal or equitable interest in the subject property.
(2) Criteria for heritage preservation site designation. In considering the
designation of heritage preservation sites, the commission shall determine the
request meet one or more criteria in each of the following subsections:
a. Historical physical integrity. One or more of these criteria establishes
historical physical integrity due to:
i. Retaining original character defining features, materials, and
character.
ii. Maintaining original location or same historic context after
having been moved.
iii. The structure has been accurately reconstructed or restored
based on historical documentation.
b. Historical significance. One or more of the following criteria
establishes historical significance:
i. The character, interest or value as part of the development,
heritage or cultural characteristics of the neighborhood, city,
county, state, or nation.
ii. The location as a site of a significant historic event for the
neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation.
iii. The identification with a person or persons who significantly
contributed to the city's culture and development.
iv. The identification with or embodiment of distinguishing
characteristics of an historic context, architectural style, period,
6
form or treatment associated with the neighborhood, city,
county, state, or nation.
v. The identification as work of an architect or master builder
whose individual work has influenced the city's development.
vi. The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail,
materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant
architectural innovation for the neighborhood, city, county,
state, or nation.
vii. The unique location or singular physical characteristic
representing an established and familiar visual feature of a
neighborhood, community or the city.
(3) Criteria for designation as a historic district. A district shall be eligible for
designation if it constitutes a geographically definable area, which contains
two or more areas, places, buildings, structures, lands, or other objects, or a
combination thereof which:
a. A majority of the areas, places, buildings, structures, lands, or other
objects, collectively, contribute to special character or special
historical or cultural interest of value of the district;
b. Represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of
one or more periods of significance of the city, county, state or
nation; and
c. Cause such an area, by reason of such factors, to constitute a
visually distinctive section of the city.
(4) Communications with Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. A copy
of the commission's proposed designation of a heritage preservation site,
including boundaries, shall be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office.
(5) Planning commission review. All applications for the designation of a
heritage preservation site shall be submitted to the planning commission for
its recommendation with respect to the relationship of the proposed heritage
preservation designation to the comprehensive plan, the effect of the proposed
designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and any other planning
considerations that may be relevant to the proposed designation. The planning
commission shall offer its recommendation of approval, denial or
modification of the proposed designation to the commission.
(6) Hearings. Following receipt of the recommendation from the planning
commission, the heritage preservation commission shall hold a public hearing
on the application. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the city's
official legal newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, sent
to all owners of the property proposed to be designated a historic preservation
site, and sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the property lines of
the area to be designated.
7
(7) Findings and recommendations. The commission shall determine if the
proposed heritage preservation site is eligible for heritage preservation as
determined by the criteria specified in Subd. 5 (3) and (4) of this section, and
make a recommendation to the city council.
(8) City council designation. The city council shall consider the application and
may by resolution approve the designation as a heritage preservation site. In
the event the proposed designation, including contributing status of a property
in a proposed historic district, is not supported by the property owner, the City
Council designation shall require a supermajority vote.
(9) Stillwater Inventory additions. Following any City Council designation of a
heritage preservation site or district, the commission shall update the
Stillwater Inventory. The city clerk's office is designated as the repository for
at least one copy of all studies, reports, recommendations and programs
required under this section.
(10) Recording of heritage preservation sites. The resolution designating the
heritage preservation site shall be recorded against the property with the
county recorder or registered with the registrar of titles and kept on file with
the building official.
(11) Stillwater inventory removals. In the event any heritage preservation site or
district is no longer deemed appropriate for local designation, the commission
or property owner may initiate removal of the site or district from the
Stillwater Inventory by the same procedure and criteria for establishing the
designation, except a supermajority vote of the City Council is required to
remove a heritage preservation site designation.
Subd. 6. Recognition of Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites. The commission may adopt
a policy, subject to approval by the city council, which lists the structures of
historical or architectural integrity that have been recognized as Heirloom Homes
or Landmark Sites, to which the commission may add to from time to time, in order
to recognize and encourage the protection, enhancement, and use of such structures.
Nothing in this section shall be constructed to impose any additional regulations or
controls upon Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites included on this list.
(1) Nomination. An application for recognition as an Heirloom Home or
Landmark Site may be submitted by the property owner or, with the property
owner’s permission, any other person or organization, including the heritage
preservation commission.
(2) Criteria for recognition. The commission shall consider applications to
recognize a structure as an Heirloom Home or Landmark Sites if the structure
is of historical or architectural integrity.
a. Heirloom Homes represent a variety of house styles, large and small,
representative of nineteenth century Stillwater. They retain a fair
amount of their original design elements such as siding, windows,
doors and porches and may possess potential for local designation.
8
b. Landmark Sites are the finest old houses and the most remarkable sites
in Stillwater. They have architectural integrity and a strong connection
to the history of Stillwater. Landmark Sites may be eligible for or
already listed in the National Register of Historic Places and possess
potential for designation as a heritage preservation site.
Subd. 7. Review of design permits for alterations to heritage preservation sites.
Requirements for design permits, using the procedure set forth in Zoning,
Chapter 31, Sec. 31-209, are as follows:
(1) Heritage preservation sites. Prior to the issuance of other applicable city
permits and licenses, the commission shall review and approve or deny the
issuance of a design permit for any of the following types of alterations to a
heritage preservation site that involve:
a. Remodeling, alteration or repair that will change the exterior appearance
of a heritage preservation site.
b. New construction.
c. Signs.
d. Moving of buildings.
