Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-03-02 CC Agenda Packet
._,1 Zoom Meeting G Gov e Recording... n • 0 X Participants (24) kik Tom McCarty,_CityAdmi... Shawn Sanders. Eng/PubWr... Stuart Glaser, Fire Chief Stillwater AV Tony Johnson m IT Ale `. Stillwater Library dalecgibbs Finance Director,... Alida Dave Junker, Council member Brian Mueller, Police Chi pr Bill Turnblad, Community D... ® Kori Land, City Attorney dbrady er Beth Wolf, City Clerk james honsvall Robin Anthony,... Brad K. Dory Herman Tim Shaughnessy Solveig Johnson Larry Odebrecht Q Find a participant s 10 1 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 1) 0 0 ©© 0 IT Alerts (Host, me) Beth Wolf, City CI... (Co -host) 0 Rh Bill Turnblad, Community Devel... 4 07 Dave Junker, Council member 4 07 Stillwater Conference Room * 01 Shawn Sanders, Eng/PubWrks D... 4 0t Alida Brad K. Brian Mueller, Police Chief dalecgibbs dbrady Dory Herman Z Finance Director, Sharon Provos 5 0 james honsvall /q Kori Land, City Attorney Robin Anthony, Stillwater Cham... Solveig Johnson Stillwater AV Stillwater Library Stuart Glaser, Fire Chief Tim Shaughnessy if lee 0 5 QJ 5 0 End Invite 1,.,) Zoom Meeting 0 oov S Recording... 11 ■ Participants (27) IT Ale 7. Tom McCarty, City Admi... La IMP art Glaser, Fire Chief i1 Bob Loken - ESG Archite... Joel Hauck - ESG... Paul Kaufer k Tim Shaughnessy! Nick Walton dalecgibbs Finance Director,... Dave Junker Abbi Wittman, C... Kori Land Larry Odebrecht i Stillwater Conference Room rabdullah Shawn Sanders Stillwater AV jbudenski Alida Brian Mueller, P... Dan MacSwain Q. Find a participant Waiting Room (1) Alon Ventura In the Meeting (27) IT Alerts (Host, me) 1, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 Message Joining... Beth Wolf, City CI... (Co -host) in 4. Oa Dave Junker Stillwater Conference Room Abbi Wittman, City Planner Alida Ari Parritz 4 co co Z Z 0 Bill Turnblad, Community Devel... it 0 Bob Loken - ESG Architects Brian Mueller, Police Chief dalecgibbs Dan MacSwain Finance Director, Sharon Provos Heidi McAllister (she, her), Direc... jbudenski Joel Hauck - ESG Architects Kori Land Nick Walton Z 0 I 0 Unmute Start Video Security •i 28 III * © '‘ m D 0 Participants Polls Chat Share Screen Pause/Stop Recording Reactions End Invite CIE 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.zoomgov.com/join or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 161 843 8759 Public comments can be emailed to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us REVISED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Chestnut Street Plaza Revised Concept Design 2. Temporary Outdoor Sale Use Permit Extension Discussion 3. Possible Curling Facility and Connector Addition at Recreation Center IV. STAFF REPORTS 1. Public Works Director 2. Police Chief 3. Fire Chief 4. Finance Director 5. Community Development Director 6. City Clerk 7. City Attorney 8. City Administrator 9. Library Director V. RECESS RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. VI. CALL TO ORDER VII. ROLL CALL VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IX. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS 10. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting X. 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. XI. 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. 11. February 16, 2021 regular meeting minutes 12. Payment of Bills 13. Hauler Rolloff License for T & T Disposal 14. Mutual Aid Agreement for Fire Services 15. Ordinance 1160 Amending City Codes Section 41-2 Licensing of Tobacco Sales – 2nd Reading 16. Ordinance 1161 Repealing City Code Section 56-2 Deferral of Special Assessment – 2nd Reading Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Agenda March 2, 2021 17. Fee Schedule Amendment for Tobacco Fines – Resolution XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS – when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less. 18. CPC Case 2020-60 to consider a request by Joel Hauck and 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit, associated variances and an appeal to HPC’s decision to not permit a 4th story on a proposed residential building in the Central Business Height Overlay Historic District at 200 Chestnut St E. Notices published in Stillwater Gazette and mailed to affected property owners on February 12, 2021. 19. CPC Case 2021-07 to consider an appeal by Jon and Ann Whitcomb for the re-consideration of a Variance to the Right of Way setback at 12950 75th St N. Notices published in Stillwater Gazette and mailed to affected property owners on February 12, 2021. 20. CPC Case No 2019-25 to consider amending the City’s sign regulations. Notice was published in Stillwater Gazette on February 12, 2021. – Ordinance 1st Reading XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 21. Name the Park for Aiple Property XIV. NEW BUSINESS 22. Michael Russ - Resubdivision to create a second parcel 23. Local Road Improvement Program Grant – Resolution 24. Plans and Specs for Rec Center Parking Lot Project – Resolution 25. Plans and Specs for 2021 Street Improvement Project – Resolution 26. Lake Elmo Airport Commission Representative Selection 27. Landucci Homes pending apartment project ‐ 3rd and Myrtle (information only) XV. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XVI. ADJOURNMENT 200 CHESTNUT ST S STILLWATER, MN CITY COUNCIL 3/2/2021 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 4-5 PRECEDENT IMAGES 6-8 SITE CONTEXT 9-15 HEIGHT & MASS ANALYSIS 16-17 BIRDS EYE VIEWS 18 CHANGE SUMMARY 19-30 DESIGN PERSPECTIVES 31-35 FLOOR PLANS 36-40 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 40-55 CONTEXT PERSPECTIVES 56- 60 LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 61-65 PROJECT COMPARISION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 3 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project will redevelop a site currently occupied by a 1960’s-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a new 61-unit residential apartment community with 73 below-grade park- ing stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and penthouse units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist-based econo- my, families, and empty nesters. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house three penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater’s rooftops and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The invit- ing pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top dis- trict. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the bars, restaurants and shops that make Stillwater such a unique community. PROJECT VISION PROJECT METRICS PROJECT ANALYSIS Level Total Construction GSF Plaza / Roof Terrace GSF Total Enclosed GSF Parking/ Mech GSF Residential Stalls Public Parallel Stalls Total Residential GSF Amenity GSF RSF Circulation GSF Units Efficiency (RSF/GSF) Minus 1 27,958 27,958 27,958 73 Level 1 25,883 2938 22,945 1,716 26 21,229 2,182 16,303 2,744 18 76.8% Level 2 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 3 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 4 8,990 3138 5,852 5,852 749 4,633 470 3 79.2% Total 108,071 6,076 101,995 29,674 73 26 72,321 2,931 61,370 8,020 61 Unit Metrics Studio Alcove 1 Bed 1 Bed + D 2 Bed Total Level 1 5 7 2 4 18 Level 2 4 6 2 8 20 Level 3 4 6 2 8 20 Level 4 3 3 Total 0 13 19 6 23 61 Bedrooms 13 19 12 46 90 Building Area Analysis Level GSF % Site Minus 1 27,958 96% Level 1 25,883 89% Level 2-3 22,620 78% Level 4 8,990 31% Site = 29,035 SF Zoning Analysis Lot Size (gsf)29,035 Lot Size (acres)0.67 Proposed FAR 2.49 Proposed DU/acre 92 Zoning District CBD: Central Business District Downtown Height Overlay Historic Building Adjacency no adjacent buildings Max height 3 Stories / 37' Proposed height 4 Stories / 48.5' Required Parking 92 Residential, 20 Guest Proposed Parking 73 Residential, 26 Parallel Stalls 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 4 PRECEDENT PROJECTS LORA HOTELTHE ELYSIAN 4500 FRANCE AVE (Architect: ESG) (Architect: ESG, Developer: Reuter Walton)(Architect: ESG) 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 5 STILLWATER DESIGN CONTEXT 436 CHESTNUT ST E 321 MAIN ST S 123 2ND ST N 102 2ND ST S 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 6 CONTEXT PLAN CHESTNU T S T E MYRTLE S T W OLIVE ST E3RD ST S2ND ST SST CROIX TRAIL S WATER ST SSAM BLOOMER ST CROIX RIVER LIFT BR I D G E UNION ALLEY4TH ST S SITE 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 7 DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY MAP ZONING MAP (DETAIL) SITE SITE 200 CHESTNUT STREET ZONING AND HEIGHT DISTRICT MAPS 9/14/19 Stillwater, MN ZONING & HEIGHT DISTRICT MAPS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 8 EXISTING SITE IMAGES VIEW FROM CHESTNUT ST VIEW FROM UNION ALLEY VIEW FROM 2ND ST VIEW FROM MYRTLE ST 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 9 SITE 691' +14 695' +4 700' +5 708' +8 738' +30 817' +79 845' +28 677'UNION ALLEYSAM BLOOMERWATER STREET SST CROIX TRAIL N2ND STREET S3RD STREET S4TH STREET S5TH STREET SRIVER 738 677 688 695 700 708 691 817 845 SITE SITE SECTION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 10 SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT36' - 0"46' - 0"4' - 0"ELEVATOR OVERRUN UNION ALLEY 2ND STREET S ALLOWABLE HEIGHT37' - 0"SETBACK 10' - 0" Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT Stillwater, MN A10 LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 11 SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT38' - 6"BUILDING HEIGHT48' - 6"4' - 0"ELEVATOR OVERRUN UNION ALLEY 2ND STREET S ALLOWABLE HEIGHT37' - 0"AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY 2' - 6"Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT Stillwater, MN A10 CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 12 EW SECTION - HEIGHT36' - 0"46' - 0"UNION ALLEY SETBACK 10' - 0" 2ND STREET S ALLOWABLE HEIGHT37' - 0"PARKING PARKING Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH SECTION - HEIGHT Stillwater, MN A11 LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 13 WEST ELEVATION - HEIGHTLEVEL 3 PARAPET38' - 6"BULIDING HEIGHT48' - 6"UNION ALLEY 2ND STREET S ALLOWABLE HEIGHT37' - 0"PARKING PARKING2' - 8"AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH SECTION - HEIGHT Stillwater, MN A11 CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 14 CHESTNU T S T MYRTLE S T W OLIVE ST E2ND ST SST CROIX WATER ST SSAM BLOOM - ST CROIX RIVER LIFT BR I D G E UNION ALLEY SITE CONTEXT BUILDING MASS ANALYSIS STILLWATER, MN 1 321 S Main (Alfresco): 50’ on Main; 116’ on Nelson Alley 2 312 S Main (Nacho Mama’s): 22’ on Main, 100’ on Nelson Alley 3 302 S Main (Whitey’s Saloon) 25’ on Main, 95’ on Olive St 4 236 S Main (American Gothic Antiques): 36’ on Main, 100’ on Olive 5 201 S Main (Mara-Mi): 50’ on Main, 116’ on Chestnut 6 102 Main St S (Black Letter Books) 50’ on Main, 100’ on Myrtle St 7 102 2nd St (Gazette): 22 on 2nd, 108’ on Myrtle 8 123 2nd (JX Venue): 70’ on 2nd, 200’ on Commercial 1 2 4 5 8 7 6 3 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 15 CONTEXT BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS 56'44' 65' 40' 38' 48' 43' 46' 42' 55' 36' 46' 36' 30' 49' 39' 33' 37' 40' 39' 54' 31'56' 40' 32' 47' 2 STORY BUILDING 3 STORY BUILDING 4+ STORY BUILDING HISTORIC HEIGHT OVERLAY 36' 90' 33' 41' 56'48' 56' 65' 48' 43' 46' 42' 55' 49' 39' 37' 40' 39' 54' 56' 40' 47' + 37 FT BUILDINGS HISTORIC HEIGHT OVERLAY 38' 2+ STORY BUILDINGS 90' 40' 44' 41' 48'56' 46' 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 16 BIRDS EYE VIEW - SOUTHEAST 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 17 BIRDS EYE VIEW - NORTHWEST 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 18 CHANGE SUMMARY Ask: Reduce 4th Story - Reduced Level 4 GSF by -7,400 SF - Removed 62% of the units on 4th level. Units removed along the West and North Elevation. - Added windows and raised planters to north and west elevation at level 4. Ask: Lap Siding is not an appropriate material for Stillwater - Removed All Fiber Cement Panel from project. Replaced with vertical metal panel (similar to Lora Hotel). - Added masonry to East and West Elevation in place of fiber cement panel Ask: Union Alley needs to feel more pedestrian - Reduced height of Cast in Place concrete planters by 2’ along Union Alley. Top of planter wall now 3’ above sidewalk. - Designed intermediate picket railings between planters for added transparency between public and private spaces. Ask: North Elevation (Myrtle) needs more articulation - Relocated NE balcony stack to North Elevation to provide improved architectural interest along Myrtle St. Ask: Increase storefront expression at South Elevation (Chestnut). - Fitness room relocated adjacent to building entrance. Storefront glazing added to this portion of the elevation. Ask: Revise East and West Elevations (long and tall) - Removed the 4th floor units on West Elevation. Results in 3 story façade in lieu of 4. - Reduced height of balcony piers on West Elevation per 4th floor revision. - Added 3 story mass (clad in masonry) to East and West Elevation. Building Metrics Update: - Reduced total unit count from 73 to 61 (-12) - Reduced total bedroom count from 102 to 90 (-12) - Parking Ratio updated - 1.20 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE 12/16/20 & 1/20/21 HPC MEETINGS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 19 SE CORNER VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 20 ELEVATION ON CHESTNUT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 21 SW CORNER VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 22 VIEW ON 2ND ST 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 23 NW CORNER VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 24 LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 25 NE CORNER VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 26 UNION ALLEY VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 27 LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 28 SE CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 29 SW CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 30 PEDESTRIAN VIEW ON 2ND ST 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 31 SITE PLAN CHESTN U T S T E MYRTLE S T W 2ND ST SST CROIX TRAIL S UNION ALLEY 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 32 LEVEL 1 | A1 UNION ALLEY 2ND STREET SOUTH CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEASTMYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST602 SF ALCOVE 887 SF 1 BED 1,642 SF LOBBY/LEASING 1,716 SF PARKING 1,028 SF 1 BED + DEN986 SF 1 BED 986 SF 1 BED 887 SF 1 BED 1,028 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,262 SF 2 BED 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 1,307 SF 2 BED 856 SF 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 1,249 SF 2 BED 1,252 SF 2 BED 540 SF FITNESS 540 SF ALCOVE TO DOWNTOWN & RIVERRAMP DOWN 1 A5 1 A6 1 234567 8 9 10 11 1213141516171819202122 23 24 25 26 1 A8 1 A7 GARAGE ACCESS TO P.L. 2' - 5"TO P.L.1' - 5 3/4"TO P.L. 3' - 0 3/8"TO P.L.1' - 0"TO P.L.1' - 0"TO P.L. 1' - 0"TO P.L.7 1/2"TO P.L. 1' - 4 1/4" SCREENED TRANSFORMER 602 SF ALCOVE 2,586 SF CIRCULATION 2,938 SF TERRACE PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN STREET LEVEL PLAN A1TRUE NORTH 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 33 864 SF 1 BED 1,028 SF 1 BED + DEN 887 SF 1 BED 1,409 SF 2 BED 986 SF 1 BED 986 SF 1 BED 887 SF 1 BED 1,028 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,342 SF 2 BED 1,409 SF 2 BED1,309 SF 2 BED 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 1,249 SF 2 BED 1,309 SF 2 BED 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 1,249 SF 2 BED 864 SF 1 BED 1,251 SF 2 BED ELEC66' - 0"115' - 0"66' - 0" 66' - 0"41' - 0"33' - 0"41' - 0"66' - 0" 1 A5 1 A6113' - 7"1 A8 1 A7 2,403 SF CIRCULATION PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 PLAN A2TRUE NORTHLEVEL 2-3 | A2 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 34114' - 0"1 A5 1 A6 1 A8 1 A7 66' - 0"115' - 0"66' - 0" 3,138 SF TERRACE 1,710 SF CIRCULATION 1,398 SF 2 BED 1,456 SF 2 BED 1,779 SF 2 BED 749 SF AMENITY PATIO PATIOPATIO PLANTERS GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 PLAN A3TRUE NORTHLEVEL 4 | A3 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 35 27,958 SF PARKING 3.90% GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER TRASH 5.00%1 A5 1 A6 1 A8 1 A7 RAMP UP 247'-0"TO P.L. 2' - 5" TO P.L. 1' - 4 1/4"113' - 11 1/2"TO P.L.1' - 0 1/2"TO P.L.9 3/4"S - STANDARD STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 18'-0" DEEP C - COMPACT STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 16'-0" DEEP PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN MINUS 1 LEVEL PLAN A4TRUE NORTHLEVEL MINUS 1 | A4 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 36 MASONRY VENEER ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM METAL PANEL AND BALCONY RECESS ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL CAST STONE WINDOW SILL FIBERGLASS WINDOWS METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN PREFINISHED METAL COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER METAL INFILL PANEL PREFINISHED METAL COPING FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS METAL PANEL PRIMARY BUILDIJNG ENTRANCE BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY ALUMINUM WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH ELEVATION A5 SOUTH ELEVATION | A5 BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING EXTERIOR MATERIALS MASONRY VENEER ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM FIBER CEMENT PANEL FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL CAST STONE SILLS CAST STONE WINDOW SILL FIBERGLASS WINDOWS FIBER CEMENT PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN PREFINISHED METAL COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER METAL INFILL PANEL PREFINISHED METAL COPING FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING PRIMARY BUILDIJNG ENTRANCE BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH ELEVATION Stillwater, MN ( CHESTNUT ST) 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 37 MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL CAST STONE WINDOW SILL METAL PANEL AT BALCONY METAL PANEL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOOR FIBERGLASS WINDOW METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN MASONRY VENEER BASE METAL PANEL AT BALCONY RECESS ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING MASONRY VENEER MECHANICAL LOUVER ROOF PLANTERS MASONRY VENEER Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET WEST ELEVATION Stillwater, MN A6WEST ELEVATION | A6 MASONRY VENEER FIBER CEMENT SIDING CAST STONE WINDOW SILL FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOOR FIBERGLASS WINDOW FIBER CEMENT PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN MASONRY VENEER BASE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING AT BALCONY RECESS ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING MASONRY VENEER MECHANICAL LOUVER Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET WEST ELEVATION Stillwater, MN ( 2ND ST ) BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING EXTERIOR MATERIALS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 38 MASONRY VENEER MECHANICAL LOUVER METAL PANEL INFILL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL RAILING METAL PANEL ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND FIBERGLASS WINDOWS METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ELEVATION A7 NORTH ELEVATION | A7 MASONRY VENEER MECHANICAL LOUVER METAL PANEL INFILL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL RAILING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBERGLASS WINDOWS ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ELEVATION Stillwater, MN ( MYRTLE ST ) BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING EXTERIOR MATERIALS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 39 OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SCREENED TRANSFORMER AREA CAST STONE SILL METAL PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL MASONRY VENEER MECHANICAL LOUVER METAL PARAPET COPING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET EAST ELEVATION Stillwater, MN A8EAST ELEVATION | A8 OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SCREENED TRANSFORMER AREA CAST STONE SILL METAL PARAPET COPING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL MASONRY VENEER MECHANICAL LOUVER METAL PARAPET COPING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM FIBER CEMENT PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET EAST ELEVATION Stillwater, MN A ( UNION ALLEY ) BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING EXTERIOR MATERIALS 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 40 CONTEXT VIEW KEY 2 6 1 3 4 5 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 41 VIEW #1 - EXISTING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 42 VIEW #1 - PROPOSED 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 43 VIEW #2 - EXISTING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 44 VIEW #2 - PROPOSED 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 45 VIEW #3 - EXISTING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 46 VIEW #3 - PROPOSED 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 47 VIEW #4 - EXISTING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 48 VIEW #4 - EXISTING EXISTING ROOF LINE 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 49 VIEW #4 - PROPOSED 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 50 VIEW #5 - EXISTING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 51 VIEW #5 - EXISTING EXISTING ROOF LINE 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 52 VIEW #5 - PROPOSED 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 53 VIEW #6 - EXISTING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 54 VIEW #6 - EXISTING EXISTING ROOF LINE 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 55 VIEW #6 - PROPOSED 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 56 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 32 1,566 SF 2 BED 1,322 SF 2 BED 1,440 SF 2 BED 1,561 SF 2 BED 1,616 SF 2 BED 1,629 SF 2 BED 887 SF 1 BED 1,774 SF 2 BED 576 SF AMENITY 854 SF TERRACE RR TMECH 10' - 0"66' - 6"37' - 6"14' - 0"219' - 0"14' - 0" 1 A5 1 A6 GREEN ROOF TRAYSGREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS 1 A8 1 A7 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 PLAN A3TRUE NORTHLEVEL 4 | A3 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12/16/2020 LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 57 1,566 SF 2 BED 1,322 SF 2 BED 1,440 SF 2 BED 1,561 SF 2 BED 576 SF AMENITY 854 SF TERRACE RR TMECH 10' - 0"66' - 6"37' - 6"14' - 0"219' - 0"14' - 0" ROOFROOF ROOFROOF FOOTPRINT REMOVED (5,450 SF) PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET LEVEL 4 PLAN Stillwater, MN TRUE NORTHREMOVED 5,450 SF LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 58 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 4,176 SF AMENITYT114' - 0"1 A5 1 A6 1 A8 1 A7 GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 2,041 SF TERRACE 1,440 SF 2 BED 1,759 SF 2 BED PATIO PATIO 1,688 SF CIRCULATION36' - 4"40' - 2"10' - 0"6' - 0"35' - 8" 14' - 0" GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS 66' - 0"115' - 0"66' - 0" PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 PLAN A3TRUE NORTHLEVEL 4 | A3 UPDATED HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1/20/2021 LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 59 4,176 SF AMENITYT114' - 0"1 A5 1 A6 1 A8 1 A7 GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 2,041 SF TERRACE 1,440 SF 2 BED 1,759 SF 2 BED PATIO PATIO 1,688 SF CIRCULATION36' - 4"40' - 2"10' - 0"6' - 0"35' - 8" 14' - 0" GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS 66' - 0"115' - 0"66' - 0"41' - 2"FOOTPRINT REMOVED (1,950 SF) PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 PLAN A3TRUE NORTHREMOVED 1,950 SF LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 60114' - 0"1 A5 1 A6 1 A8 1 A7 66' - 0"115' - 0"66' - 0" 3,138 SF TERRACE 1,710 SF CIRCULATION 1,398 SF 2 BED 1,456 SF 2 BED 1,779 SF 2 BED 749 SF AMENITY PATIO PATIOPATIO PLANTERS GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS GREEN ROOF TRAYS PLAN NORTH Scale:1" = 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 PLAN A3TRUE NORTHLEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 61 PROJECT COMPARISION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 62 EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT = 41'-0" WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" WATER STREET INN HEIGHT = 54'-0" 200 CHESTNUT HEIGHT = 48'-6" PROJECT COMPARISION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 63 PROJECT COMPARISION WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 645' - 6"200 CHESTNUT38' - 6"5' - 6"200 CHESTNUT48' - 6"UNION ALLEY 2ND STREET S AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY 2' - 6"WATER STREET INN44' - 0"WATER STREET INN54' - 0"Scale:1/16" = 1'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET Unnamed Stillwater, MN A16PROJECT COMPARISION 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN 65 PROJECT COMPARISION 47' 53' 43' THANK YOU Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS A&K Construction Public Works Remodel 25,630.00 Advance Auto Parts Equipment repair supplies 1.87 All Goals Inc Soccer nets 455.40 Alliance for Innovation Membership 1,860.00 Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Parks office 883.90 Arrow Sports Group Concession supplies 992.00 Aspen Mills Belt - Knodle 35.73 Athletica Sport Systems Equipment repair supplies 369.60 Axlemaster Equipment repair 575.00 Ballis Tom Reimburse for expenses 667.73 Batteries Plus Bulbs Batteries 48.96 BlueCross BlueShield of MN Inc.Retiree Health Ins 4,403.00 Boyer Trucks Equipment repair supplies 91.20 Burschville Construction Inc.Thaw water service Lowell Park 800.00 CDI LFDS training 160.42 CDW Government Inc.Mouse & pad 82.11 Cintas Corporation Uniforms & mats 748.45 Clog Un-Boggler Inc.Unclog drain 235.00 Coca-Cola Distribution Beverages for concessions 583.02 Cole Papers Janitorial supplies 164.77 Comcast TV Internet & Voice 355.14 Computer Integration Technologies Heirloom & Landmark Website 135.00 Dalco Supplies 692.86 ECM Publishers Publications 246.15 Enterprise Products Operating Propane 13,034.08 Foremost Promotions Fire education materials 524.81 Golden Expert Services Janitor Service 3,700.00 Grainger Supplies 1,289.42 Granicus Inc Qtrly web streaming service 1,854.57 Group Medicareblue RX Retiree Prescriptions Ins 3,042.00 Guardian Supply Supplies 204.95 Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Training - Judy 100.00 Heritage Embroidery & Design Face covers 563.94 Heritage Printing Inc.Newsletter Printing 3,875.00 Lakeview Hospital Legal blood draws 50.00 Leadership Growth Group LLC 2021 Leadership Growth Group Series 600.00 League of MN Cities Workers Comp Claim 2,745.79 LHB Inc 200 Chestnut TIF Analysis 5,550.00 Lindstrom Solar LLC Solar Energy 3,213.90 Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Labor Relations Services 2,466.00 Mansfield Oil Company Fuel 3,285.89 Melstrom Jeff Reimburse for work boots 200.00 Menards Supplies 1,313.77 Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors Maintenance 896.50 Miller Excavating Leak repairs 16,083.10 MN Dept of Driver & Vehicle Services Title 2011 Freightliner Fire Pumper 37.00 MN Dept of Public Safety EPCRA Program Hazardous chemical inventory fees 800.00 MN Dept of Transportation Traffic signal maint 402.24 Page 2 MPSTMA Membership 65.00 Northern Tool Building repair supplies 369.98 Office Depot Office supplies 634.74 Olson Patrick Allen Shadow box 280.00 Original Mattress Factory Mattresses 1,779.78 Performance Plus LLC Drug screen 767.00 Praxair Cylinder rent 60.85 Pro Hydro-Testing Hydro-testing SCUBA cylinders 280.00 Quadient Leasing Postage machine lease 455.01 Rehn Code Consulting Services Plan review 650.57 Reliance Electric Motors Equipment repair supplies 649.50 Riedell Shoes Inc.Skates 268.84 River Valley Printing Inc.Business cards 49.00 Safe Fast Inc Winter bids 279.80 Safety Signs Galvanized posts 2,347.50 SavATree Tree care 4,820.63 Sentry Systems Inc.Alarm monitoring 140.85 Simplifile LC Filing fees 200.00 St. Croix Boat and Packet Co.Arena Billing 91,029.73 Station 19 Architects Refund 525.00 Stillwater & Oak Park Heights CVB Qtrly Lodging Tax 70,531.04 Stillwater Motor Company Vehicle repair charges 60.69 Stillwater Towing Towing service 540.00 TimeMark Inc.Equipment repair charges 457.17 TKDA Professional services 5,521.29 Tri-State Bobcat Equipment repair supplies 207.55 Valley Trophy Inc.Name plates 33.00 Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Firefighters Ins 1,715.00 Water Conservation Services Inc Leak Locate 2,324.88 Xcel Energy Energy 25,775.78 Young Dan Reimburse for uniform supplies 264.12 Zacks Inc.Equipment 444.66 LIBRARY Ace Hardware Supplies 63.92 Amazon Business Supplies & Materials 230.81 Cintas Corporation Towels & Rugs 163.51 Comcast Internet - February 188.06 Hedin Sue Staff Reimbursement 45.48 KidCreate Studio/Get Messy Programs - Juv Feb Kit (ST Tsp)200.00 Office of MN IT Services Telephone - January 143.70 Quill Corporation Processing Supplies 69.99 Textile Center Programs - Adult (ST Tsp)325.00 Uline Inc COVID Supplies (Gloves)496.51 JANUARY CREDIT CARDS Amazon.com Supplies 746.76 APWA Renewal fees 260.00 Page 3 BCA Training Training 375.00 Cub Foods Water & cupcakes - Alicias last day 21.18 Dropbox Dropbox Business Acct 750.00 ETrailer Lights for ladder 1 304.53 Federal Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse CDL license checks 25.00 GTS Educational Events IT Government Symposium 450.00 Half Price Books Materials - Video (S.AV)12.83 International Code Council Membership 145.00 John E. Reid & Associates Inc Training - Vetsch 149.00 Lathem Time Time clock 367.87 Menards Online Atomic clocks for training & confroom 107.08 MN Assoc Women Police Membership 30.00 PCLiquidations Water Dept phones 1,791.18 Penn Foster Career School Staff COVID Training 150.00 Stillwater Post Office Shipping 182.20 Survey Monkey Survey Tool Application 384.00 Tools 4 Flooring Cove base for after new floor install 553.70 University of MN CCE Registration Course registration 530.00 When To Work When to Work Scheduling Software 330.00 Zoom Video Communications Remote Working & Programming 63.16 JANUARY MANUALS Lone Oak Companies Utility Billing Postage 2,574.09 ADDENDUM AT&T Wireless Wireless service 67.78 Ballis Tom Reimbursements 125.00 Gannaway John COBRA Refund 6,343.80 League of MN Cities Quarterly Municipality Insurance 157,519.00 Maule Trich Refund 5.00 MN Dept Driver & Vehicle Services Title transfers 175.00 Xcel Energy Energy 15,789.44 TOTAL 511,833.81 Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 2nd day of March, 2021 Mayor Ted Kozlowski TO: Mayor & Council Members MEMO DATE: February 25, 2021 RE: Pending apartment project on 3rd and Myrtle FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Nathan Landucci of Landucci Homes plans to submit a planning application on February 26th for a market rate apartment building on the Whitcomb property on 3rd and Myrtle as well as on the neighboring Balay lot. The Balay residence would remain in place, but the apartment building would wrap around it. As you will see on the attached site plan, the City owns slivers of land in the Balay rear yard. These slivers are for the retaining walls constructed when the parking ramp and adjacent parking lot were built. If approved by the City, these retaining walls would be replaced by the apartment building foundation. The City Council will see the application in a month or so. At that time the developer will ask for approval of the project and permission to buy the slivers of land on which the retaining walls are located. Attachment: Narrative and site plan bt February 19, 2021 Abbi Jo Wittman City Planner 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Narrative Dear Abbi, This is a formal request to the City Council for their consideration in transferring ownership of a small irregular strip of city owned land to our private locally owned entity that would own and manage the proposed apartment building. In this application we have submitted a preliminary site plan that shows the land assembly of 4 parcels owned by Jon Wittcomb, 1 parcel owned by Mark and Catherine Balay and the proposed acquisition of the city owned land denoted in red crosshatching. I currently have control of both the Wittcomb and Balay properties; the sites are under contract. The city’s property that I am looking to acquire has 2 retaining walls. The walls retain dirt due to elevation changes by the the city’s parking ramp and bridge to the ramp. Our structural engineer’s opinion is that we will be able to remove portions of these walls in our proposal to redevelop the site. Our Architecture, Engineering and Civil plans will show how our building and retaining walls can sufficiently retain the soils during construction and upon completion of the project. The city would also take advantage of the fact that those existing retaining walls would no longer have to be the responsibility of the city to maintain and monitor. Please refer to the engineering opinion by my structural engineer, Kerry Rauschendorfer; Larson Engineering. His letter details further explanation of the current conditions and the steps we would take to ensure the construction and engineering details are acceptable to the city. Our site plan also shows the interconnected design with existing city parking and shows a net benefit of an additional 3 parking spaces. Our attached concepts shows elevations and floor plans of the proposed 54 unit market rate apartment building. We plan to promptly submit a planning and design application but per city staff request, the current application has to occur first. I appreciate the consideration of City staff and City Council in this matter. Best Regards, Nathan Landucci; Landucci Homes, Inc. \ \ PROPOSED NEW PROPERTY LINE ADD PARKING AND UPDATE SIDEWALK ~ 0 ~\ ~ j ~\ 5 ~ :s:. 107 3RD STREET NORTH , STILLWATER 4931 W. 35TH ST ., #200 e ST . LOUIS PAR K, MN 5541 6 Office: 612.615.0060 G R o U p www.CivilSiteGroup.com EXIST SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO REMAIN Project Number: Issue Date: 21043 Rev is io n Number: 2/18/21 Revision Date : 1" = 30'-0 " ~--I -~ ' 15'-0" 0 30'-0 " EX 1 NI 1 1\7 ter The Sirlhplaca of Minnesota 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.zoomgov.com/join or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 161 843 8759 Public comments can be emailed to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Chestnut Street Plaza Revised Concept Design 2. Temporary Outdoor Sale Use Permit Extension Discussion 3. Possible Curling Facility and Connector Addition at Recreation Center IV. STAFF REPORTS 1. Public Works Director 2. Police Chief 3. Fire Chief 4. Finance Director 5. Community Development Director 6. City Clerk 7. City Attorney 8. City Administrator 9. Library Director V. RECESS RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. VI. CALL TO ORDER VII. ROLL CALL VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IX. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS 10. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting X. 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.. XI. 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. 11. February 16, 2021 regular meeting minutes 12. Payment of Bills 13. Hauler Rolloff License for T & T Disposal 14. Mutual Aid Agreement for Fire Services 15. Ordinance 1160 Amending City Codes Section 41-2 Licensing of Tobacco Sales - 2nd Reading 16. Ordinance 1161 Repealing City Code Section 56-2 Deferral of Special Assessment - 2nd Reading 17. Fee Schedule Amendment for Tobacco Fines - Resolution XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less. 18. CPC Case 2020-60 to consider a request by Joel Hauck and 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit, associated variances and an appeal to HPC's decision to not permit a 4th story on a proposed residential building in the Central Business Height Overlay Historic District at 200 Chestnut St E. Notices published in Stillwater Gazette and mailed to affected property owners on February 12, 2021. 19. CPC Case 2021-07 to consider an appeal by Jon and Ann Whitcomb for the re -consideration of a Variance to the Right of Way setback at 12950 75th St N. Notices published in Stillwater Gazette and mailed to affected property owners on February 12, 2021. 20. CPC Case No 2019-25 to consider amending the City's sign regulations. Notice was published in Stillwater Gazette on February 12, 2021. - Ordinance 1st Reading XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 21. Name the Park for Aiple Property XIV. NEW BUSINESS 22. Michael Russ - Resubdivision to create a second parcel 23. Local Road Improvement Program Grant - Resolution 24. Plans and Specs for Rec Center Parking Lot Project - Resolution 25. Plans and Specs for 2021 Street Improvement Project - Resolution 26. Lake Elmo Airport Commission Representative Selection XV. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XVI. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Agenda March 2, 2021 Ulwater THE B I R T H PLACE CT MINNESOTA DATE: February 25, 2021 TO: Mayor & Council Members SUBJECT: Revised concept design for Chestnut Street Plaza MEMO FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The City Council reviewed three concept designs for the Chestnut Street Plaza on September 1, 2020. Concept 3 was favored with the following comments: Concept 3 • Liked the open event space between Water Street and the Promenade • Prefer the "round- about" intersection at the Promenade and the plaza as a way to slow down bicycle traffic • Liked the way the plantings framed the bridge Cy. TAME SEV5.16 .FUCKS oFpalLE DEM WALE cy) © ,Thxa o .e euwarrs • Liked the softened edges of the curvilinear theme that stretched through the plaza • Liked the pavers • Permanent table seating reduces flexibility • Allow bicycle access to Water Street • Allow accommodation for Leo's Patio access • Consider additional bike racks Following the Council review of the concept designs, MnDOT's Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the designs. Since state funds are being used for the project, Secretary of the Interior heritage Page 12 preservation standards have to be met. Unfortunately, neither the CRU nor SHPO found the City's design concepts to be consistent with Secretary of the Interior standards. The main points of their critique include: • Design should reflect the space and feel of a street • Create a visual separation between the sidewalks and the "roadway" • No curvilinear walkways or grid patterns • Maintain extended views of the bridge, trees should not obscure views • Recognize the bridge and concourse as the historic gateway to the City • No planters, permanent additions, bollards, monument signs or markers within what is considered the footprint of the street • New elements should be minimalist in design and unobtrusive • Materials should reflect the historic color scheme of the street, avoid red -colored pavement and pavers Consequently, City staff and our consultants needed to develop a new design. REVISED DESIGN The objective of the new design is to maintain the elements found important to the community, while remaining within the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The revised design concept maintains the historic street grid of the commercial district. The plaza's 60-foot cross section has been delineated into: gC. SIDEWALK LOPE PARKING ZONE MIXED USE g-,5- PARKING ZONE 7=11 SIDEWALK ZONE Page 13 • 8' wide concrete sidewalk zone along the building fronts on each side of plaza • A 4' wide zone of fixtures and drainage. o 2' wide strip for lighting, signage, utilities (typical items you would see on the back of the curb) o 2' for drainage o Trees would be planted in this 4' zone. Trees would be of a columnar variety so as not to block views of the bridge and plantings would be low perennials or ground covers. • 8' wide "parking zone" This 8' wide strip delineates where the current street's parking occurs. The site furniture would be located here and they will be a combination of moveable chairs and permanent concrete and wood benches. This provides flexibility to move furniture for events. The area between Water Street and the Promenade has less permanent seating to provide additional space for a stage/events. The site furniture transitions to a more refined concrete and wood bench nearer the bridge. This 8' strip is also where bike racks are located. • 20' of clear space in the center for mixed use (pedestrians and bicyclists). The center space remains clear for events, emergency and maintenance access. This 20' zone generally represents the current travel lanes of the street, though this is actually 24' wide today. It has been narrowed to allow a wider sidewalk zone. Paving materials here will be elongated plank style pavers. This material may change to decorative concrete (stamped or colored). The intersection of the Promenade and Chestnut is shown as colored concrete and is visually different than the rest of the plaza to provide a cue for users to slow down and be mindful of cross - traffic. A low (12- 18") planter in the center prevents traffic from flowing directly through the space. PROMENADE MOVABLE SEATING •' BIKE RACKS 9 LINEAR SEATING '- 'BOLLARDS '.� COLUMNAR TREES • BIKE ROUNDABOIF f� BENCH SEATING PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS Page 14 Lighting consists of the new downtown standard fixture will cafe overhead lighting on the block between Main and Water Streets. These fixtures also have the capability of holding banners during events. HPC REVIEW OF NEW DESIGN The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the revised concept on February 17, 2021 and found it to be acceptable. There comments were: Page 15 • They like it is not 'overly designed' and that the openness will allow for multi- use. • They appreciate the elongated "plank" surfacing material and would like to see a higher quality material in this location. They recommend something with a slight sand texture. • They are disappointed with the color scheme. • They would appreciate something more pleasing than black bollards separating vehicles and pedestrians. REQUEST Staff requests the Council to review the revised design and if it is found acceptable, to direct staff to begin developing the construction documents. attachments: Concept design drawings bt WATER STREET INN -0111111.11 si //On' tAt A- w 1- "dgm, .0•1-- CHESTNUT ST E w 73, Olt=1 0 W ce X 0 cc 0 I— tn STILLWATER LIFT BRIDGE CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Site Plan 02.12.2021 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA II I a 111111I11111111111I 11 I111111111" MN NICE CREAM LEO'S PATIO Ilgi�iImij -.,T 1 ,`+'r:7, T�TT - • 717777/77,.r.T - v.