(2) Administrative review. To expedite the review process, the following types
of applications and plans for minor alterations may be approved by the
Community Development Department when the work is in substantial
conformance with the criteria identified herein.
a. Interior work affecting only the interior of a structure (such as plumbing,
insulation, flooring, finishes, etc.)
b. Minor alterations in keeping with the integrity of the site and do not
impact the overall architecture character including:
i. Ordinary and routine maintenance not exceeding $10,000
ii. Siding similar to the existing materials, finish and form
iii. 1:1 replacement of windows with same form including pane
arrangement, materials and finish
iv. Replacement of roofing materials
v. Landscaping including fencing
vi. Installation of garbage or recycling enclosures
vii. Replacement of awnings
c. Emergency repair. In emergencies where immediate repair is needed
to protect the life, health or safety of the structure and its inhabitants,
the building official, in consultation with the HPC staff liaison, may
approve the repair to the extent necessary to protect life, health or
safety without prior commission action. Additional work shall require
a design permit. In the case of a design permit issued under this
9
subdivision or any emergency repair affecting a heritage preservation
site, the building official shall immediately notify the commission of
its action and specify the facts or conditions constituting the
emergency.
(3) Design permit standards for heritage preservation sites. All commission
decisions with respect to design permits shall be in substantial accordance
with the Secretary of Interior’s General Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation.
Subd. 8. Maintenance. Owners of National Register-listed structures and sites, heritage
preservation sites, and buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall
not allow their buildings to deteriorate by neglect (i.e. failing to provide ordinary
maintenance or repair). Such conditions as broken windows, doors and openings
which allow the elements and vermin to enter, the deterioration of exterior
architectural features, or the deterioration of a building’s structure system shall
constitute failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair.
Subd. 9. Penalty for violation of section. An owner or occupant of any area, place,
building, structure or other object within a duly designated heritage preservation
site who remodels, repairs, demolishes or moves a heritage preservation site in
violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such day is a
separate violation, and it shall be punishable as such. The imposition of the
penalties prescribed shall not prevent the city from instituting civil actions allowed
by law, such as but not limited to abatement or administrative citations.
SECTION 2. Stillwater City Code Section 31-101 Definitions is hereby amended by
adding the following:
Building, structure, or site of potential historic significance means a building,
structure or site, or a portion of same, with a construction date of 50 or more years
ago.
Character defining features. The particular materials, ornamentation and
architectural features that together define the historic character of the building,
site, or district.
Demolition means any act or process that destroys in part or in whole.
Demolition by neglect means the long-term neglect of a building, site or structure
that contributes to a level of dilapidation so severe that rehabilitation of the
building, site or structure may no longer be a viable option.
Heritage preservation site means any areas, lands, places, buildings, structures,
districts or other objects that has been duly designated a local heritage
preservation site by the city council because of its historical, cultural,
architectural, archaeological or engineering significance, pursuant to subdivision
5(2) of this section.
10
Historic context means a summary document created for planning purposes that
groups information about historical properties based on a shared theme, specific
time period and geographical area.
Historic resource means any building or structure that is not currently
designated as a heritage preservation site, but which may be worthy of such
designation because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or
engineering significance.
Integrity means a site’s ability to convey its significance through retention of the
physical aspects of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
Significance means the importance of a heritage preservation site, historic district,
or historic resource.
SECTION 3. Stillwater City Code Section 31-209 Design Permit is hereby repealed and
replaced as follows:
Design permits shall require the following:
1) Purpose. The purpose of the design permit procedure is to ensure that building and
site development is designed to complement the character and integrity of Stillwater’s
traditional neighborhoods and commercial districts, including adjacent buildings, the
streetscape, and the natural environment.
2) General provisions. Requirement for approval of a design permit shall be established
within Sec. 22-7 and the Downtown Design Review (DDR) and Neighborhood
Conservation (NC) overlay zoning districts.
3) Procedure. A design permit application is subject to the following procedure:
a) Submission of application. Applicant shall submit a complete design
permit application accompanied by detailed plans including a site plan,
building elevations and design details, application requirements
established in adopted special design guidelines, and materials deemed
necessary by the Community Development Department to evaluate the
request.
b) Heritage preservation commission (HPC) review. The HPC shall consider
the application at a hearing and approve, approve with conditions or deny
the application. If the application involves a new dwelling house within
the NC overlay district, the hearing shall be a public hearing. For all other
applications, no public hearing is required.
4) Design permit standards. In making a determination whether to approve or deny an
application for a design permit, the commission shall be guided by the following
standards:
a) Proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site shall conform to the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation.
b) Proposed alterations shall conform to special design guidelines for areas
or districts of the City officially adopted by the City Council.
c) Proposed alterations shall conform to the existing primary and secondary
structure setbacks and neighborhood street rhythm.
11
d) The height, scale, mass and proportion of the proposed alterations,
including façade openings and roof style, shall be compatible with the site
and its surroundings.
e) Proposed alterations shall have four-sided detailing and materials.
f) The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, trees and screen
plantings shall ensure compatibility with adjacent development and the
environment and conceal areas, utility installations and other unsightly
development.
g) The appearance of the number, location, color, size, height, lighting and
landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall be
compatible with adjacent development.
h) The HPC may include conditions in its decisions that it deems reasonable
and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section. Upon
findings by the HPC that the application, subject to conditions as it deems
necessary, will meet the above criteria, secure the purpose of this chapter,
the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, the HPC
may approve the design permit. If findings are made that an application
would violate the criteria of a design permit, the HPC must deny the
application.
5) Findings required and criteria. The HPC shall make findings that the application
meets each of the following criteria in order to approve a design permit:
a) The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its
appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic
integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the
neighborhood as a whole.
b) If located in a historic district, the proposed building or site alteration or
new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued
significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based
on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated.
c) Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and
significance of the building, site, and its surroundings.
6) Appeals. The design permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the Community
Development Department’s or HPC's decision shall have a right to appeal such order
and decision to the City Council as follows:
a) Filing. Appeals from a decision of the Community Development
Department or HPC shall be made in writing and shall state the reasons
for the appeal. The appeal, accompanied by the appropriate fee, must be
received by the city clerk not later than ten calendar days following the
date of action from which the appeal is being taken, unless otherwise
specified in this Section 31-217.
b) Stay, pending appeal. The receipt of a written appeal will stay all action
and approvals or permits which may have been granted, pending the
decision of the City Council.
7) Modifications to design permits. Modification of design permits shall be as follows:
12
a) Minor modifications. The Community Development Department may
administratively approve modifications to conditions imposed on any design
permit, at the request of the design permit holder, where evidence has been
submitted by the design permit holder that the requested modification:
i) Is substantially similar to the approved design permit; and
ii) Will not significantly alter the design permit; and
iii) Is made because of changed circumstances.
b) Major modifications. The Community Development Department must refer
major modifications to any design permit to the HPC. A modification is
considered to be major when it constitutes a significant revision to a permit
including but not be limited to setback and rhythm, height, scale/mass and
proportion, detailing and materials, or appropriate screening.
SECTION 4. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-215 relating to Site Alteration Permits is
hereby repealed and replaced as follows:
31-215 Building Demolition Permit
Subd. 1. Purpose. To aid the City in achieving goals focused on community sustainability,
protection of affordable housing, and the preservation of the community character of
Stillwater’s residential neighborhoods, the unnecessary demolition of National Register-
designated structures and sites, Heritage Preservation Sites and buildings or structures of
potential historic significance built prior to January 1, 1946 is generally prohibited.
Whenever feasible, National Register-listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites,
and pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall be preserved
and repaired, rather than demolished, except as otherwise allowed under this subsection.
Subd. 2. Demolition Permit required. Any property that is a National Register-listed
structure or sites, Heritage Preservation Site, or pre-1946 building or structure of potential
historic significance must obtain a demolition permit prior to demolition. Demolition
permit applications may only be submitted by the property owner or the City when said
property has been neglected and in disrepair.
Subd. 3. Inspections required. The owner shall allow access to the subject property by
appropriate city Staff for:
a. A mandatory pre-demolition permit application inspection; and
b. The purpose of inspections and/or appraisals required city as part of its review of
a demolition permit application.
Subd. 4. Demolition permit submission requirements. The applicant shall submit a
demolition permit application and documentation regarding:
a. Architectural plans, elevations and/or renderings depicting the proposed demolition
and site redevelopment’s conformance to applicable overlay guidelines;
13
b. A cost comparison of the rehabilitation of the existing building or structure of
potential historical significance and demolition and redevelopment of the site,
including demolition and disposal costs;
c. Historic, if any, and current photographs of the elevations, exterior architectural
features, and structural members; and
d. Photographs of the adjacent buildings or structures, or setting.
Subd. 5. Review authority. Demolition permits shall be reviewed by the City upon
submittal of a complete demolition permit application. To aid the City in its review of
demolition, the City may engage properly licensed architects, engineers, historic
preservation specialist, and/or real estate appraisers to investigate and prepare:
a. A written report on the significance of the building, site or structure and its ability
to reasonably meet the National, state or local criteria for designation as a heritage
preservation site; the age and overall integrity of the building, site or structure,
including its significant features, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or
material; and the relative importance of the building, site or structure in the context
of the block where such building or structure is located (Historical Report); and
b. A written report upon the existing condition and feasibility of preservation of the
heritage preservation site proposed for total demolition (Conditions Report). Said
Conditions Report shall include an estimate of the reasonable cost of all work
required to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore the historic building or structure; and
c. A written report upon the County’s ten-year appraised value and/or existing
market value of the relevant heritage preservation site (Appraisal Report), for the
purposes of comparing this value against the cost estimate contained within the
Conditions Report.
Subd. 6. Staff review and report development. Upon submission of a complete demolition
permit application, City staff or its consultants will prepare and compile the necessary
Appraisal, Conditions and/or Historical Reports.
Subd. 7. Heritage Preservation Commission review. The Heritage Preservation
Commission (HPC) will consider all demolition permit applications in a public hearing.
1. Requests for demolition of a National Register-listed structures or sites or a Heritage
Preservation Sites shall be reviewed by the HPC who will make recommendation of
permit approval or denial to the City Council.
2. Request for demolition of a pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic
significance shall be reviewed by the HPC.
a. The HPC will consider the following review criteria prior to making its decision:
i. The structural integrity of the building, site or structure proposed for demolition
and evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain it;
ii. The ability of the building, site or structure to be reused onsite in a reasonably
economical way;
iii. The cost and economic feasibility of restoring the building, site or structure;
iv. The ability of the building, site or structure to be practically moved to another
site in the town; and
14
v. The site development proposal’s conformance to the established district
adopted guidelines and:
a. Any impact(s) that will occur to the visual character of the
neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur.
b. Any impact(s) that will occur to the historic importance of the
buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent
properties.
c. Any impact that will occur to the architectural integrity of the
buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent
properties.
b.Upon reviewing the reports and review criteria, the HPC will make determination the
demolition permit should be approved based on demolition permit approval findings
found in Subd. 9. If the HPC denies the permit application, it will forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Council.
Subd. 8. City Council review. The City Council shall review the HPC recommendation,
demolition permit application and all applicable reports and take action on the request.
Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, demolition permit approval findings found in
Subd. 9 shall be made.