--r-r- 'l'PF. �++-• - - - GARTNER STUDIO MOVABLE SEATING �Z) LINEAR SEATING OVERSTORY TREES n CAFE STYLE LIGHTING 1 O BIKE RACKS BOLLARDS O CURB BUMP -OUT CHESTNI IT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Block "A" Plan 02.12.2021 illwater TH PLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA THE BIRTHPLACE WATER STREET INN 7 w w 0 ce a MOVABLE SEATING L C CI> E INEAR SEATING OLUMNAR TREES ENCH SEATING BIKE RACKS BOLLARDS BIKE ROUNDABOUT PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS IM II I II I II I I II CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Block "B" Plan 02.12.2021 THE BIR ilwate.i., THPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA CHESTNI IT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Block "A" Perspective 0212.2021 illwater t THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA 1 LUMBERJACK • DAYS CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Block "A" Perspective (Alternative) 02.12.2021 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Block "B" Perspective 0212.2021 _illy, , z THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA 8'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" : 8'-0" 20' 8'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" : 8'-0" SIDEWALK ZONE FIXTURES & DRAINAGE PARKING ZONE MIXED USE CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Section A -A' 0212.2021 PARKING ZONE IXTURES & DRAINAGE 5' SIDEWALK ZONE 10' 15' THE BIR graphic scale ilwate.i., THPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA TRAIL CROSSING BLOCK A 1 WATER ST CROSSING BLOCK B CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA I REVISED CONCEPT Section B-B' 02.12.2021 CONCOURSE THE BIR ilwate.i., 1 THPLACE OF MINNESOTA TKDA Ulwater THE B I R T H PLACE CT MINNESOTA DATE: February 26, 2021 TO: Mayor & Council Members SUBJECT: Outside Seating Areas - 2021 MEMO FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION With COVID-19 impacting us into a second summer season, Downtown business owners are asking if the City will extend its temporary outside seating area (OSA) policies as well. REQUEST Staff requests the Council to discuss whether any or all of last year's OSA polices should be extended into the 2021 outdoor season. DISCUSSION ITEMS Here is a partial list of items, in no particular order, that might be considered. 1. TERM OF OSA PROGRAM. As COVID-19 wanes and its protocols become decreasingly restrictive, activity Downtown will increase accordingly, as will the demand on parking. But, it is unlikely that once a temporary policy is set for this summer that it will change. So, whatever policy is set at the beginning of the outdoor season is likely to impact available parking all season. 2. CURBSIDE PICKUP. Should curbside pickup parking spaces be offered again to all restaurants and pubs? Should they also be offered to retail businesses? Should there be two spaces offered per business? Should these reserved curbside spaces be free of charge? Should these spaces be offered on all Downtown streets? 3. ALCOHOL SERVICE. Should the City continue to consider sidewalks and abutting on -street parking spaces to be "compact and contiguous" thereby allowing bars and restaurants to serve alcoholic beverages in the "parklets"? 4. ALLEYS. Should Union Alley between Myrtle and Commercial be closed to traffic again and offered as an OSA? Should Union Alley between Chestnut and Myrtle also be closed for this purpose? Should this be offered free of charge? 5. WHICH STREETS? Should all City streets be eligible for parklet use? Or, are some streets too heavily traveled, or otherwise too risky to allow outside seating on the street? Will the County allow parklets on Chestnut west of Main? Will the County allow the entire block of Chestnut west of Main to be closed to traffic and used as pedestrian space again this year? Even if they would, is that what the City wants? 6. LOWELL PARK. Should last year's policy to allow alcohol in Lowell Park be continued this summer? 7. PRIVATE PARKING LOTS. Should the City allow portions, or all of private parking lots to be converted to an OSA this summer? 8. PERMANENT OSA PROGRAM. Though it should be a discussion for another time, it is worth considering eventually whether the OSA program should become permanent in some form or another. NEXT STEPS After this work session discussion, staff will work your thoughts and directions into a revised program that will be brought back to the Council for further consideration. bt TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: „L.,, Ilwater Administration Mayor & City Council Tom McCarty, City Administrator Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director February 26, 2021 St. Croix Valley Recreation Center - Possible Expansion for Curling Facility and Connector Addition BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The St. Croix Curling Center Board of Directors approached the City of Stillwater in 2019- 2020, to explore the concept of construction of a curling center adjacent to the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center on property owned by the City of Stillwater. Following on -site visits to other curling facilities located within the metropolitan area and some preliminary conceptual design work completed by the St. Croix Curling Center, the City Council approved a resolution in May of 2020 supporting the concept of allowing a curling facility to be located on the Recreation Center property provided the facility benefits the general public. Further the resolution provided the St. Croix Curling Center three years to raise sufficient funds to construct the facility (See attached resolution). Since May of 2020, the St. Croix Curling Center Board of Directors continued to pursue design alternatives for the connection of a curling center to the current St. Croix Valley Recreation Center, involved other groups in its planning process and presented an updated curling center model to the City Council in January 2021. The proposed project expanded in scope, complexity and cost. At the January 5 City Council meeting, city staff recommended that given the expansion of the project beyond the proposed scope contemplated in Resolution adopted by Council in May, 2020, the City develop a "plan to plan" for the proposed project. Staff has prepared a concept design process for review and consideration by City Council - see attached slides. The concept design process creates a stakeholder group to define the scope of the project for approval by Council. Once project scope is approved, funds are raised to engage a consultant to develop cost estimates and develop a business pro forma for the curling center operations. Once the project scope, design concepts, cost estimates and business operations plan are agreed upon, the City can consider next steps such as development of a Memorandum of Understanding, fundraising models and full design process. 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 Website: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us iliwater ,---.. Administration RECOMMENDATION: If the City Council concurs with the concept design process as proposed, staff would recommend that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the design process and creating the Stakeholder Group for consideration at the next City Council meeting. If the City Council would like additional information and analysis on the proposed curling center project, Council can direct staff to perform more in depth due diligence review. 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 Website: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us RESOLUTION NO. 2020-041 CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF A CURLING FACILITY ON THE STILLWATER RECREATION CENTER SITE WHEREAS, the St. Croix Curling Center Board of Directors has requested the City Council of the City of Stillwater to allow the construction of a curling facility on the City's recreation center site; and WHEREAS, the St. Croix Curling Center proposes to raise the funds to construct the facility; and WHEREAS, the curling facility would conceptually be located as shown in attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby supports the concept of allowing a curling facility provided it benefits the general public and is generally located as shown in Exhibit A, and further the City Council grants the St Croix Curling Center three years to raise sufficient funds to construct the facility. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 5th day of May, 2020. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: 4/iMe2i./ Beth Wolf, City Cie Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A _�� Irl1111 IV 1111111II Recreation Center Expansion Concept Design MOU and Plans L Capital Campaign Concept Design Stakeholder • Council appoints members to stakeholder group LA, ,Ai • Stakeholders define scope • Council approves scope Cost estimate • Raise funds to pay for cost estimating • City solicits design consultants to develop cost estimate • Develop business pro forma Stakeholder Group Who are the stakeholders? • City of Stillwater 1— • St. Croix Rec Center • St. Croix Curling • SHS Hockey (Boys & Girls) • Stillwater Area Hockey Association 1— • SHS Lacrosse • SHS Soccer • ??? Who is facilitator? • City staff? • Consultant? FYI (r) 2/18/2021 Government Finance Officers Association 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601-1210 312.977.9700 fax: 312.977.4806 Tom McCarty City Administrator City of Stillwater, Minnesota Dear Mr. McCarty: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 qualifies for GFOA's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement (AFRA) is also presented to the individual(s) or department designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the Certificate. This award has been sent to the submitter as designated on the application. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and give appropriate publicity to this notable achievement. A sample news release is included to assist with this effort. We hope that your example will encourage other government officials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting. Sincerely, AzzAzde;., Michele Mark Levine Director, Technical Services 4111wa ter The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 16, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:02 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Odebrecht, Polehna Absent: None Staff present: City Attorney Land City Clerk Wolf Community Development Director Turnblad Finance Director Provos Fire Chief Glaser Police Chief Mueller Public Works Director/Interim City Administrator Sanders Assistant Engineer Abdullah PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS City Council Service Award for Bryan Ring On behalf of the Human Rights Commission, Mayor Kozlowski and Councilmember Polehna presented a service award to Bryan Ring for his efforts assembling, transporting, and handing out weekly donations to 10-15 homeless camps in Minneapolis. Mr. Ring reminded the Council that there are many average citizens doing crucial community work every day. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. STAFF REPORTS Public Works Director Sanders stated that the flooding risk is predicted to be low this year. Jason Grode, Parks Superintendent, will start February 22. The Water Board transition team continues to meet. The Sport Court at the Armory should be open this summer. He congratulated City Planner Wittman for obtaining a $50,000 DNR grant for a canoe launch at the Aiple Property. Police Chief Mueller reported on assistance provided to homeless individuals over the past couple weeks. There are openings for Reserve Officers. Since the last Council meeting there have been three suspected opioid overdoses, a disturbing trend. Alcohol and tobacco compliance checks are going well. City Council Meeting February 16, 2021 Fire Chief Glaser stated that Firefighter John Bell is retiring after 35 years of service. COVID testing continues at the Armory; and a blood drive is set for March 30. Community Development Director Turnblad stated the temporary outdoor sales permit program will be brought back to the Council for consideration next month. City Clerk Wolf noted that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) invited the City of Stillwater to participate as a member of the newly formed Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission. A Council representative will be appointed at the March 2 meeting. CONSENT AGENDA February 2, 2020 regular, recessed and closed session meeting minutes Payment of Bills Brix Music Cafe New On -Sale Liquor License Farmers Market Event Contract Resolution 2021-025, resolution amending Resolution 2021-002 adopting 2021 Fee Schedule Resolution 2021-026, approving the 2021-2022 Labor Agreement between the City of Stillwater and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 257 Police Patrol Officers Resolution 2021-027, approving 2021-2022 Compensation Adjustments for City of Stillwater Nonrepresented Employees Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02). Assistant Engineer Abdullah explained the project. 4.66 miles of streets are proposed for improvements; 3.4 miles of mill and overlay; 0.51 miles of partial pavement reconstruction; and 0.75 miles of full pavement reconstruction. The total estimated cost is $2,137,189, including design, surveying, inspection, administration, and contingencies. Funding is through two sources: assessments and permanent improvement bonds. He explained the City's assessment policy. Appraisals were done at random to compare the estimated assessment to the appraised benefit. Construction is to take place May through October 2021, with the assessment hearing in October 2021. Staff recommends that the Council order the improvement and authorize the preparation of plans and specifications. Councilmember Polehna thought he recalled extending the assessment period past 10 years; and Mr. Abdullah responded that the Council discussed that, but took no action. Public Works Director Sanders added that past discussion of longer assessment terms focused on assessments larger than $10,000. None of the assessments this year are over $10,000. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Tony Johnson, Maryknoll Drive, stated he is excited about getting the street updated, but has concerns about speeding, especially by cut -through traffic. He asked if speed bumps, a median, a camera, or stop signs could be incorporated into the project to slow down traffic. Additionally, he asked the Council to consider a No U-Turn sign or median at Bayberry/Maryknoll to prevent the many near -accidents he witnesses there. Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting February 16, 2021 Noting that speed bumps are not used in Stillwater, Mayor Kozlowski asked if the Police Chief or Mr. Sanders could place a speed indicator trailer in the area. Councilmember Polehna commented that the speed indicator helps for a while, but speeding returns after the trailer is gone. Police Chief Mueller responded that he will get officers out there for more enforcement. Jim Berg, Autumn Way, voiced support for the mill and overlay, but he feels the sidewalk is not warranted as it would not be used much. Mr. Abdullah responded that it is not a sidewalk; it will be a trail on the west side as part of the Safe Routes to School. There are not many kids there now because there is no walkway there. The trail will not go all the way to Hwy 5, it will stop midway and connect to the existing trail that goes to the school. Rob Peltier, Bayberry Avenue, spoke about cut -through traffic and close calls resulting from U-turns on 75th and Maryknoll. He suggested adding stop signs to control speeding on Maryknoll. He appreciates the new sidewalks south of Interlachen. Councilmember Odebrecht commented that some of the cut -through traffic might be due to a GPS routing through the area. Dorothy Herman, Maryknoll Drive, voiced concern about high traffic volume. Multiple remedies have been tried, including signs and electronic speed signs, which work for a while but then drivers go back to speeding. Lots of drivers ignore the stop sign. There are no sidewalks on Maryknoll making it unsafe for walking. A traffic assessment should be done on Maryknoll, especially since Maryknoll was extended, resulting in a big increase in traffic. Relying on the Police Department to babysit the street is not a long term solution. Rob Peltier added that as long as new developments are built to the north on Neal, the traffic will continue to get worse. Brick Street is not getting used as much as was predicted 8-9 years ago when Deerpath was redone. Gerald Nelson, Walnut Creek Drive, reminded the Council about the low curbing and pooling water; and Mr. Abdullah replied that any sections that are damaged or collecting water will be redone. Bob Thompson, Maryknoll Drive, agreed a traffic study is needed. He feels the speed should be reduced to 20 mph. Right now at 30 mph drivers are going 40-45 mph. Mike Robertson, Edgewood Avenue, stated his street has been dug up many times to repair water main breaks. He asked if the original water lines have been replaced, or if there is a chance that the street will be dug up again in the near future; and Mr. Abdullah replied that before starting street projects, the City contacts the Water Department to ask if there is water work to be done. He will talk with Utilities Superintendent Benson again to see if there is a need to replace any water main. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Councilmember Polehna asked if there are any new engineering techniques for traffic calming; and Mr. Sanders answered that there are three aspects of slowing traffic: education, enforcement and engineering with traffic calming. Portable speed signs work for a few weeks, but after they are moved, drivers return to their old habits. Some people like bump - Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting February 16, 2021 outs and some do not. Using bump -outs on a street like Maryknoll would be difficult due to the location of driveways and affecting parking. Stop signs should only be used to establish right-of-way, not to slow traffic. Drivers end up speeding between stop signs. At Interlachen and Maryknoll, there is not a lot of traffic that warrants that 4-way stop that was put in years ago. If there is not enough traffic, drivers roll through the stop signs and disobey them. Traffic calming needs careful planning. Staff will look at the suggested measures and see what can be done. There would not be enough time to do a traffic study if Maryknoll is to remain in the project. Councilmember Junker noted traffic on Maryknoll has definitely increased. He doubts there is room to use bump -outs. There are options for education such as a sign that blinks constantly. He stated some of the speeders are neighborhood residents, in addition to the cut -through traffic. The City should do everything in its power to curtail speed. Mr. Sanders explained that in -street pedestrian signs are only allowed where there are crosswalks. Staff can take a look at a more permanent speed display sign, but he cautioned the Council that there may be requests for those all over town. Councilmember Polehna suggested someone ask Google to redirect the suggested GPS routes. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt Resolution 2021-028, ordering improvement and preparing of plans and specifications for the 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02). All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS City Code Updates on Assessment Deferrals and Tobacco Sales - 1st Reading City Clerk Wolf stated that the Stillwater City Code needs to be updated to reflect changes made last year in the Council's policy on assessment deferrals, and also to reflect revisions to the State language on tobacco sales. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt first reading of an Ordinance repealing Stillwater City Code Section 56-2, Deferral of Special Assessments for Senior Citizens, and an Ordinance amending Stillwater City Code Section 41-2, Licensing of Tobacco Sales, Possession and Use. All in favor. St. Croix Riverbank Stabilization and Riverwalk Project Bid Award for Tree Removal Public Work Director Sanders informed the Council that construction of the St. Croix Riverbank Stabilization and Riverwalk Project is planned for later this year. With the presence of endangered species, tree removals in the project area would have to be completed either before March 15 or after November 1. Trees from south of the Dock Cafe to the Shoddy Mill buildings, and near the two overlooks would be removed. Helke's Tree Service submitted the low bid in the amount of $53,075. Staff recommends that the Council award the work and enter into an agreement with Helke's Tree. Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting February 16, 2021 Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to award the contract to Helke's Tree Service for tree removal associated with the Riverbank Stabilization and Riverwalk Project (Project 2016-06). All in favor. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS There were no Council request items. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Resolution 2021-025, Resolution Amending Resolution 2021-002 Adopting 2021 Fee Schedule Resolution 2021-026, Approving the 2021-2022 Labor Agreement between the City of Stillwater and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 257 Police Patrol Officers Resolution 2021-027, Approving 2021-2022 Compensation Adjustments for City of Stillwater Nonrepresented Employees Resolution 2021-028, Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans & Specifications for the 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02) Page 5 of 5 Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS A&K Construction Advance Auto Parts All Goals Inc Alliance for Innovation Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Arrow Sports Group Aspen Mills Athletica Sport Systems Axlemaster Ballis Tom Batteries Plus Bulbs BlueCross BlueShield of MN Inc. Boyer Trucks Burschville Construction Inc. CD! CDW Government Inc. Cintas Corporation Clog Un-Boggler Inc. Coca-Cola Distribution Cole Papers Comcast Computer Integration Technologies Dalco ECM Publishers Enterprise Products Operating Foremost Promotions Golden Expert Services Grainger Granicus Inc Group Medicareblue RX Guardian Supply Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Heritage Embroidery & Design Heritage Printing Inc. Lakeview Hospital Leadership Growth Group LLC League of MN Cities LHB Inc Lindstrom Solar LLC Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Mansfield Oil Company Melstrom Jeff Menards Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors Miller Excavating Public Works Remodel Equipment repair supplies Soccer nets Membership Parks office Concession supplies Belt - Knodle Equipment repair supplies Equipment repair Reimburse for expenses Batteries Retiree Health Ins Equipment repair supplies Thaw water service Lowell Park LFDS training Mouse & pad Uniforms & mats Unclog drain Beverages for concessions Janitorial supplies TV Internet & Voice Heirloom & Landmark Website Supplies Publications Propane Fire education materials Janitor Service Supplies Qtrly web streaming service Retiree Prescriptions Ins Supplies Training - Judy Face covers Newsletter Printing Legal blood draws 2021 Leadership Growth Group Series Workers Comp Claim 200 Chestnut TIF Analysis Solar Energy Labor Relations Services Fuel Reimburse for work boots Supplies Maintenance Leak repairs 25,630.00 1.87 455.40 1,860.00 883.90 992.00 35.73 369.60 575.00 667.73 48.96 4,403.00 91.20 800.00 160.42 82.11 748.45 235.00 583.02 164.77 355.14 135.00 692.86 246.15 13,034.08 524.81 3,700.00 1,289.42 1,854.57 3,042.00 204.95 100.00 563.94 3,875.00 50.00 600.00 2,745.79 5,550.00 3,213.90 2,466.00 3,285.89 200.00 1,313.77 896.50 16,083.10 Page 2 MN Dept of Driver & Vehicle Services MN Dept of Public Safety EPCRA Program MN Dept of Transportation MPSTMA Northern Tool Office Depot Olson Patrick Allen Original Matress Factory Performance Plus LLC Praxair Pro Hydro -Testing Quadient Leasing Rehn Code Consulting Services Reliance Electric Motors Riedel) Shoes Inc. River Valley Printing Inc. Safe Fast Inc Safety Signs SavATree Sentry Systems Inc. Simplifile LC St. Croix Boat and Packet Co. Station 19 Architects Stillwater & Oak Park Heights CVB Stillwater Motor Company Stillwater Towing TimeMark Inc. TKDA Tri-State Bobcat Valley Trophy Inc. Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Water Conservation Services Inc Xcel Energy Young Dan Zacks Inc. LIBRARY Ace Hardware Amazon Business Cintas Corporation Comcast Hedin Sue KidCreate Studio/Get Messy Office of MN IT Services Quill Corporation Textile Center Title 2011 Freightliner Fire Pumper Hazardous chemical inventory fees Traffic signal maint Membership Building repair supplies Office supplies Shadow box Mattresses Drug screen Cylinder rent Hydro -testing SCUBA cylinders Postage machine lease Plan review Equipment repair supplies Skates Business cards Winter bids Galvanized posts Tree care Alarm monitoring Filing fees Arena Billing Refund Qtrly Lodging Tax Vehicle repair charges Towing service Equipment repair charges Professional services Equipment repair supplies Name plates Firefighters Ins Leak Locate Energy Reimburse for uniform supplies Equipment Supplies Supplies & Materials Towels & Rugs Internet - February Staff Reimbursement Programs - Juv Feb Kit (ST Tsp) Telephone - January Processing Supplies Programs - Adult (ST Tsp) 37.00 800.00 402.24 65.00 369.98 634.74 280.00 1,779.78 767.00 60.85 280.00 455.01 650.57 649.50 268.84 49.00 279.80 2,347.50 4,820.63 140.85 200.00 91,029.73 525.00 70,531.04 60.69 540.00 457.17 5,521.29 207.55 33.00 1,715.00 2,324.88 25,775.78 264.12 444.66 63.92 230.81 163.51 188.06 45.48 200.00 143.70 69.99 325.00 Page 3 Uline Inc JANUARY CREDIT CARDS Amazon.com APWA BCA Training Cub Foods Dropbox ETrailer Federal Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse GTS Educational Events Half Price Books International Code Council John E. Reid & Associates Inc Lathem Time Menards Online MN Assoc Women Police PCLiquidations Penn Foster Career School Stillwater Post Office Survey Monkey Tools 4 Flooring University of MN CCE Registration When To Work Zoom Video Communications JANUARY MANUALS Lone Oak Companies COVID Supplies (Gloves) 496.51 Supplies Renewal fees Training Water & cupcakes - Alicias last day Dropbox Business Acct Lights for ladder 1 CDL license checks IT Government Symposium Materials - Video (S.AV) Membership Training - Vetsch Time clock Atomic clocks for training & confroom Membership Water Dept phones Staff COVID Training Shipping Survey Tool Application Cove base for after new floor install Course registration When to Work Scheduling Software Remote Working & Programming 746.76 260.00 375.00 21.18 750.00 304.53 25.00 450.00 12.83 145.00 149.00 367.87 107.08 30.00 1,791.18 150.00 182.20 384.00 553.70 530.00 330.00 63.16 Utility Billing Postage 2,574.09 StIllr Administration Date: February 22, 2021 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Beth Wolf, City Clerk SUBJECT: Roll -off Hauler License DISCUSSION: T & T Disposal of Inver Grove Heights, MN has submitted an application and fee for a 2021 Roll -off only Haulers License. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the satisfactory completion of application submittal requirements. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a roll -off hauler license to T & T Disposal contingent upon the satisfactory completion of application submittal requirements. MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT INCLUSIVE OF: THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA (will list each dept) AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OF ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (will That each dept) This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §471.59 and Minnesota Statutes §438.08 and Wisconsin Statutes §66.0303, Subd. (2) and (3)(b) which authorize the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common to contracting parties. The intent of this agreement is to make equipment, personnel and other resources available to political subdivisions from other political subdivisions during an emergency situation or for designated training activities. Section 1. Definitions. a. "Party" means a political subdivision. b. "Requesting Official" means the person designated by a Party who is responsible for requesting Assistance from other Parties. c. "Requesting Party" means a party that requests assistance from other parties. d. "Responding Official" means the person designated by a party who is responsible to determine whether and to what extent that party should provide assistance to a Requesting Party. e. "Responding Party" means a party that provides assistance to a Requesting Party. f. "Assistance" means Fire and/or emergency medical services personnel and equipment. and any associated and related training necessary to further the purpose of this Agreement. Section 2. Request for assistance. Whenever. in the opinion of a Requesting Official, there is a need for assistance from other parties. the Requesting Official may call upon the Responding Official of any other party to furnish assistance. Section 3. Response to request. Upon the request for assistance from a Requesting Party, the Responding Official may authorize and direct his/her party's personnel to provide assistance to the Requesting Party. This decision will be made after considering the needs of the responding party and the availability of resources. Section 4. Recall of Assistance. The Responding Official may at any time recall such assistance when in his or her best judgment or by an order from the governing body of the Responding Party. it is considered to be in the best interests of the Responding Party to do so. Page 1 of 4 Section 5. Command of Scene. The Requesting Party shall be in command of the mutual aid scene. The personnel and equipment of the Responding Party shall be under the direction and control of the Requesting Party until the Responding Official withdraws assistance. Section 6. Workers' compensation. Each party shall be responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. Each party will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance pursuant to this agreement. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers. employees, or volunteers. Section 7. Damage to equipment. Each party shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees, or volunteers. Section S. Liability. a. For the purposes of Tort Liability, the employees and officers of the Responding Party are deemed to be employees of the Requesting Party. b. The Requesting Party agrees to defend and indemnify the Responding Party against any claims brought or actions filed against the Responding Party or any officer. employee, or volunteer of the Responding Party for injury to, death of, or damage to the property of any third person or persons, arising from the performance and provision of assistance in responding to a request for assistance by the Requesting Party pursuant to this agreement. c. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and other parties, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in its Home State applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for some or all of the parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any party. d. The intent of this subdivision is to impose on each Requesting Party a limited duty to defend and indemnify a Responding Party for claims arising within the Requesting Party's jurisdiction subject to the limits of liability under the laws of its Home State. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among defendants. and to permit liability claims against multiple defendants from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. Page 2 of 4 e. No party to this agreement nor any officer of any Party shall be liable to any other Party or to any other person for failure of any party to furnish assistance to any other party, or for recalling assistance, both as described in this agreement. For the purposes of training, and other than Workers' compensation claims as described in Section 6, the laws of the State where the training takes place will control disputes based upon claims of one party against the other. Section 9. Charges to the Requesting Party. a. No charges will be levied by a Responding Party to this agreement for assistance rendered to a Requesting Party under the terms of this agreement unless that assistance continues for a period of more than 12 hours. if assistance provided under this agreement continues for more than 12 hours, the Responding Party may submit to the Requesting Party an itemized bill for the actual cost of any assistance provided after the initial 12 hour period, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies and other necessary expenses; and the Requesting Party will reimburse the party providing the assistance for that amount. b. Such charges are not contingent upon the availability of federal or state government funds. Section 10. Duration. This agreement will be in force from the date of execution and shall continue until terminated. Any party may withdraw from this agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party or parties to the agreement. Section 11. Amendments. Any amendments to this agreement shall be in writing and signed by all parties. Section 12. Agreement. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the Fire Departments of Washington County Minnesota and the Fire Departments of St. Croix County Wisconsin. Any prior correspondence, memoranda or agreements are replaced in total by this agreement. Section 13. Execution. Each party hereto has read, agreed to and executed this Mutual Aid Agreement on the date indicated. Each party to this agreement shall maintain a copy of an executed copy of this agreement. Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, on behalf of their political subdivision or their fire department corporation has executed this agreement pursuant to authorization by it's governing body. City of Mayor City Clerk or Admin. Fire Dept Fire Chief Dated: 2021 Page 4 of 4 City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 1160 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 41-2 LICENSING OF TOBACCO SALES; POSSESSION AND USE The City Council of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDING. Section 41-2, Subd. 10 of the Stillwater City Code to be replaced in its entirety to hereafter read as follows: Subd. 10. Compliance checks and inspections. All licensed premises must be open to inspection by the local law enforcement or other authorized city official during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least once per year, the city must conduct compliance checks by engaging persons between the ages of 17 and 21 years, to enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. Compliance checks using persons under the age of 18 shall obtain parent or guardian consent. Persons used for the purpose of compliance checks must be supervised by designated law enforcement officers or other designated city personnel. Persons used for compliance checks are not guilty of the unlawful purchase or attempted purchase, nor the unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices when the items are obtained or attempted to be obtained as a part of the compliance check. No person used in compliance checks may attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the person's age, and all persons lawfully engaged in a compliance check may answer all questions about the person's age asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in this section prohibits compliance checks authorized by state or federal laws for educational, research or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular state or federal law. SECTION 2. AMENDING. Section 41-2, Subd. 13 (1) of the Stillwater City Code to be replaced in its entirety to hereafter read as follows: Subd. 13. Penalties. (1) Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this section, or whose employee violates this section, must be charged an administrative fine of $300.00 for a first violation of this section; $600.00 for a second offense at the same licensed premises within a 36 month period; and $1,000.00 for a third or subsequent offense at the same location within a 36 month period of the first violation. Upon the third violation, the license will be suspended for at least 7 days and may be revoked pursuant to a hearing in subd. 12. Funds received by the city as administrative fines must be kept in a separate fund to offset expenses associated with the tobacco enforcement program except that no part of these 1 funds may be used to pay expenses associated with an administrative hearing officer. SECTION 3. SAVING. In all other way the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. 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: This amendment is in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic act, requiring compliance checks using persons under the age of 18 shall obtain parent or guardian consent and raising the penality fees on Licensees. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 2nd day of March, 2021. ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 2 City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota ORDINANCE 1161 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 56-2 DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS The City Council of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: SECTION 1. REPEAL. Stillwater City Code Chapter 56-2, Deferral of special assessments for senior citizens is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. SAVING. In all other way the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. 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: In an effort to remove unnecessary ordinances from the City Code, this ordinance repeals the deferral of special assessments for senior citizens. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 2nd day of March, 2021. ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk 1 CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2021-002 ADOPTING 2021 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the Stillwater City Council adopted Resolution 2021-002 entitled "Resolution Approving the City of Stillwater 2021 Fee Schedule" on January 5, 2021; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021 the City Council approved amending Stillwater City Code Section 41-2 Subd.13 (1) regarding tobacco sales penalities to coincide with Minnesota State Statue; and BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution 2021-002 is hereby amended to reflect the following changes: Tobacco Violations *Same licensed premises within 2436 month period of first violation. 1st Offense 2nd Offense* 3rd Offense and subsequent* Refusal to allow City Inspectors & Police admission to inspect premises $�5$300 $200$600 $ 0-$1,000 and Revocation Sale/purchase to/by underage person $75$300 $200$600 $2-50-$1,000 and Revocation Unlawful Self Service Sale $7-5$300 $2-00$600 $250-$1.000 and Revocation Unlawful Vending Machine $ $300 $200$600 $250$1,000 and Revocation All other tobacco violations $75$300 $2-00$600 $250$1,000 and Revocation Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 2nd day of March 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk illwate r THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MNNFCJA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REVIEWERS: PREPARED BY: City Council February 25, 2021 March 2, 2021 Joel Hauck, ESG Architecture & Design 200 Chestnut Partners LLC A Conditional Use Permit, associated Variances, and Design Permit appeal for a four-story, 61-unit apartment building 200 Chestnut Street East CASE NO.: 2020-60 Central Business District Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District Downtown Design Review District Community Development Director Bill Turnblad, City Engineer/Public Works Director Shawn Sanders, Building Official Cindy Shilts, Middle St. Croix WMO, Washington County Public Works Abbi Wittman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION 200 Chestnut Partners LLC owns the property at 200 Chestnut East and is proposing to redevelop the site with a four-story, 61-unit apartment building with 73 underground parking spaces. In addition to holding a neighborhood meeting prior to the application submittal, the applicant participated in a Technical Review meeting with local agencies and organizations to gain insight on how the proposed project conforms to local regulations. The project proposed to the City Council reflects those regulations; where variations occur or conditions are recommended for conformance, they are outlined within this report. Residential uses, as well as Large Building Projects, in the Central Business District (CBD) require a Conditional Special Use Permit. The proposed fourth story, jointly with the building's overall 48.5' height, exceeds the maximum allowable three -stories and 37' height in the Historic Height Overlay District. The applicant is requesting variances to the City's CBD Setbacks, the Height Overlay standards, and the Off -Street Parking and Loading requirements. Given the scope and location of the project as well as the proposed height is 10% greater than the Case no. 2020-60 Page 2 maximum allowable limit, City Code requires the Planning Commission (PC) make recommendation to the Council. Approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to Council consideration. On December 16, 2020 the HPC reviewed a Design Permit application for the property that contained a recessed fourth story that included a mix of residential units, enclosed common space, and rooftop terracing. Citing the project's need to conform to the mass and scale of buildings in its vicinity (including the adjacent Stillwater Commercial Historic District), the HPC tabled consideration of the design, requesting modifications to the scale of the 4th story — if not full removal. On January 20, 2021 the applicant obtained conditional approval of a Design Permit application from the HPC though the HPC's conditioned the approval with no fourth story. The applicant has appealed the HPC's decision to the City Council. On February 18, 2021 the applicant met with the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC), and advisory body to the Council, to discuss the request for a parking variance. The applicant is proposing to create 73 off-street spaces, leaving a 35 space deficit, and utilizing an on -street parking space for loading and unloading. As a reminder to the PC, City Code allows for mitigation of parking (by payment in lieu of parking creation) in areas with zero lot lines or similar conditions. The DTPC indicated that, with certain conditions, they believe the development could still conform to the intent of the Off -Street Parking and Loading regulations. They recommend the Council allow the developer to pay a fee in lieu of creating 35 parking spaces. Their conditions surrounded around requiring off-street spaces to be dedicated to the residential units so that only guests are utilizing the public parking system. On February 24 the Planning Commission reviewed the request in a public hearing. After taking public comment on the matter, the PC discussed the request and recommended (in a 4-1 vote) to the Council conditional approval of a 61 unit, three-story/39.5' tall apartment building. The recommendation suggests the Council approve the proposed setbacks and parking mitigation plan as well as allow for (a limited number of) Short Term Home Rental options within the building. In addition to staff recommended conditions, the PC recommend no outdoor amplified music be permitted and that quiet hours are observed after 10 PM. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a: 1. Conditional Use Permit for 61 multi -family residences in a Large building project in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. A 35 space variance to the Off -Street Parking and Loading requirements; 3. A one-story variance to the three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 4. A 11.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 5. Variances to the 20' (Combined) Side Yard and 20' Rear Yard Setback in the Central Business District; and 6. Appeal to conditional approval of Design Permit 2020-32. Case no. 2020-60 Page 3 In addition to the applicant's request, the City is contemplating Use Permit approval for Short Term Rental on the site. ANALYSIS Special Use Permit Generally speaking, conformance to the Zoning Code generally surrounds around whether or not the proposed use will be compatible with its surrounding uses. City Code Section 31-207, Special Use Permits, identifies the city may grant a Special Use Permit or amendments when the following findings are made: The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this [Zoning] chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Comprehensive Plan Conformity With regard to residential uses in the downtown area, the City has found that they are not only compatible but a welcome addition in the highly -developed and walkable downtown area. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan's (Plan) Land Use and Downtown Urban Design Goals state a community goal is to "develop a land use plan that fosters economic growth and evolution...and welcomes both residents and visitors. Sensitively develop prime Downtown property using a compact mixture of commercial, office, residential..." Additionally, a Local Economy and Tourism goal is to "provide new locations for Downtown housing to support Downtown retail and entertainment venues." This project helps support these goals. The Plan further identifies the need to "provide for a range of new housing opportunities from large lot single family to multi -family." It elaborates that ways to do this are to "explore development concepts such as higher density infill..." and to "encourage market rate rental apartments as an element of mixed use projects in the Downtown area." The City's Land Use Plan helps support higher density development in areas where it is most appropriate, including in the downtown core. The Plan's vision utilizes the 2nd Street corridor for residential development to help support the Main Street commercial uses. However, the Plan indicates high density housing (apartments or condos) is appropriate above the ground level, implying mixed -use development would be preferred. That said, the City's zoning code does not restrict apartments from being on the ground level. In fact, ground -level units, though not common, are located within one-half block of the proposed project site at 110 Myrtle Street East, 212 2nd Street North, and 102-118 3rd Street South. The Plan indicates the City must "ensure all new housing, including high density, adheres to the highest possible standards of planning, design and construction." To help conform to this community standard, the developer has incorporated design features indicative of some of Stillwater's 19th-Century manufacturing buildings and traditional storefronts. This helps reduce the residential `feel' of the building and breaks up the structure into units of scale, ensuring the use's design is compatible with the commercial nature of this area. Zoning Code Conformance Case no. 2020-60 Page 4 As noted, the developer is proposing variation from three sections of the Zoning Code. Analysis of these variances is addressed in a subsequent section of this report. There are City Code requirements worth noting: Height: The structure's proposed maximum height, when measured from the average elevation of Chestnut Street East (the front of the building) to the top of the elevator overrun, will be 52.5'. However, elevator and stairwell bulkhead are allowed to project above the maximum height of a building so long as they are integral to the building; given they serve the entire building from ground level up, they are integral. The requested maximum foot variance (of 11.5'), as reviewed later in this report, is measured to the top of the fourth story. Even as a three-story structure, the building's design would necessitate a 2.5' variance request. Trash: The developer is proposing to keep all trash receptacles in the building's basement parking area. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to insure trash remains in the building in perpetuity. Short Term Home Rentals (STHR): The City has created the STHR program to help provide additional housing options for visitors. While in the City has limited the total number of licenses in the CBD, there is concern that if a STHR license was obtained for this building, all units could be utilized for Short Term Rentals — whether that is the intent of the current owner or not. This would be in direct conflict with the community's housing goals previously cited. Staff proposed the City limit the total number of STHR units to one. However, the PC has made recommendation to the Council that 10% of the units be eligible to be used as STHRs. The reasoning for this is two -fold: the STHR allowance increase can help offset monthly rents for the building; and there would be less competition for use of these spaces among tenants who might seek this type of rental for guests. Traffic and Parking: The City retained the services of the engineering firm SRF to conduct a traffic and parking impact analysis for the City. They determined the new structure's uses (assessed for 73 housing units) would not have a negative impact to the existing traffic circulation patterns, including parking and vehicle cueing on Union Alley. The impact analysis additionally concluded that, based on International Traffic Engineering standards, the City' existing parking standards (requiring 1.5 parking spaces for every one unit and one space for every three units) is excessive. SRF concluded that instead of the City's requirement of 112 parking spaces, a range requirement between 64 and 108 spaces was more appropriate. The DTPC agreed 108 spaces should be required. They further indicated: and indicated, if 73 spaces are created in the basement and used by the residences, then the 35 space deficit would not be a detriment to the City's parking system in this location. They recommend mitigation of 35 spaces through the City's parking permit program. Recommended conditions of the DTPC have been incorporated into Planning Commission recommendations of approval cited later in this report. Stormwater Management: The property is located in the Middle St. Croix Watershed and must meet the City's adopted stormwater management requirements. The applicant is proposing to do this through the installation of a green roof tray system. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Watershed Management Organization (WMO). The WMO recommends two Case no. 2020-60 Page 5 conditions of approval: • A proposed maintenance agreement shall be required; and • The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is updated to prohibit engine degreasing onsite. While the WMO has recommended approval of the plan, City staff is concerned for the use of this type of system. New to Stillwater and rather complex, City staff would recommend the WMO's condition includes the City's (or its representative's) ability to access the system. This maintenance and access agreement should be in place prior to the release of the building permit. Noise The PC expressed concern that the rooftop terrace could become a noise nuisance. Therefore, they recommend a condition be added that quiet hours would be observed at lOpm and that there would be no amplified music outdoors. Relevant Area Plans The developer is proposing to install pedestrian -scaled lighting on Chestnut Street East and 2nd Street South adjacent to this building. Though not an adopted plan, the City has recently consulted with SEH to assess the downtown lighting system for the prospect of future changes and potential ownership. City staff is recommending the pedestrian -scaled lighting conform to the City's design standard for such. Additionally, the developer should enter into a maintenance agreement with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed or use and/or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The City has received numerous comments regarding this development and, while some of have been expressions of support — especially with regard to the positive impact the development will have on the construction industry, most of the comments are concern for the development's inability to meet the City's height and parking requirements. All public comments are attached for PC review. Additionally, where necessary, City staff is recommending the Council consider certain conditions of approval to help ensure the property and its uses will not be a nuisance or a detriment to the public welfare of the community. Variance Analysis The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance." Section 31-208 further indicates: ■ Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Case no. 2020-60 Page 6 • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The requested variance would not permit a use that is otherwise not permitted in this district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? • The purpose of the Height Overlay District is "to preserve and enhance the essential character of the downtown" by ensuring "structures close to the river not rise above the height of structures farther from the river". • The purpose for Side and Rear Yard setbacks is to provide for uniform patterned development for aesthetic and environmental reasons as well as to provide for onsite parking in the rear of buildings. • The purposes of the parking and loading requirements are to "reduce street congestion and traffic hazards in the city" and to "add to the safety and convenience of its citizens, by incorporating adequate, attractively designed, and functional facilities for off-street parking as an integral part of every use of land." b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? • As discussed by the HPC, there are no four-story structures adjacent to the proposed development site. The overall height — which is an element of the structure's overall mass — is out of scale with structures in the adjacent historic district. While there are four-story structures in the CBD, it is rare to have them in • Reduction of the side and rear yard setbacks in the CBD area common. In fact, the Downtown Design Review District reduces the Main Street setbacks to zero to be compatible with the historic development patterns; this is not a development pattern exclusive to Main Street. The proposed reduction of the setbacks for this property has been found by the HPC to be consistent with the historic development pattern of buildings along 2nd, Chestnut, and Myrtle Streets and Union Alley. • If the developer was granted a parking variance, and mitigation did not occur, this would not be in harmony with the requirements of the Zoning Code. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) encourages high quality development in the downtown core that is compatible with, and does not provide a nuisance to, the downtown's historic character and its existing land uses. While reduced setbacks are in harmony with the Plan, the increased height and the parking variances would be in conflict. A policy of the Plan is to "encourage mixed use development that incorporates housing and parking structures within Downtown". Since the developer is proposing some onsite parking with mitigation for (approximately) 1/3 of the parking required, the waiver of these parking requirements is in harmony with the Plan Case no. 2020-60 Page 7 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? Residential properties with underground parking, including those greater than three stories and built to the lot lines, have been found to be reasonable in the downtown area. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? The balancing of the community's competing goals and required development standards (including height, setbacks, and parking), though not unique to this site, does create a plight. If any uniqueness exists, it is in that this is one of the only opportunities in the downtown core where an entire (half) city block can (and should) be redeveloped at one time. In an area where the City encourages higher -density infill, accommodating for all zoning code requirements — even with raw, vacant land, can be challenging. b. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? The property is proposed to be developed to nearly all lot lines, maximizing the development potential of the site. Though the City encourages build -out compatible with the historic development pattern, it is the desire of the developer to have the proposed number of units despite the property's inability to meet all parking onsite. Additionally, it is the desire of the property owner to have a (partial) fourth -story on this building. Therefore, the property's height and the parking deficit are created by the landowner. c. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? As indicated by the HPC, a four-story building will alter the essential character of the area the structure is proposed to be located in. As a three-story building, the HPC was not concerned the proposed building setbacks would alter the essential character of the locality. Additionally, the DTPC asserts that requiring all residential units to have (at least) one parking space would not alter the essential character of the City's parking system in this location. d. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? There is difficulty in meeting the community's (sometimes competing) Comprehensive Plan goals and the Zoning Code standards. To achieve this, maximizing the building's footprint to accommodate for more units (and parking spaces) is necessary. However, difficulties regarding conformance to the City's height regulations have not been established. Design Permit Appeal As noted, the applicant is seeking an appeal to the HPC's condition that the structure be permitted without a 4th story. While the design substantially conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of design permits, the HPC does not believe the building's height (as part of the Case no. 2020-60 Page 8 scale and mass of the building) is compatible with the site and its surroundings; this is a standard set forth in the code. As part of the findings the Council must make for the granting of Use Permits and Variances, the Council must find: • 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; and • 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. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Recommend the City Council approve the requested use permit, with or without associated variances, with (at least) the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 60 and dated February 19, 2021, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Outdoor amplification shall not be permitted and the property shall observe quiet hours after 10PM. 3. Short Term Home Rentals may not be utilized for greater than one 10% of the total number of units 4. Refuse shall be kept inside at all times with the exception of collection day. Refuse containers outside on collection day shall not block the public right-of-way, including the sidewalk. 5. All mechanical units shall be enclosed or screened from public view. 6. Abutting sidewalks must be kept clean of trash, cigarette butts and other forms of debris. 7. All 73 onsite parking spaces shall be assigned to, and leased with, the 61 apartment units. 8. A parking mitigation plan must be approved by the Downtown Parking Commission to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. If the plan includes a fee -in -lieu, the fee shall be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Failure to pay charges within 30 days will be certified for collection with the real estate taxes with the real estate taxes in October of each year. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the purchase requirement including, but not limited to, a claim that the City lacked authority to impose and collect the fees as a condition of approval of this permit. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this permit including this provision. a) Any conditions attached to the parking mitigation plan approved by the Downtown Parking Commission are incorporated by reference into this Conditional Use Permit. 9. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer will provide a traffic control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. Case no. 2020-60 Page 9 10. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the installation of pedestrian -scaled lighting located on public sidewalks. 11. Prior to the release of applicable building, grading, right-of-way, and/or obstruction permits from the City, the developer shall enter into an access and maintenance agreement for stormwater requirements. 12. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is updated to prohibit engine degreasing onsite. 13. The project shall require full review by the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management and approval, and payment of all review fees, will be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits by the City. 14. Plans and the use will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 15. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the decision -making authority in a public hearing. B. Recommend denial of the requested use permit and associated variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While the residential use of this large building project is not of primary concern, the ability to meet all Zoning Code requirements is of concern. The State of Minnesota is specific in that Cities may grant variances but are not obligated to do so. When they do, they must make findings practical difficulty has been established. As noted in this staff report there is no difficulty in conformance to the City's maximum stories requirement though there is difficulty in achieving a three-story building (with tuck -under garage) in the maximum 37' height requirements. It is clear the development team has spent considerable time developing a thoughtful addition to the downtown area. Having obtained a conditional -approved Design Permit from the HPC, it is clear the overall concept of the building (though a change to this landscape), fits within its surroundings so long as the overall height of the building is reduced. The fourth story helps maximize the development opportunities of the site. However, the City is generous in its allowance for elevator and bulkhead features to rise above the maximum height level, setbacks consistent with the historic fabric, and allowance of (up to) 10% of the units to be utilized as STHRs; this helps the developer maximize the development opportunity of the site. While City staff understands parking in the downtown area is limited and the removal of the existing parking deck system impacts the area, the developer is proposing to meet nearly 2/3 of all parking onsite. As discussed by the City's traffic engineer and according to traffic engineering standards, the additional 35 spaces not being met may not even be needed. With the DTPC's recommendations to require parking spots to be assigned to and leased with the units and to pay a monthly parking mitigation fee that will contributed to future public parking system improvements, staff does not anticipate the parking plan will cause detriment to the area. While Case no. 2020-60 Page 10 staff recommends the City Council's acceptance of the parking plan, staff does not recommend approval of a variance to the parking requirements. Given this, both the Planning Commission and staff recommend conditional approval of: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for 61 multi -family residences and proposed parking plan, to include partial mitigation, to be located in a Large building project in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. A 2.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height as measured from the average elevation of Chestnut Street East to the top edge of the parapet; and 3. Variances to the (Combined) Side and Rear Yard to accommodate the building setbacks as designed and proposed. And denial of: 1. A 11.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height; 2. A one-story variance to the three-story maximum height; and 3. The 35 space parking deficit variance. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Applicant Submission Public Comments cc: Joel Hauck Water Planning Department 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stil Iwater.mn.us PLANNING APPLICATION Planning Commission ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit X Variance Resubdivision* Subdivision* Lot Line Adjustment* Case No. Date Filed: Receipt No.: Base Fee: + County Recording fee $50 per document + Tech Fee: $25.00 Total Fees: Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney, engineering fees and recording fees. Please read carefully: • The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. • Only one copy of supporting materials are required. However, any documents larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and in pdf format. • Review the `Checklist to the Planning Administration Application Form' for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. • Applications will be rejected without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if necessary. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 200 Chestnut St E, Stillwater, MN 55082 Assessor's Parcel No. 2803020410001 (PIN Number) Complete Property Legal Description See attached legal description. Zoning District CBD Description of Project See attached project description. "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further cer1 Ji I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner Mailing Address 4450 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 400 City - State — Zip St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone No. 612-919-2272 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC Representative Mailing Address City - State — Zip Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone No. 763-670-4799 Joel Hauck 500 South Washington Avenue Email nick@reuterwalton.com Email joel.haucck esgarch.com Signature (Signature is required) Signature (Signature is required) esc November, 25th 2020 MEMORANDUM Project Name: 200 Chestnut Project No: 219543 Submitted to: City of Stillwater — Planning Commission & Heritage Preservation Commission Property Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, the North 47.14 feet of Lot 3 and the South 84 feet of Lot 3, all in Block 25, City of Stillwater, according to the recorded plat therof, Washington County, Minnesota. ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p 612.339.5508 www.esgarchitects.com esc November 25, 2020 MEMORANDUM Project Name: 200 Chestnut Project No: 219543 Submitted to: City of Stillwater — Planning Commission & Heritage Preservation Commission Statement of Proposed Use and Description of Project The proposed project will redevelop a 1960's-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a 73-unit residential apartment community with 73 below -grade parking stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of alcove, one -bedroom, and two -bedroom units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based economy, families, and empty nesters. The emerging trend toward more frequent telecommuting among the workforce is likely to create increased demand for housing in places like Stillwater. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor landscaped patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house several penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The inviting pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top district. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the shops, restaurants, and other services that make Stillwater such a unique community and increasingly desirable place to live. The massing of the building is designed to minimize the appearance of bulk while maintaining a traditional relationship of building to street. In keeping with late 19th and early 20th century commercial building forms common in downtown Stillwater, the proposed building is composed of simple, rectangular building forms. While the building is larger than its typical neighbor, it is broken into three smaller volumes that relate to the scale of nearby buildings. Two, three-story brick -clad rectangular volumes face Chestnut and Myrtle Streets, helping to link the pedestrian -oriented downtown core to the bluff district. Each of these volumes is 114 feet long along the street facades and 66' feet deep. These dimensions are similar to nearby buildings. The typical pattern in downtown Stillwater is for a building's narrow face to be oriented along the streets that run parallel to the river (Water St, Main St, Union Alley, 2nd St) with its long dimension oriented toward the perpendicular streets (Nelson, Olive, Chestnut, Myrtle). Specific examples include: ■ 321 5 Main (Alfresco): 50' on Main; 116' on Nelson Alley ■ 312 5 Main (Nacho Mama's): 22' on Main, 100' on Nelson Alley ■ 302 5 Main (Whitey's Saloon): 25' on Main, 95' on Olive ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p 612.339.5508 www.esgarchitects.com ESG I ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN ■ 236 S Main (American Gothic Antiques): 36' on Main, 100' on Olive ■ 201 S Main (Mara-Mi): 50' on Main, 116' on Chestnut ■ 102 2nd St (Gazette): 22 on 2nd, 108' on Myrtle ■ 123 2nd (JX Venue): 70' on 2nd, 200' on Commercial Spanning between these two bookend building volumes is a third, four-story rectangular volume that runs parallel to 2nd St. This volume is clad in painted siding (to contrast the brick volumes) and set back 10 feet from 2nd St and 37 feet from Union Alley. These setbacks and material contrast serve to minimize the visibility of this volume and emphasize the Chestnut and Myrtle volumes. Furthermore, the top story of the 2nd St volume is set back 14 feet from the Chestnut and Myrtle, minimizing the visibility of the fourth story from surrounding streets. We propose to reduce the yards to near zero on all four sides, in keeping with the surrounding context of late 19th- century commercial buildings. In the downtown historic district, commercial buildings are typically built right up to the street, with only civic buildings set back from the street to emphasize their significance. The proposed building's zero setbacks will enhance the historic context by filling in the existing site with traditional commercial -style building fabric. In particular, the new building's zero setback along Chestnut and Myrtle will enhance the context of the two adjacent historic civic buildings (the historic post office at 220 Myrtle; and the First National Bank at 213 Chestnut) by enhancing the effect of their setbacks. Variance Findings Variances are requested to increase the allowed height, decrease the required setbacks, increase the maximum lot coverage and decrease landscape area and decrease the minimum parking requirement. In general, the requested variances will allow for a building design that reflects and respects the historic character of the Downtown Stillwater, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for new development to "complement Downtown Stillwater's historic character, existing building massing, scale and materiality" and which encourages architecture and urban design which both "recalls late 19th Century commercial design" and "helps create an environment which is pleasing and interesting to pedestrians." In addition, the building massing allows for the increased housing density along 2"d Street that is also called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variances are due to practical difficulties related to achieving these goals of the Comprehensive Plan, given the conditions and location of the project site. Height The proposed height of the building is 4 stories/46 feet. A variance to allow a building that is taller than 3 stories/37 feet is reasonable and in character with the surrounding development. As illustrated on the context building height exhibit, there are several 3 and 4-story buildings in the CBD height overlay district that are taller than 37 feet. At 36 feet tall, the portions of the building along the street frontages will comply with the 3 story/37-foot height limit. The 4-story portion of the building will be substantially set back from the street, so it will not adversely impact the pedestrian character or experience. As also illustrated in the exhibits, due to the location of the project site within the topography of the downtown and the existing built environment, the 4th story of the building will not result in any meaningful loss of views of the river or bluffs. A 3-story building would not as successfully achieve the City's goals for increased housing options and availability along the 2nd Street residential corridor and in downtown Stillwater. These are unique circumstances that support a finding of practical difficulties. 2 ESG I ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Setbacks and Lot Coverage/Landscaping Area The proposed setbacks, and the related lot coverage of the building, are reasonable and consistent with the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above and illustrated in the exhibits, the setbacks and massing of the building are consistent with numerous historic buildings in the district and the essential character of the area. In fact, we believe that complying with the generally -required yards would detract from the historic downtown district overall and diminish the effect of the greater setbacks of the two adjacent designated landmarks. The building will create an urban "street wall" and enhance the pedestrian character and experience through its selection of materials and incorporation of large windows, balconies, and landscaping. Green roof elements will mitigate for reduced ground level pervious areas. The setbacks and lot coverage are also dictated by the need to maximize the area of the below grade parking garage which, due to the water table, is limited to one level (see further discussion in the parking variance section). And, as is the case with the proposed height of the building, the proposed footprint better achieves the City's goals for increased housing options and availability along the 2nd Street residential corridor and in downtown Stillwater. These are unique circumstances that support a finding of practical difficulties. Parking The minimum parking requirement is 1.5 stalls per residential dwelling unit plus 0.33 stalls/unit for guest parking, which equates to 110 stalls for residents and 24 stalls for guests. The proposed number of stalls to be provided in the underground garage is 73. Our understanding is that the City has recognized that these standards are not appropriate for every development and evaluates the actual parking needed for a development based on a supply/demand analysis. Our own analysis, provided by a professional traffic engineer, demonstrates that the project will provide enough parking on -site to meet the demand generated by the building's users. Therefore, the proposed amount of parking is reasonable and will not alter the essential character of the area. Not only would additional underground parking stalls not be necessary, the relatively low water table is incompatible with any excavation deeper than that proposed. A geotechnical engineer using data from soil borings performed on site in September 2019 determined that ground water lies between 10 and 15 feet below grade across the sloping site (elevations 691 to 694). The proposed elevation of the lowest level of parking is approximately 692; deeper excavation is not feasible. In addition to the enclosed stalls provided within the proposed building, the removal of two curb cuts on Myrtle Street will likely result in the creation of four new public on -street parallel parking stalls for a total of 26 public on -street parking spaces that will be available for visitors. The elevation of the water table, the parking demand analysis and the availability of street parking are unique circumstances that support a finding of practical difficulties. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 2/24/2021 1 200 CHESTNUT ST S STILLWATER,MN 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 4-5 PRECEDENT IMAGES 6-8 SITE CONTEXT 9-15 HEIGHT & MASS ANALYSIS 16-17 BIRDS EYE VIEWS 18 CHANGE SUMMARY 19-30 DESIGN PERSPECTIVES 31-35 FLOOR PLANS 36-40 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 40-55 CONTEXT PERSPECTIVES 56-60 LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 61-64 PROJECT COMPARISION PROJECT VISION The proposed project will redevelop a site currently occupied by a 1960's-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a new 61-unit residential apartment community with 73 below -grade park- ing stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of one -bedroom, two -bedroom and penthouse units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based econo- my, families, and empty nesters. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house three penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater's rooftops and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The invit- ing pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top dis- trict. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the bars, restaurants and shops that make Stillwater such a unique community. PROJECT METRICS Level Total Construction GSF Plaza / Roof Terrace GSF Total Enclosed GSF Parking/ Mech GSF Residential Stalls Public Parallel Stalls Total Residential GSF Amenity GSF RSF Circulation GSF Units Efficiency (RSF/GSF) Minus 1 27,958 27,958 27,958 73 Level 1 25,883 2938 22,945 1,716 26 21,229 2,182 16,303 2,744 18 76.8% Level 2 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 3 22,620 22,620 22,620 20,217 2,403 20 89.4% Level 4 8,990 3138 5,852 5,852 749 4,633 470 3 79.2% Total 108,071 6,076 101,995 29,674 73 261 72,321 2,931 61,370 8,0201 61 Unit Metrics Studio Alcove 1 Bed 1 Bed + D 2 Bed Total Levell 5 7 2 4 18 Level2 4 6 2 8 20 Level3 4 6 2 8 20 Level4 3 3 Total 0 13 19 6 23 61 Bedrooms 13 19 12 46 90 PROJECT ANALYSIS Zoning Analysis Lot Size (gsf) 29,035 Lot Size (acres) 0.67 Proposed FAR 2.49 Proposed DU/acre 92 Zoning District CBD: Central Business District Downtown Height Overlay Historic Building Adjacency no adjacent buildings Max height 3 Stories / 37' Proposed height 4 Stories / 48.5' Required Parking 92 Residential, 20 Guest Proposed Parking 73 Residential, 26 Parallel Stalls Building Area Analysis Site = 29,035 SF Level GSF % Site Minus 1 27,958 96% Level 1 25,883 89% Level 2-3 22,620 78% Level 4 8,990 31% esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT SUMMARY 3 4500 FRANCE AVE (Architect: ESG) THE ELYSIAN (Architect: ESG, Developer: Reuter Walton) LORA HOTEL (Architect: ESG) esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PRECEDENT PROJECTS 4 436 CHESTNUT ST E 321 MAIN ST S 123 2ND ST N A 102 2ND ST S esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN STILLWATER DESIGN CONTEXT 5 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT PLAN 6 DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY MAP .� .' Road centerlines CBD Height Overlay District Riverside -1.5 storiesl2O' Parkside - 2.5 stories/30' Historic - 3 stories/37' Bluffside - 4 storiesl45' Bluff Top - 3 stories/35' ZONING MAP (DETAIL) CBD: Central Business District esG REUTERWAL,TON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ZONING & HEIGHT DISTRICT MAPS 7 VIEW FROM CHESTNUT ST VIEW FROM 2ND ST VIEW FROM UNION ALLEY VIEW FROM MYRTLE ST esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EXISTING SITE IMAGES 8 5TH STREET S 845' +28 4TH STREET S 817' +79 3RD STREET S 738' 2ND STREET S 708' UNION ALLEY 700' ST CROIX TRAIL N 695' WATER STREET S 691' SAM BLOOMER 677' RIVER esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE SECTION 9 10'-0" SETBACK) 1 2ND STREET S 0 ELEVATOR OVERRUN LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 10 2ND STREET S BUILDING HEIGHT ELEVATOR OVERRUN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY M CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 11 2ND STREET S LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EW SECTION - HEIGHT 12 0 i- m 2ND STREET S AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 11-0" es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION - HEIGHT 13 f sw `.. ST CROIX RIVER STILLWATER, MN 1 321 S Main (Alfresco): 50' on Main; 116' on Nelson Alley 2 312 S Main (Nacho Mama's): 22' on Main, 100' on Nelson Alley 3 302 S Main (Whitey's Saloon) 25' on Main, 95' on Olive St 4 236 S Main (American Gothic Antiques): 36' on Main, 100' on Olive 5 201 S Main (Mara-Mi): 50' on Main, 116' on Chestnut 6 102 Main St S (Black Letter Books) 50' on Main, 100' on Myrtle St 7 102 2nd St (Gazette): 22 on 2nd, 108' on Myrtle 8 123 2nd (JX Venue): 70' on 2nd, 200' on Commercial es G REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING MASS ANALYSIS 14 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • / / I I / ♦ ♦ / • / ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ / • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • 0 i • • • HISTORIC HEIGHT 1 OVERLAY 2 STORY BUILDING ■ 3 STORY BUILDING ■ 4+STORY BUILDING 41 ill .4 E 4 Y _� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ▪ 1 / I I I ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 40' ♦ • • • • 0 ♦ ♦ ♦ --• ♦ ;1404 • 39' 0 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 90 ▪ ♦ i ♦ • ,• HISTORIC HEIGHT 1_ _ ♦ OVERLAY 4 2+ STORY BUILDINGS + 37 FT BUILDINGS 1 1 es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS 15 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - SOUTHEAST 16 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - NORTHWEST 17 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE 12/16/20 & 1/20/21 HPC MEETINGS Ask: Reduce 4th Story - Reduced Level 4 GSF by -7,400 SF Removed 62% of the units on 4th level. Units removed along the West and North Elevation. Added windows and raised planters to north and west elevation at level 4. Ask: Lap Siding is not an appropriate material for Stillwater - Removed All Fiber Cement Panel from project. Replaced with vertical metal panel (similar to Lora Hotel). - Added masonry to East and West Elevation in place of fiber cement panel Ask: Union Alley needs to feel more pedestrian - Reduced height of Cast in Place concrete planters by 2' along Union Alley. Top of planter wall now 3' above sidewalk. Designed intermediate picket railings between planters for added transparency between public and private spaces. Ask: North Elevation (Myrtle) needs more articulation - Relocated NE balcony stack to North Elevation to provide improved architectural interest along Myrtle St. Ask: Increase storefront expression at South Elevation (Chestnut). - Fitness room relocated adjacent to building entrance. Storefront glazing added to this portion of the elevation. Ask: Revise East and West Elevations (long and tall) Removed the 4th floor units on West Elevation. Results in 3 story facade in lieu of 4. Reduced height of balcony piers on West Elevation per 4th floor revision. - Added 3 story mass (clad in masonry) to East and West Elevation. Building Metrics Update: - Reduced total unit count from 73 to 61 (-12) Reduced total bedroom count from 102 to 90 (-12) Parking Ratio updated - 1.20 esG REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CHANGE SUMMARY 18 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER VIEW 19 aa fan a ..T�. TZ.MZTO Z Z • �.. aga am. r.ri. w a"� a ww �i-r.. Z� 'mmia " .N "w.