Subd. 9. Findings. Prior to the approval of a demolition permit, the City must find:
1. Demolition of the resource has been evaluated against and, on balance, has been found
supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and relevant area plans,
taking into account factors such as: the merits of proposed new development on the
site, the merits of preserving the resource, and the area’s desired character; and
2. Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable
use of the site.
a. For investment or income-producing properties, the owner’s inability to obtain a
reasonable rate of return in the present condition or if rehabilitated under Design
Permit criteria.
b. For non-income producing properties consistent of an owner-occupied single- or
two-family dwelling and/or institutional use not solely operating for profit, the
owner’s inability to convert the property to a compatible and conforming use in its
present condition or, if rehabilitated.
c. Noneconomic Reason: there is situation substantially inadequate to meet the
applicant’s needs because of specific health and/or safety issues.
Subd. 10. Penalty for violation of section. An owner or occupant of building, site or
structure subject to this section demolishes said structure, or a portion thereof, in violation
of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such day is a separate violation, and
it shall be punishable as such. The imposition of the penalties prescribed shall not prevent
the city from instituting civil actions allowed by law, such as but not limited to abatement
or administrative citations.
SECTION 5. Stillwater City Code Section 41-404 Downtown Design Review District is
hereby enacted as follows:
15
The downtown design review overlay district shall be regulated as follows:
1) Purpose. The downtown design review overlay district is established to conserve and
enhance downtown Stillwater’s appearance, preserve its historical and architectural
assets, protect and encourage areas of existing or potential scenic value, and assist
property owners. It promotes working together effectively when new construction,
renovation, and restoration are proposed. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure
that building alterations emphasize the design and materials of the original building
and remove inconsistent materials and features, that new construction maintains the
scale and character of existing buildings and that downtown pedestrian quality is
maintained and enhanced.
2) District boundaries. This section shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the
city of Stillwater, Minnesota as shown on the official zoning map and/or the
attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the downtown design
review overlay district.
3) Design permit required. A design permit is required for new construction and any
alterations to existing structures/sites that have the potential to alter the architectural
integrity of that structure/site.
a. Heritage preservation commission review. Prior to the issuance of other applicable
city permits and licenses, the heritage preservation commission shall review and
approve or deny the issuance of a design permit for any of the following uses and
development types:
i. Residential structures including single- and two-family dwellings.
ii. Commercial, office, institutional, and industrial structures, including land not
involving buildings (e.g. outside storage, loading, or utility areas).
iii. Accessory structures and uses.
iv. Any structure for which a variance has been requested.
v. All signs requiring a sign permit.
vi. Any projects where the applicant is a public agency over which the city
exercises land use controls.
vii. Parking lots of five or more spaces.
viii. Any planned unit development or subdivision.
b. Administrative review. To expedite the review process, the following types of
applications and plans for minor alterations may be approved by the Community
Development Department when the work is in substantial conformance with the
criteria identified herein.
i. Interior work affecting only the interior of a structure (such as plumbing,
insulation, flooring, finishes, etc.)
ii. Minor alterations in keeping with the integrity of the site and do not impact the
overall architecture character including:
1) Ordinary and routine maintenance not exceeding $10,000
2) Siding similar to the existing materials, finish and form
3) 1:1 replacement of windows with same form including pane arrangement,
materials and finish
4) Replacement of roofing materials
5) Landscaping including fencing
6) Installation of garbage or recycling enclosures
16
7) Replacement of awnings
4) Design standards. The following shall apply:
a. Main Street setbacks.
i. Front yard setback. For infill lots fronting on Main Street, the front yard
setback shall be zero. Exceptions are allowed if it is designed as an expansion
of the public pedestrian environment and generally aligns with the setbacks of
adjacent buildings.
ii. Side yard setback. For lots fronting on Main Street, the side yard setbacks shall
be zero. Exceptions are allowed if it is designed as a public pedestrian way and
generally aligns with adjacent street design and form.
b. Façade transparency.
i. At street level, a minimum of 60% of the street facing façade(s) shall be
transparent; side and rear facades shall be 30% transparent.
ii. Reflective glass, mirrored glass, and heavily tinted glass shall be prohibited.
c. Prohibited building exterior materials. Building exteriors shall not utilize exposed
or painted concrete masonry units.
d. Lighting.
i. Lighting fixtures shall be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the
site;
ii. Light sources shall be hidden from direct pedestrian and motorist view; and
iii. Unshielded wall pack light fixtures shall be prohibited.
e. Signs.
i. Only one sign containing the business name or graphic logo shall be permitted
per street- facing side. Projecting signs are not considered to face the street.
1) A window sign, not requiring a sign permit, may be used in addition to
other sign types.
ii. Signs shall be located in such a way as to not obscure any architectural features
of the building.
iii. Neon signs shall only be permitted as interior window signs.
iv. The following materials or sign types shall be prohibited:
1) Backlit and internally lit signs.
2) Signs with changeable or movable letters or graphics.
(e) Design guidelines. The city’s review of any proposed new construction or alteration
shall also be subject to any design guidelines specific to the downtown design review
district that have been officially adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 6. Stillwater City Code Section 41-405 Neighborhood Conservation District
overlay is hereby enacted as follows:
The neighborhood conservation overlay district shall be regulated as follows:
(a) Purpose. The neighborhood conservation overlay district is established to protect and
preserve the unique character of Stillwater’s residential neighborhoods by regulating
new infill development and partial demolition within the district. Its purpose is to
conserve traditional neighborhood character, guide future infill and partial demolition
development within the district, and discourage unnecessary demolition of structures
that contribute to the district’s historic character. It also preserves neighborhood pride,
17
property values, a diverse and affordable range of homes, and the general economic
vitality of the neighborhood.
(b) District boundaries. This section shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the
city of Stillwater, Minnesota shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments
thereto as being located within the boundaries of the neighborhood conservation
overlay district.
(c) Design permit required. A design permit is required for the following uses and
development types:
(1) The construction of a new dwelling on a vacant lot
(2) The demolition of a pre-1946 building or structure that is of potential historic
significance and demolition is:
i) greater than twenty percent (20%) of all external walls of a building or structure,
measured based upon their total surface area, when such walls are visible from
a street, public way or the St. Croix River except when removal is for the
construction of a front porch; or
ii) greater than 30% of total exterior is demolished regardless of the visibility of
such walls from a street, public way or the St. Croix River.
(d) Design guidelines. The city’s review of any proposed new construction or alteration
shall also be subject to any design guidelines specific to the neighborhood conservation
district that have been officially adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 7. Stillwater City Code Chapter 34 Building Demolition is hereby repealed.
SECTION 8. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the
entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is
approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance:
The ordinance updated the City of Stillwater’s preservation related ordinances, include
design and demolition permitting. In addition it establishes preservation-based zoning
overlay districts.
SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage and publication according to law.
Passed this day of , 2020.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
18
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
Tom McCarty
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good Morning Everyone,
Chris Eng <ChrisE@washingtoncountycda.org >
Thursday, August 27, 2020 10:24 AM
Dan.Undem@ci.forest-lake.mn.us; Patrick Casey; k.cammilleri; 'Rachel Juba'; Emily
Weber; bbear@ci.hugo.mn.us; 'Scott Neilson'; 'Eric Johnson'; Tom McCarty; Bill Turnblad;
'Adam Bell'; 'khandt@lakeelmo.org'; 'Bob Streetar'; Batalden, Karl; Schmitz, Janelle;
dhill@newportmn.com; 'Ed Shukle'; 'Kevin Walsh'; Christine Costello; Matt Wolf; Jennifer
Levitt; 'rmoorse@ci.afton.mn.us'; Melissa Taphorn; 'Kevin Corbid'; Jennifer Wagenius;
'thilsabeck@mccdmn.org'; Karly Schoeman; Michelle Elsner
FW: Washington County CARES Small Business COVID-19 Relief Grant Program Update
I wanted to give you a quick update on the Washington CARES Act Small Business Relief Grant Program. The
first round of applications closed on Monday at 4:30 pm. We received 375 applications. Tyler and his team at
Open to Business are still processing the applications and will be making ongoing grant awards, but we didn't
receive enough applications in the 1st round que to use the full $10 million in grant funding that was allocated to
small businesses. The breakdown of small business applications received by the closing is provided below.
The County Board held a CARES Act funding workshop on Tuesday and is considering a second application
round that will likely begin on September 10th through the 24th. The County Board is also considering
broadening the program parameters to include businesses that were in operation as of January 1, 2020
(previously required six months of operations), extending the FTE's from 50 to 75 and increasing the $3.5
million in annual revenues to $5 million.
There appears to be approximately $5 million+/-available for the second round.
I am happy to answer any questions and truly appreciate your continued input on this and all of our economic
development programs. Thank you for your continued partnership in helping with the marketing efforts for the
CARES Small Business Relief Grant Program! I will continue to provide updates as we move forward.
Thanks,
Chris
ca
WAS HlNG ON
COUNTY
Community
0 Development
Agency
Chris Eng
Economic Development Director
Washington County Community Development Agency
7645 Currell Boulevard, Woodbury, MN 55125
651-202-2814 phone
651-458-1696 fax
This message is intended only for the recipient named above, and may contain infonnation that is confidential or protected by law.
If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately at 651-202-2814, and delete the message. The
Washington County Community Development Agency is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Email will
be treated in the same way as written communications under the Act and, except as protected by law, may be available to the
public upon request.
1
From: Tyler Hilsabeck <thilsabeck@mccdmn.org>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:37 PM
To: Chris Eng <ChrisE@washingtoncountycda.org>
Cc: Noah Her <nher@mccdmn.org>
Subject: RE: Washington County Small Business COVID-19 -Disbursement #2
Hi Chris,
Please see the following about the applications as of the closing of the application period today:
Type of Business
Employer-Based Businesses: 295
Self-Employed Entrepreneurs: 80
Total Applications: 375
Average Grant Request
Average Grant Request: Employer-Based Businesses: $14,566
Average Grant Request: Self-Employed Entrepreneurs: $6,198
Average Grant Request: All Applications: $12,811
City Applications
Afton 5
Bayport 5
Cottage Grove 23
Forest lake 20
Hugo 15
Lake Elmo 9
Mahtomedi 11
Marine on Saint Croix 4
Newport 4
OAK PARK HEIGHTS 9
Oakdale 46
Saint Paul Park 6
Scandia 7
Stillwater 107
White Bear Lake 4
Willernie 4
Woodbury 96
Grand Total 375
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Reabar Abdullah, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 28, 2020
SUBJECT: Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll
And Calling for the Hearing on Proposed Assessment for the First Phase of
Neal Avenue Improvement Project (Project 2019-08)
DISCUSSION
The contractor is progressing on the Neal Avenue improvement Project. The first phase of the
project is scheduled to be completed by the end of October, 2020. Based on the work completed
and estimating the cost of the remaining work, staff has projected the total cost of the project to
be $1,771,677.44
The assessment roll needs to be prepared and a hearing held for phase one of the project. It is
proposed that the hearing be held September 29, 2020. This will certify phase one of the project
to the County this year. Public hearing for phase two of the project will be held in October of
2021.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council declare costs, authorize the preparation of the assessment rolls,
and call for a hearing on phase one of the project.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass the following resolutions:
1. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR PHASE ONE OF THE
NEAL AVENUNE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT 2019-08).
2. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
PHASE ONE OF THE NEAL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT
2019-08).
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
PHASE ONE OF THE NEAL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT 2019-08)
WHEREAS, a contract has been let and costs have been determined for the improvement of
streets and utilities at $1,362,877.44 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of
such improvement amount to $408,800.00 so that the total cost of the improvement will be
$1,771,677.44
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA:
1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the city is hereby declared to be
$ 1,369160.44 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is
declared to be $402,517.
2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten
(10) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in
January, 2021, and shall bear interest at the rate of (2.75%) two and three quarter percent per
annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolutions.
3. The city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for
such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district
affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such
proposed assessment in their office for public inspection.
4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof.
Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of September, 2020.
______________________________
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR PHASE ONE OF THE NEAL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT 2019-08)
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on September 1, 2020, the city clerk was directed to
prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the Neal Avenue Improvement Project. The following is
the area proposed to be assessed.
Properties abutting Neal Avenue from Boutwell Road North to North Pine Way.
WHEREAS, the clerk has notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed and
filed in the office for public inspection,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA:
1. A hearing shall be held for phase one of the project on the 29th day of September, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon as possible thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place
all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard
with reference to such assessment.
2. Under Minn. Stat. §13D.021 in person meetings are not prudent because of the health pandemic
therefore City Council meetings are held online or by phone. Members of the public may participate
in the public hearing by logging into www.zoom.us/join or by calling 1-312-626-6799 and entering
the meeting id number 794 206 779.
3. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be
published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the
notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the
owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings.
4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the
county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid
within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. He/she may at any time thereafter, pay to the
City Treasurer; (in whole or in part) the remaining principal balance, with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year.
Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of September 2020.
_______________________________
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council 7 7ff
From: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works
Date: August 28, 2020
Subject: Orwell Court North No Parking Request
BACKGROUND
Orwell Court North is a ten lot development located in the northeast comer of the City. The
street is a loop in which there is only one way in and one way out of the development . Access is
to the street is through Orwell Avenue North a Stillwater Township Road. At the north end of
Orwell Avenue North, the intersecting street is County Road 11 or Ferry Falls Road and on the
north side of the County Road 11 is Ferry Falls. Ferry Falls is attraction that brings vehicular
traffic to the area and until recently cars were allowed to park on Orwell Avenue North.
DISCUSSION
Beginning this past spring, there has been high volume to Ferry Falls and parking on Orwell
Avenue North and Orwell Court North seen an increase. Because of the increased traffic, it led to
increase in complaints from the property owners in the area about the parking. Measures were
taken by the Township that prohibited parking on both sides of Orwell Avenue which caused
parking onto the Orwell Court North development. Stillwater Police installed temporary signs
prohibiting parking on Orwell Court North that seems to have worked as well. Now the property
owners on Orwell Court North have submitted petition requesting for a permanent solution for
parking In talking to the organizer of the petition about solutions, it is proposed that parking be
prohibited on both sides of Orwell Court North, permanently. I have talked this over with the
police chief and he supports the solution.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends to Council that parking be prohibited on both sides of Orwell Court North
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the recommendation they should pass a resolution 2020-__ _
AUTHORIZING NO PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF ORWELL COURT NORTH
RESOLUTION 2020-
AUTHORIZING NOP ARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF ORWELL COURT NORTH
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received a petition from the property owners
establishing no parking restrictions on Orwell Court North, and:
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented concerns with regard to the parking spaces
now allowed Orwell Court
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED
That Parking be prohibited on the both sides of Orwell Court North and
The various City Staff responsible for this action are authorized to complete this work in
order effectuate this City Council directive
Adopted by the Council this 1st day September 1, 2020.
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
Beth Wolf, City Clerk
Washington County, MN
August 28, 2020
0 90
0 25
1 :2,000
180
50
360 ft
100 m
PETITION TO ESTABLISH NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ORWELL COURT NORTH
RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS
~ ~ ,A, s ~~.~~_=.J.~J__~=...!.L.......L..-..=.J<-=~...___,L==-'r.___:_f-..J_'__:'+---t ~~~::::.==----~~~----{
e rwd \ L-.i.:.
PETITION TO ESTABLISH NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ORWELL COURT NORTH
RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE
....... -·--_..>~. -
~(UJ V\ '\\cL,e\ \i (~ r'\ ~J..l,O O,lu~ \ \ct .u~ ~~~<;-~ " -~··· -:.. -..... --
PETITION TO EST ABUSH NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ORWEU COURT NORTH
RESIDENT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE , -'
(' J 17 V\bd i1 l\'1vr{0'y 17_ ?._r ) nY\N() .\ l ( ·-\ ~ ~!,!~
• I ~-v~ A/\ l~)"VA-1\. iLV\ (Y\ u v(U. LJ
t-• ( ."1 I A ..
I fl" V V
fl ',
1
I
'--
1 _-I
t -t--==---+= ~'---------t--· -·
I I -.-· --· -=t
--_,_
i":' ... ,,-:-,, ... 1.s ... ,,
_J
---··!
-· !
BOARD AGENDA
Board of Commissioners
Fran Miron, Chair, District 1
Stan Karwoski, District 2
Gary Kriesel, District 3
Wayne A. Johnson, District 4
Lisa Weik, District 5
September 1, 2020 - 9:00 AM
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room
If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
1.9:00 Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
2.9:00 Comments from the Public
Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue
is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board
Clerk or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and city of residence, and present your
comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual
Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit
an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's
responsibilities.
3.9:10 Consent Calendar - Roll Call Vote
Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to
pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action.
A.Approval of the August 18, 2020, County Board meeting minutes.
B.Approval of the appointment of citizen volunteers to advisory committees.
C.Adopt a resolution to appoint county responsible authority under the Data Practices Act.
D.Approval of the grant agreement with the Department of Natural Resources for the Stanton
conservation easement.
E.Approval of revisions to County Abatement Policy #4001.
F.Adopt a resolution to enter into a Metropolitan Council Grant Agreement SG-12522
reimbursing the Land and Water Legacy Program for 75% of the cost to purchase the property
located at 11523 Grey Cloud Trail South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, for inclusion into Grey
Cloud Island Regional Park and to enter into agreement and restrictive covenant with the
Metropolitan Council.
G.Adopt a resolution to approve the filing of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Project Specific Wetland Replacement required pursuant to Permit No. 2015-13 allowing for
excavation impacts within existing wetland.
H.Adopt a resolution to execute a Quit Claim Deed necessary to transfer permanent right-of-way
to River Country Cooperative and any other documents necessary for the completion of this
transaction.
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room
If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
I.Adopt a resolution to authorize a Quit Claim Deed and any other documents necessary to
transfer permanent right-of-way to the City of Lake Elmo.
J.1. Award the bid to and authorize execution of Contract No. 13620 with Pember Companies,
Inc. in the amount of $345,307.70, for the construction of a Traffic Signal System and related
improvements on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 13 at 5th Street North in the Cities of
Lake Elmo and Oakdale.
2. Approve Cooperative Agreements No. 13509 and No. 13510 between the City of Lake Elmo
and Washington County for the construction cost share and ongoing maintenance, respectively,
of the traffic signal system and related improvements to be constructed on CSAH 13 at 5th
Street North.
K.Adopt a resolution to approve Agreement No. 13501 between Securus Technologies, LLC and
the Washington County Sheriff's Office for inmate telephone services.
4.9:10 Public Health and Environment - David Brummel, Deputy Director
A.Approve Contract No. 13659 with BlueStone Physician Services in the amount of $500,000,
for the period of September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, and authorize its execution
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.
5.9:20 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator
A.Adopt a resolution for second round of small business assistance applications and revised
eligibility requirements.
6.9:35 Commissioner Reports - Comments - Questions
This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and
information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of
discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting.
7.Board Correspondence
8. 9:50 Adjourn
9. 9:55 2021 Recommended Budget Workshops
9:55-10:55 A. Review the 2021 recommended budget for the Public Works Department.
11:00-11:45 B. Review the 2021 recommended budget for Washington County Regional Rail Authority
(WCRRA) and GOLD Line.
Washington
; _;County
Board of Commissioners
Fran Miron, Chair, District 1
Stan Karwoski, District 2
Gary Kriesel, District 3
Wayne A. Johnson, District 4
Lisa Weik, District 5%2$5':25.6+236
August 25, 2020 - 9:00 AM
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room
If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
1. 8:00 Finance Committee
2. 9:00 2021 Recommended Budget Workshops
9:00-10:00 A. Review the 2021 recommended budget for the Library and Law Library.
10:00-11:00 B. Review the 2021 recommended budget for the Department of Property Records and Taxpayer
Services.
3. 11:00 Board Workshop with Administration
11:00-11:45 A. Review the status of Washington County Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance programs.
* Please note: No official county business or votes will take place during Workshop Only meetings.
BOARD AGENDA
Board of Commissioners
Fran Miron, Chair, District 1
Stan Karwoski, District 2
Gary Kriesel, District 3
Wayne A. Johnson, District 4
Lisa Weik, District 5
August 18, 2020 - 9:00 AM
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room
If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
1.9:00 Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
2.9:00 Comments from the Public
Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue
is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board
Clerk or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and city of residence, and present your
comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual
Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit
an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's
responsibilities.
3.9:10 Consent Calendar - Roll Call Vote
Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to
pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action.
A.Approval of the July 28, 2020, and August 4, 2020, County Board meeting minutes.
B.Approve the 2021 Ramsey/Washington County Recycling & Energy Board (R&E Board) joint
activities budget as recommended by the R&E Board.
C.Approval to apply for Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP) funding for
Washington County.
D.Adopt a resolution to submit an application for federal funding through the Metropolitan
Council’s 2020 Regional Solicitation grant program.
E.Approve Change Orders No. 4 and No. 5 to Contract No. 12904 with Pember Companies, Inc.,
in the amount of $24,020 and $900 respectively, for the Environmental Center Site
Improvements Project (PHE-001).
F.Approval to set a Public Hearing on September 15, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. to adopt Park Ordinance
update establishing County Conservation Areas.
G.Approval of one full-time equivalent (1.0 FTE) Deputy Sheriff-Patrol Officer in the Sheriff's
Office.
4.9:10 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator
A.Presentation of the 2019 Performance Measures and Indicators Report.
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room
If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000
Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer
5. 9:30 Commissioner Reports - Comments - Questions
This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and
information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of
discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting.
6.Board Correspondence
7. 9:45 Executive (Closed) Session - Human Resources
A. Executive (closed) session for the purposes of discussing labor relations strategy, per
Minnesota Statute 13D.03.
8. 10:45 Adjourn
9. 10:50 2021 Recommended Budget Workshops
10:50-11:35 A. Review the 2021 recommended budget for the Community Corrections Department.
10. 11:35-11:50 Break
11. 11:55 2021 Recommended Budget Workshops (continued)
11:55-12:40 A. Review the 2021 recommended budget for the Community Services Department.
12:40-1:25 B. Review the 2021 recommended budget for the Department of Public Health & Environment
and University of Minnesota Extension.
12. 1:30 Finance Committee
Washington
; _;County
STILLWATER TOWN BOARD MEETING
August 13, 2020 Via Zoom 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairperson Sheila-Marie Untiedt, Supervisors Rod Hunter, Tim Sinclair,
Bonnie Haines and Mike McMahon, Clerk Kat hy Schmoeckel, Planner Evan
Monson, Treasurer Marsha Olson and Chief of Police Steve Nelson
7:00 P.M. – Public Hearing – Bill Wolfe Excavating Variance
Pursuant to notice in the Stillwater Gazette and to surrounding property owners, a Public
Hearing was held to consider a request from Bill Wolfe Excavating, on behalf of the
property owners, for a variance to install a new septic system on this residential
property located at 9378 Neal Avenue North on North Twin Lake.
Chair Sheila-Marie Untiedt opened the Public Hearing and introduced Planner Evan
Monson who reviewed the application for this variance per his memorandum dated
August 6, 2020. The Washington County Shoreland Management Ordinance requires
minimum setbacks for structures and sewage treatment systems. Given that North
Twin Lake is classified as a “Natural Environment Lake” within the ordinance, a
minimum setback for sewage treatment system s is 150 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Level ( OHWL). The property owners are replacing the existing system on the
site and are planning to have the tanks approximately 57 feet from the OHWL. This
equates to a requested variance of 93 feet from the minimum setbac k of 150 feet. The
size of the lot, combined with the location of the existing house and well have limited
where the new septic system can be located.
There were the following questions from the Board:
Sheila-Marie Untiedt – Is this a mound system also? Mike McMahon – The current
system is not a mound system, but the proposed system is.
Untiedt – The practical difficulties here are not caused by the landowner, but are
caused by the layout of the property.
Tim Sinclair – This is an upgrade from the original system from the 1960’s.
There were no comments or questions from the public. A l etter of support from John
and Kathy Harrington has been entered into the record.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.
M/S/P Sinclair/Haines moved to approve the variance subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plans shall be consistent with the application materials and plans
received by the Township on July 17, 2020, and reviewed in the Planner’s report.
Stillwater Town Board Mtg. – 8/13/20 Page 2
2. The applicant shall obtain the required septic system permit(s) from Washington
County.
3. A riparian buffer shall be installed on the property between the new septic tanks
and the OHWL, so as to mitigate any potential impacts to the shoreland.
4. The applicant shall acquire any other local, county, state, and federal permits
required for this proposed septic system.
5. The applicant shall pay all fe es and escrows associated with this application.
(4 ayes, McMahon abstain)
7:15 – Regular Meeting
1. AGENDA – M/S/P Hunter/McMahon moved to adopt the agenda as amended. (5
ayes)
2. MINUTES – M/S/P McMahon/Sinclair moved to approve the July 9, 2020 Stil lwater
Town Board Meeting minutes as written. (5 ayes)
3. `ENGINEER –
a. Arcola Trail Erosion – Engineers Larina DeWalt and Paul Pearson and Sheila-
Marie Untiedt had met at the site to discuss possible solutions to erosion issues.
Ms DeWalt has prepared an engineer’s estimate of $5,500.
M/S/P Haines/Sinclair moved to authorize the project at a cost not to exceed
$5,500 to repair the shoulder. (5 ayes)
4. TREASURER
a. Report given.
b. Checks and Claims – Claims and Checks #23262 through #23293 were
approved for payment.
c. Computer – The Treasurer’s computer need updates as the current system is not
compatible with the State’s system.
M/S/P McMahon/Hunter moved to purchase a new laptop for the Treasurer at a
cost not to exceed $500. (5 ayes)
5. CHIEF OF POLICE –
a. Report given. There were 5 burning permits in July. No dogs were impounded.
There have been no bear sightings to report. There were 77 calls in July.
b. Fairy Falls Issues – The parking situation continues to improve. Violators are
being ticketed.
c. Crosswinds Community Church – They had requested permission for an outdoor
wedding, but we have not heard anything further. We assume it has been
cancelled.
d. Trails Signage – A map showing placement of “No Motorized Vehicles” signs has
been sent to Steve St Clair.
e. Park Pavilion – There have been 9 reservations so far this year. People have
been keeping their groups to less than 25 people.
6. CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST.CROIX WATERSHED DISTRICT – Mike Isensee was present
to discuss their 10 year management plan update . He reviewed their accomplishments
Stillwater Town Board Mtg. – 8/13/20 Page 3
for the past 10 years, what they are working on now and their priorities. He invited
comments and questions:
Untiedt – What are your priorities in Stillwater Township? – Isensee – They are
doing a water analysis study on Little Carnelian Lake. They are also doing a
restoration project on Little Carnelian at a property where rip rap had been
installed. On Loon Lake, a property owner wants to do projects to improve water
quality.
McMahon – There are a lot of weeds on North Twin Lake. Can a property owner
remove them? Isensee – The DNR controls this. A property owner can remove
weeds.
7. ELECTION REPORT – The Clerk reported on the Primary Election held on August
11th. It was very slow with only 187 voters all day. We were able to keep social
distancing. There was a new check -in system which went well.
8. PARK COMMITTEE – Bonnie Haines reported on the recent Committee meeting
where they visited at Curtiss Hills Trail, Arcola Heights Park and Quarry Trail.
9. TOWN CLERK REPLACEMENT PLAN – Town Clerk, Kathy Schmoeckel, will be retiring
at the end of the year. A job description will be developed and pos ted on the website.
10. CARES ACT GRANT – Washington County has grant funds available for election
expenditures. The consensus was that Stillwater Township had no need for additional
funding.
11. SHRUBS AT THE TOWN HALL – Mike McMahon will be removing the old shrubs.
Replacement will be put in next spring.
12. CENTURTLINK INTERNET SERVICE – More people are working at home and
complaining about the poor internet service in the Township. Sheila -Marie is looking
into possible solutions.
13. REAL ESTATE LISTING EAST OF THE RALEIGH PIT – There is a listing for a property
next to the pit which does not mention the fact that there is a gravel pit next door. The
realtor does not believe that this is material fact.
14. FUTURE MEETINGS - There was discussion of whether to continue to meet virtually
or go back to in person meetings. The consensus was to keep meeting via Zoo m for
now and revisit the issue in January.
15. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Stillwater Town Board Mtg. – 8/13/20 Page 4
Clerk______________________________________
Chairperson_________________________________
Approved___________________________________