� =ON. r tamm was m�..a:.r 1.16.. . . c. n ..,._ . =., „. +� ce ..: . 0�^!��s"�� L � �y3�S�?s�Zt � Am. Z-'ZT...r'�.-z.—T: Mar 1.01. ti +► L^ r�7�^^^arty ��.�r�� ^�.�r ".TS'� • IMO rNara.1 ?' =� Mar am. W si r -s'rs= �-•-sue4. z'==== • s- -z= ll*e-=.. MLA s-� ==s. z PRMIN MMEMM esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ELEVATION ON CHESTNUT 20 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER VIEW 21 WVIM. .00 as r r no▪ r. "'".,ram i a•y�0' rM00 ate'%� ra+�i/ P = —.� 3.:..7j r"'r���rr.,.r��rE r�r -.01..T.s..... _.''..."7::•••-"nnti• asg.7lIVISP...:•••_...W.1116°'.1......'n. ---..r...iii•Irg.......:1....."...... .00.pm.: 7..zip•-.FM__...........0%...1.....e..=—.........706..- "'.-.....•..fram••..77. _—..0.....r..Z.....res1111,... ti a..M.X._...;:.2 �� r ra��r r r r 1M Oar+ a�i r NMI ...41.1.0=MME.,... .1" MMI:07. rr. di r'`MOMi. NM. Mea rr. ems sr moms MiM --ter_. MI I ill fa WM ;FELL r.r sr m�.r27.0 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW ON 2ND ST 22 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NW CORNER VIEW 23 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST 24 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NE CORNER VIEW 25 e. :sue i -z= • -- ram �i. a 37::!..! ▪ MOLT. I Mom ▪ me. tuna ▪ +a —Immo a � _ a+1f a�i.:wwi..sa' ��a u+f MUM"' ... a.aswaaw .w• aiiwis�sar�'— �n ��s aOmOh rati� ! a.e -.r MilmilMM esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN UNION ALLEY VIEW 26 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY 27 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 28 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 29 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PEDESTRIAN VIEW ON 2ND ST 30 esG REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE PLAN 31 MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 2'-5" TO P.L. 26 25 24 23 3' - 0 3/8" TO P.L. 1,307 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,262 SF GARAGE ACCESS 21 RAM P DOWN PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF — SCREENED TRANSFORMER 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 19 UNION ALLEY 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 986 SF i8 4 TERRACE 2,938 SF 1 BED 856 SF LIRLULA I IUN 2,586 SF 2ND STREET SOUTH 1 BED 986 SF 1 A6 lb 5 6 7 8 1,249 SF 1 BED 887 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 13 -1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. 9 LOBBY/LEASING 1,642 SF 10 FITNESS 540 SF 11 ALCOVE 540 SF 1,252 SF 1'-O"_} TO P.L. Scale: 1" = 20'-0" TO DOWNTOWN CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 I Al 32 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF 66'-O" 66'-O" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 1,342 SF 1 BED 887 SF 41' - 0" 115'-O" 1 BED 864 SF CIRCULATION 403 SF 1 BED 986 SF 55' - 0" 1 BED 864 SF 1 BED 986 SF 1,251 SF 1 BED 887 SF 41' - 0" 1,409 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 66' - 0" 66' - 0" 1,309 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 2 BED 1,249 SF 1 1 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 I A2 33 0 GREEN ROOF TRAYS TFRRACF GREEN 3,138 SF ROOF TRAYS PATI') PATIO ILO o 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED AMENITY I 1,779 SF 1,456 SF 1,398 SF 749 SF I —I I I I 1 1 r F F PLANTERS I I I CIRCULATION 1,710 SF I Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH es REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 34 2'-5" TO P.L. 247'-0" GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER 0 I I I I I I I I RAMP UP _ 1'-41/4" TO P.L. PARKING 27,958 SF 0 0 0 n 3.90% 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 r TRASH 0 0 u u r, r, S - STANDARD STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 18'-0" DEEP C - COMPACT STALL = 8'-6" WIDE X 16'-0" DEEP Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL MINUS 1 I A4 35 EXTERIOR MATERIALS ALUMINUM WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM BALCONY !. WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL - I FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS METAL PANEL AND BALCONY RECESS METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN METAL PANEL METAL INFILL PANEL vur MECHANICAL LOUVER BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY OR 411111111111 EMI MOM 1 BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING PREFINISHED METAL COPING PRIMARY BUILDIJNG ENTRANCE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM PREFINISHED METAL COPING MASONRY VENEER CAST STONE WINDOW SILL FIBERGLASS WINDOWS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTOl DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION I A5 ( CHESTNUT ST) 36 METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING I MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT BALCONY RECESS EXTERIOR MATERIALS WI 1111111111ala -Mg IOW I BRICK VENEER !gl CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING ALUMINUM BALCONY FIBERGLASS WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL WINDOW ROOF PLANTERS 11 II-T_ II II MI • • • • • • •N ■• II 1 II A ii ii I I ■• 'III I • • • • poi , 1p 111 • • METAL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER FIBERGLASS MASONRY SLIDING PATIO VENEER DOOR METAL PANEL AT BALCONY MIN MASONRY VENEER BASE t MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN • 11 . i METAL PANEL CAST STONE WINDOW SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION I A6 (2ND ST) 37 METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBERGLASS WINDOWS MASONRY VENEER ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL INFILL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL EXTERIOR MATERIALS rrrrIL 1111111111ala MIMI M ,IMO BRICK VENEER !gl CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND METAL PANEL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL RAILING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NORTH ELEVATION I A7 ( MYRTLE ST) 38 AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL EXTERIOR MATERIALS Mg UMW I ■ BRICK VENEER !gl CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL M ECHANICAL LOUVER I uuIHu�L 111iF -f ipr METAL PARAPET COPING II M . ■■ ■I■ -- ■■ !!!! ■■ ■■ ■ Si Ems ■ • • • ■ ■I ■i ■ I■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , ■■■ ■ ■■ II■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ =■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 - ■ PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS SCREENED TRANSFORM ER AREA OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS MASONRY METAL VENEER PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EAST ELEVATION I A8 ( UNION ALLEY) 39 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT VIEW KEY 40 esc REUTERWA L"TON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - EXISTING 41 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - PROPOSED 42 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - EXISTING 43 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - PROPOSED 44 ..cMIOMINIMMum mia▪ rsimwriumiliboram mrem mrimmmommunimm pimmiommwmmilm mmermimmma _...__.. .,1 ii fmm imr .....immm ffmmmm mwmar �.s-is� ir.i-f-- m▪ limloonmaisammamlowannailormiLimminiri miif.�i.�i �i.r..�_liri = mom mimm&ilmoirm _ M•t 1 ! esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - EXISTING 45 4. WINN 'ate. MN � .:__.�airrMEM il __:• ilans _ OM IMIIIIIIME OM 1.ffillIMM..111111111.11MMIP r.r.1M/wr im IIIMOION an .411100mulSOM MIME II �!u ,IUIflu w6oi▪ � - iar MM'rMr�''� IMMii -.rs'a1 l's'mIM'sr rININIMM.. rty..a'r..a'INNa a a. I.+i..ais1. 1.1.1r r•- r.�'rw ar�-�.1.s' malMaylim r rilal'.. 1,.•1NM1rrl1r�'j.r lingi MOM NM mi sImAIrMiplarMiallipMelIMMIIMP 'si'IMINWINNI•rrr no mow inWIIIMMIIMINIMILMIMIN Invema.111.41▪ =jr IN . �� 410.11k II MS VW 'N' ft:PIP esc REUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - PROPOSED 46 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 47 es G REUTERWA LTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 48 esc REUTERWAL"I'ON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - PROPOSED 49 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 50 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 51 esc R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - PROPOSED 52 esc REUTERWAL"I'ON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 53 es G REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 54 1f 1 J r r r _ T irk" > • .. , esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - PROPOSED 55 GREEN ROOF TRAYS PA 10 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12/16/2020 2 BED 1,616 SF MECH 2 BED 1,561 SF U 2 BED 1,440 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS P 0 2 BED 1,322 SF Tr 2 BED 1,629 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS PAT 0 14'-O" 1 BED 887 SF 2 BED 1,774 SF n 1 21c1' - RR TERRACE 854 SF ill AMENITY 576 SF Lim 2 BED 1,566 SF p,,T • GREEN ROOF TRAYS 14'-0" GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 32 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 56 i- m O O 14'-O" REMOVED 5,450 SF 1,561 SF PRINT REM (5,450 SF 1,440 SF 1,322 SF RR 1,566 SF TERRACE 854 SF AMENITY 576 SF 14'-0" PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 57 1,759 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS 66' - O" HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1/20/2021 115'-O" PATIO CIRCULATION 1,688 SF O GREEN ROOF TRAYS 66' - 0" TERRACE 2,041 SF AMENITY 4,176 SF GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG I REUTERWALTON OW/ MOM ZE 200 CHESTNUT STREET ctillwatar nnni LEVEL 4 I A3 I IDnATIn es G R EUTERWA LTOl DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 58 O 66' - 0" 115' - 0" 66' - 0" 35' - 8" 0 m N O P AT 10 GREEN ROOF TRAYS • PATI 0 1,440 SF CIRCULATION 1,688 SF A"K O O REMOVED 1,950 SF TERRACE 2,041 SF AMENITY 4,176 SF 14'-0" GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 n 11 o f i /1 I I 1 A5 PLAN NORTH es G REUTERWALTO DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 59 0 GREEN ROOF TRAYS TFRRACF GREEN 3,138 SF ROOF TRAYS PATI') PATIO ILO o 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED AMENITY I 1,779 SF 1,456 SF 1,398 SF 749 SF I —I I 1 I 1 1 r PLANTERS I I I CIRCULATION 1,710 SF I Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH es REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 60 DOUGHERTY BLOCK TOWER ADDITION OWNER: ChUCN 4 JUDY DOUGHERTY ST.CROIX PRESERVATION CO: ARCIIITECT: MIChAEL F DIEM r_ ARChNET INC., STILL'WATER CONTRACTOR: BENSON-ORTti 3, esc R EU TE R WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 61 WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" .7m.= 17:7 ��g 11 , EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT = 41'-0" esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 62 WATER STREET INN SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 44' 200 CHESTNUT SKY DECK PARAPET HEIGHT = 38'-6" esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 63 0 1r L WATER STREET INN 200 CHESTNUT 0 1r 2ND STREET S WATER STREET INN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 64 THANK YOU Jenn Sundberg Subject: FW: New proposed Apartment Building in Downtown From: Mark Balay [mailto:mark@balayarchitects.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:10 PM To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: New proposed Apartment Building in Downtown [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Abbi and HPC Members, We want to make sure my wife Cathy and I give you our opinions based on the materials in the HPC Packet online, since our home is close by at 110 Myrtle St. One of the perspective shots they took shows the building set into a photo that is taken from our driveway. Being familiar with the site lines in that small area. The view they did not take was from North Third St. That is where the full body of the building will be quite visible and dominant in the scenic view. A view from the upper ground portion of the parking for the parking ramp will have the west elevation of the building almost in full view. The design of the building is fairly neutral and utilizes geometry from the rest of downtown and looks fairly compatible. The use of Lap siding in this design solution is very contemporary and not a historical qualified move. I would not switch to a stucco type product instead of this though. Tough question. The four story proposal is unfortunately way to big, and it exceeds with it's "penthouse level" what is allowed by the currently crafted zoning ordinances. Notice that those top units are dominantly two bedroom for a financial reason. We do like the common room/ terrace space. We do not support a four story building but would support a three story structure, which wpud meet current height restrictions we believe, Second huge issue is parking deficiency. Their proposal does not do what it needs to do for permanent parking spaces for each unit. If the building is reduced to three levels that problem will go away we believe. The Stillwater governmental body has already not allowed development in the old Armory because of parking deficiency and this building being residential makes it even more important to comply and provide required units for each apartment at least. We ask you to demand full compliance with parking. Thank you for hearing our opinions and conclusions and taking them into consideration on this matter. Mark And Cathy Balay i Jenn Sundberg From: Anne Loff <anneloff@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 9:20 AM To: Planning Dept Subject: CPC 2020-60 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The ownership group of Hotel Crosby is in support of the request to allow for variances at 200 Chestnut Street E. We believe that this project will provide a much needed residential base in Downtown Stillwater and will greatly contribute to the continued growth in the area. Thank you for your consideration, Anne Loff Chris Diebold Brian Asmus 612-987-2044 612-315-4909 fax i Abbi Wittman From: Kristina Marshall <kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1:58 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Re: FW: Concerns regarding the Chestnut Building project Attachments: 20201014_142930.jpg; 20201022_112618jpg; 20201014_142916jpg [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Abby! I had a chance to look over the proposed plans and would like to officially submit the following concerns as a downtown business owner: My first concern is the height of the project they are proposing. I know they are asking for a height variance to be able to build a 4th story onto the project, making it about 13 ft higher than what the current height restriction allows. My studio is located right up the road on Chestnut (118 Chestnut Street East), I'm on the 2nd story and have windows that look out to the East. According to the builders, the current Chestnut Building height is estimated to be around the current height restriction, and I'm really worried that building a 4th story onto that is going to be a monster of a building, and will definitely be impacting surrounding buildings. I'm including some photos taken looking out my windows, and you can see where the current Chestnut building height is. I cannot imagine having another 13 ft of building on top of that. While the 4th story would be set back, I think it will really tower over the surrounding buildings. Especially the 1 story buildings on the corner. Having a 3 story building alone built on that full lot will really change the landscape of the block as it will be a big tower on a space that has mostly been open parking or courtyard space. I understand it's their right to build up to the 37' height, but I am concerned about them getting the 4th story variance and setting a precedent for future developments. A lot of their renderings they showed during the presentation were from higher vantage points, looking down on the building. As a photographer I know that perspective is everything, and from a downward viewpoint size is minimized and can be deceiving. My second concern is their request for the parking variance. I know they are requesting to do only 1 parking spot per unit, not the 1.3 spots the city currently requires. If they only did 1 space per unit (73), instead of the 95 they would need at the 1.3 multiplier. That's 22 spaces they are shorting per current city requirements. I'm also concerned about the parking variance because it is quite possible for 2 adults to live in even the 1 bedroom apartments which could equal 2 cars for just those units alone (not to mention more for the 2 bedroom units). If only one car can fit in the underground parking, where will the other car(s) be parked? I'm worried that these cars will take up valuable parking spaces elsewhere in downtown. We're already losing quite a few open parking spots (about 14 if my math is correct) with this project with the loss of the small parking lot on the property (not including the lower and upper parking garage space that's currently designated for Chestnut Building business). It appears from their parking study they are saying the peak parking demand will be from lOpm - 5am. However, in their other document they noted that "The emerging trend toward more frequent telecommuting among the workforce is likely to create increased demand for housing in places like Stillwater" which if that's the case and more people are working from home means those cars will likely be in Stillwater throughout the day and not just in that 1 Opm-5am timeslot. Something to take into consideration. i Again, mainly wanted to voice my concerns as a way to spark conversation and make sure the city is looking at all aspects of how this project might impact the downtown area. If anyone would like to see my space to really get a feel for how this building could change the viewpoint from this perspective I'd be happy to arrange that. Thanks so much! KRISTINA MARSHALL Kristina Lynn Photography & Design I Owner & Photographer www.kristinalynnphoto kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com • (651) 968-1635 Minnesota Studio • 118 Chestnut Street East, Stillwater, MN 55082 Iowa Studio • 106 1st Ave SE, Clarion, IA 50525 o On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:00 PM Kristina Marshall<kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com> wrote: Hi Abbi! Thanks so much for sending those over. I glanced through them and they are definitely more in depth than what was presented back in October. Very helpful! I'll take a peek at them and then resubmit my concerns :) THANK YOU! 2 CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE 700 Olive Street • Saint Paul, MN 55130 December 18, 2020 craRAL S'), tin9 CARPENTERS Members of Stillwater Planning Commission 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission Phone: 651.646.7207 • Fax: 651.645.8318 I am writing today in support of the Reuter Walton project for 73 units on 200 Chestnut in Stillwater. This project will include $17.5M in construction which means thousands of work hours for carpenters and other construction trades workers, that will pay wages and benefits to support a middle class living. With the construction economy facing uncertainty due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we urge the support of this project that will build housing for your community in partnership with a responsible developer such as Reuter Walton. We understand that Reuter Walton is seeking a 4th floor variance to be able to underwrite the project. Reuter Walton has been thoughtful with their approach when designing the 4th floor as it will be set back on a 3rd floor that is only 37 feet in height. This seems to be a well thought out compromise and we look forward to this project making it through the necessary planning stages at the City of Stillwater. On behalf the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters, we strongly support this project at 200 Chestnut in Stillwater. Fraternally, Adam Duininck Director of Government Affairs www.northcountrycarpenter.org Constance J. Paiement, Attorney Joseph M. Paiement, Attorney January 1R, 7n2n ?OE ' ENT/ LAW OFFICE Licensed Attorneys in Minnesota and Wisconsin Stillwater City Council Members; Stillwater Planning Commission Members; & Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 221 East Myrtle Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 T 651.967.5050 F 651.967.5055 www.paiementlaw.com RE: 200 Chestnut St East Property — Case CPC 2020-60 Dear Stillwater City Council; Planning Commission; & Heritage Preservation Members: This letter is in response to the December 15th and November 22, 2020 Memorandums from Swing Traffic Solutions regarding parking analysis for 200 Chestnut Street East. In reviewing the memorandums three rather significant issues jumped out at us. First, the analysis of the parking demand is based on national data and not specific to Minnesota or Stillwater. Habits and trends on modes of transportation will of course vary depending on the local climate. We would think mere would generally be a higher demand for indoor off-street parking in colder snowy climates vs warmer climates. Second, the report compared the property to suburban areas nationally, parking for an apartment building in downtown Stillwater we would assume would be different then even Woodbury or Lake Elmo, where there is space for street parking and parking lots on the property. Third, the study assumes parking demands are the same for all types of apartment dwellings or is using an average of all types of apartment dwellings. We would assume that a higher more expensive rental unit would likely draw tenants who demand parking spaces for each adult in the unit whereas a lower end apartment building there may be more shared vehicles for adults in a single unit. The 200 Chestnut property is being promoted as a high -end rental unit. It is reasonable to expect that many of the units will have 2 adult drivers, including the one -bedroom units. Anything short of the current Stillwater current regulations on the number of parking spaces required for the property is going to create parking issues not only for the proposed tenants at 200 Chestnut but also for all of us in neighboring buildings. We are again asking the City to deny the variances to the parking and the height on the currently proposed apartment complex at 200 East Chestnut Street. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact us at 651-967-5050 or joeapaiementlaw.com and connie(cr�paiementlaw.com. Sincerely, Joseph Paiement & Co nce Paieme Constance J. Paiement, Attorney Joseph M. Paiement, Attorney December 12, 2020 vpJE LAW OFFICE -- Licensed Attorneys in Minnesota and Wisconsin Stillwater City Council Members; Stillwater Planning Commission Members; & Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 200 Chestnut St East Property 221 East Myrtle Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 T 651.967.5050 F 651.967.5055 www.paiementIaw.com Dear Stillwater City Council; Planning Commission; & Heritage Preservation Members: This letter is regarding the proposed apartment building on the city block at 200 Chestnut St East, Stillwater, MN. The undersigned own the property at 221 East Myrtle Street (Paiement Law Office) and as neighboring property owners we strongly object to the proposed apartment structure at 200 Chestnut Street East for the following reasons. Parking Issues — Based on the Pioneer Press article on the project dated December 11, 2020, the apartment complex will be a 73-unit building, with 44 one -bedroom, 10 one -bedroom plus, and 19 two - bedroom apartments, with only 73 on -site parking spots. For the size of the project the parking ordinances require 134 parking spaces, almost double what the proposed plans have. As for on -street parking, there are currently 22 parking spaces around the property: 10 spaces on 2nd Street, 3 on Chestnut, and 8 on Union Alley. The spaces on Union Alley and Chestnut are always at least 90% occupied 24/7. With the Chestnut building now empty, even during COVID with many businesses in the area shut down and people working remotely, people are routinely using the Chestnut building parking lot as overflow parking, and there is generally half a dozen or more cars in the lot during the business week. When businesses are not shut down for COVID and in nice weather the parking is even more in demand. In the last two years we have already seen the parking in our area shrink. First, the City decided to make the east side of Union Alley all no parking for 5 months of the year and now there appears to be a semi- permanent loss of several more parking spaces on Chestnut Street between Main Street and Union Alley. There are businesses and apartments on Main Street between Myrtle and Chestnut that the closest parking is the Union Alley and Chestnut Street on -street parking spots and there are already too few spots to accommodate current needs. The surrounding streets can no accommodate the additional demands of a 73-unit apartment building with not enough parking for all their tenants and guests. City of Stillwater Page 2 We also own a unit in Terra Springs, and the units in Terra Springs all have one underground parking spot and many have two, yet the outdoor parking on the property is generally full all the time. The proposed apartment complex for the Chestnut building needs to have on -site parking to accommodate, at a minimum, all their residents. Variance for Height — The Heritage Preservation Commission has developed over the years very specific strict rules for the downtown area to attempt to preserve a historic downtown look. We recall the two hour meeting/debate we had with the Commission simply to convert the non -working torn roll -out awning on Union Alley side of our building with new aluminum fixed awnings before it was finally agreed that we could replace the awnings so long as we kept all the mechanics of the roll -outs. The proposed apartment complex is looking for a major variance of 9 feet on half the site size, or one-half of a full city block. They claim it doesn't block any views. We disagree, for the most part our windows look to the west and will be directly looking at the new structure. The new structure will block all our views of the beautiful historic buildings we see that are on Chestnut Street, 2nd Street, and 3rd Street, in addition to some beautiful large homes sitting up on the hill. The additional height will cause even further loss of natural lighting into our building. For the reasons stated above, we are asking the City to deny the variances to the parking and the height on the proposed apartment complex at 200 East Chestnut Street. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact us at 651-967-5050 or ioe{a�.paiementlaw.com and connie(c2paiementlaw.com. Sincerely, Jo ph Paieme Co stance Paie Jenn Sundberg From: James S. Redpath <JRedpath@redpathcpas.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 12:13 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Chestnut Project My name is Jim Redpath. My address is 640 Main St N-unit 6, Stillwater, MN I support the new project on Chestnut proposed by the current land owner because... a. ....The two variances being asked for are small compromises to bring 75-80 new residents to become patrons to the charming Stillwater businesses that need them now more than ever. b. ....The height variance being requested will have minimal view impacts, but will allow a very important project to move forward and add additional tax paying residents to Stillwater c. ...Based on this project being located in "the bowl", the additional height variance will have no adverse effects to existing residents that the allowable 3 stories wouldn't already impact d. ...This project will be Union built and will create thousands of work hours for carpenters and other construction trades workers that will pay wages and benefits to support a middle class living e. ...Given the excess parking stalls in nearby ramps and surface lots, the parking variance should be approved James S. Redpath, CPA Partner 0 651.407.5802 m 612.991.2882 e JRedpath@redpathcpas.com I14!UJiIaLISfS1. PPULBUSHOSS 14 1111101 best places REcipRTH to work 2020 redpathcpas.com 55 5th Street East, Suite 1400 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Fi WE aR E an ,.OEP'.. ENT H I HEER OF HLB THE GLOBAL A'DV SORY AND _ACCOUNTING NETWORK This email has been scanned by the Securence Email Security System on behalf of Netrix IT . If this email is SPAM please report it by clicking ##SUBMIT_SPAM_LINK## i From: Heathyre Sayers <drsayers@live.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 3:03 PM To: Stillwater <stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Planned downtown apartment project [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I'm not sure where a good place to email this would be. I am a building and business owner in downtown Stillwater across from the current chestnut building. I have been doing business here for 6 years now. I got a notice in the mail about a planned apartment complex going up in its place. According to the plan they are only including half as many parking spaces required with the remaining spaces being used by surrounding street parking. This directly affects my business and all of the surrounding businesses. Our clients have a hard enough time finding parking in downtown Stillwater that is with reasonable walking distance as it is without all of the surrounding spaces being used for the apartment residents. I know there is a meeting scheduled for tonight but with child schedules I am not able to attend. I am asking that the variance not be approved as requested as this will negatively impact business in an area that already struggles with parking. You should be supporting the businesses that have helped keep downtown Stillwater thriving and require that the apartment complex provide the 110 residential parking spots and 24 guest parking spots without taking up all of the limited street parking. Alternatively you could require that they decrease their building by one floor, thus decreasing their need for parking as well as not needing the height variance they are requesting. Heathyre Sayers Abbi Wittman From: STEVEN WAHLQUIST <STEVENWAHLQUIST@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:21 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Re: 200 Chestnut Street [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Abbi, I watch the HPC meeting tonight and have a couple of comments. 1) I would like to suggest that the metal siding be replaced with limestone or some other natural material. 2) I feel that there needs to be some more detail, possibly window trim to make this building fit with our historic downtown. Now it does not have any character. 3) I agree that this building can only be 3 stories tall. 4) What type of railings will there be on the roof and will they be visible from the street? I am concerned that the railings fit with our downtown. Thanks, Steven Wahlquist Sent from my iPad On Jan 19, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> wrote: Craig: https://public.ci.stillwater.mn.us/WebLink/0/doc/881416/Pagel.aspx is a direct link to tomorrow evening's Heritage Preservation Commission's packet. The anticipated review schedule is: HPC—January 20, 2021 Downtown Parking Commission —January 21, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission — January 25, 2021 Planning Commission — January 27, 2021 City Council — February 2, 2021 Please note only the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings (where the public is invited to comment at the meeting). We will include any written comments in the public record, share them with the commission and applicant, as well as address them in the meetings. You can access public meeting packets and videos of the meetings (including live stream) for any of the aforementioned meetings at https://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/city-government/meeting-agendas- minutes-and-material/meeting-videos. Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 1 P: 651-430-8822 I F: 651-430-8810 2 Jenn Sundberg From: Morgan Wells <mwells@agmotion.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:12 AM To: Planning Dept Subject: Chestnut building [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning and thank you for the notification about the Chestnut building proposal. As an adjacent property owner, I fully support this development and think it will bring additional vibrancy to downtown. Do you happen to have the contact information for Joel Hauck, the applicant? I'd like to introduce myself and offer any support I can for them during their construction process. Thank you Morgan Wells Stapleton Properties 612-834-6400 1 ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: Mayor Kozlowski and City Council February 23, 2021 March 2, 2021 Jon and Ann Whitcomb Jon and Ann Whitcomb The Lohmer Trust Variance to the right-of-way setback 12950 7th Street North TR, Traditional Residential Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-07 INTRODUCTION Jon and Ann Whitcomb and the Lohmer Trust have obtained preliminary plat approval for White Pine Ridge, a 14-lot single family residential subdivision proposed for 12950 75th Street North (CR 12). As a reminder to the Council, this development includes the northerly extension of the Northland Avenue public right-of-way directly across CR 12. One property will border both CR 12 and the Northland Avenue extension; this property is subject to a 100' setback from the CR 12 right-of-way. The Planning Commission considered this variance request at the time of preliminary plat review as well as in a subsequent re -request. Both times the Commission determined practical difficulty had not been established by the applicant and denied the requested setback variance. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 20' variance to the required 100' CR 12/75th Street North right-of- way setback. ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "allow variation from the strict application of the terms of this chapter where, by reason of the exceptional physical characteristics of the property, the literal CPC Case 2021-01 Page 2 of 4 enforcement of the requirements of this chapter would cause practical difficulties for the landowner". Section 31-208 further indicates: • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned TR, Traditional Residential; all uses proposed are permitted in this zoning district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The specific purpose of a 100' setback for structures located west of Northland Avenue is to maintain uniform patterned development along the highway as well as providing sufficient buffer between the future homes and the roadway where higher speeds and volumes are present. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The Zoning Code requires properties west of Northland Avenue to be set back 100' from the right-of-way. Properties to the east of Northland Avenue, directly across its street extension, are permitted to have a 35'-75' setback depending on the zoning district. So, while the variance is not consistent with the regulation for which the variance is being requested, it is consistent with current development pattern along the highway and future properties that will be located off of the right-of-way extension. Additionally, Washington County requires a 75' setback from CR 12. The granting of a 20' variance to the City's 100' setback to allow for one home to be placed 80' from the right-of-way would also be consistent with the standards set forth by the County. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? A trail is proposed for the north side of CR 12 in this location. A preliminary plat condition of approval requires the developer to provide a 20' wide trial easement on the subject property. Allowing for a home to be constructed 80' from the right-of-way would still allow for future installation of a 10' wide trail in this location. If the variance was approved for the construction of the home, that home would be located no less than 60' from the trail. This 60' separation would allow for adequate buffer and screening of the private property from the public amenity. 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by CPC Case 2021-01 Page 3 of 4 the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A property with a single-family residence set back 80' from the right-of-way is reasonable in the TR-Traditional Residential zoning district. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? As noted by the applicant, the future White Pine Ridge's Lot 1 is at the entrance to this (future) residential neighborhood. It is the only highway -adjacent property west of the Northland Avenue extension that is also to the east of the Browns Creek tributary, a natural break in the built environment. This is unique. Additionally, properties to the east of the Northland Avenue extension, which are not contemplated as a part of this development, are subject to a different setback from the highway. So, this home will be set back further than homes in both the current and future development pattern of properties east of the tributary c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. This is the only location where Northland Avenue can be extended. Northland Avenue (approximately) is the location where the speed limit changes to 55 miles per hour. The zoning code's requirements for the increased setback was likely due to the speed limit change and (mostly likely) did not take into account the natural features on future development. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If this property is set back 80', it will be in keeping with the setbacks of all other properties to the east of the tributary. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire for the variance is not solely based on economic decisions. The request for this one property in this neighborhood to encroach on this setback, given the setback only applies to this one property, reasonable. There is a desire for uniform patterned development within this (and the future) neighborhood. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. The variance shall only apply to Lot 1, Block 1, White Pine Ridge. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 07, except as modified by the conditions herein. CPC Case 2021-01 Page 4 of 4 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds practical difficulties have been established and that the proposed 80' setback meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance as: • Seeking the construction of a residence 80' from the ROW is reasonable; • There is uniqueness given this is the only property between Northland Avenue and the tributary and the tributary's location acts as a natural barrier where land development setbacks would logically change; and • The essential character of the neighborhood will not be altered if the variance is granted. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-07 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Staff will bring a Resolution memorializing the Council's decision at the next regularly -scheduled meeting. Attachments: Site Location Map Appeal Request 75th Street Setback Map Original Narrative Request Preliminary Plat cc: Jon Whitcomb METRO EAST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES February 1, 2021 Abbi Wittman City Planner City of Stillwater 216 4th Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: White Pine Ridge Subdivision Variance Request Dear Ms. Wittman, I am requesting that the variance request for a 80' vs 100' setback from 75th St the City be heard at the next City Council meeting. I will supply your office with some drawings that I would like included in the discussion revolving this request. Thank you for your consideration, feel free to call or email with any questions. Jon Whitcomb Developer 1950 Northwestern Avenue Suite 101, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • 651.351.5005 CITY / COUNTY BUILDING SETBACKS WH ITE PAVE RI IC)G E. CONTACT: Jon Whitcomb President / Broker Metro East Commercial Real Estate 651-351-5005 Office 651-283-4884 Cell 1950 Northwestern Ave.#101 Stillwater, MN. 55082 ROBERT G & MARY K LOHMER 12960 75TH ST N COUNTY/CITY: WAS H I IV GTO N COUNTY I TY O F STI LLWATER NORTH 0 150 150 REVISIONS: DATE REVISION 2-11-21 PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land 5urve,,nr under the Ions of the state of Minnesota. D iel L Thu me Registration nlsmber: 25718 Date: 2-11-21 PROJECT LOCATION: 1295O 75TH ST. N. PID#30030201 4001 2 PA I TI O F PID#30030201 4001 3 Suite R200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 danE7cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME SURVJWS0 PROJECT NO. JWI 9050 SETBACK EXHIBIT White Pine Ridge Variance Request The developer of the property is requesting that the commission consider the issue of the setback from Myrtle St on Lot 1. The developer is requesting a 20' variance to total 80' setback from Myrtle vs. the 100' the ordinance suggests. The White Pine Ridge site sits at the intersection of Myrtle and Northland Ave, the Northwest corner of the intersection. The site sits against the tributary overflow creek from the pond directly to the North and the overflow allows for the City storm water to find it's way to the diversion structure and eventually Lake McKusick. The tributary requires a large setback, this property is the ONLY one East of the tributary, which we feel is the natural location for a change in set back if there is one. The White Pine Ridge site has conflicting setbacks, one from the County at 75' and one from the City at 100'. We are asking that a balance between the two setbacks' be created and a 80' setback from the street for the first lot, consistent with other properties in the area. This variance will create a more consistent setback along 75th, at the Maryknoll intersection a 75' setback was used, and to the East of that even less. The variance, if granted will create a balanced pad size within the neighborhood allowing the builder to keep consistent home sizes with the rest of the development. w 00 O N r(D O rD 0 Z -H 0 -n W m z Z_ Z NJ • 01 ro O O (0 rD Z 0 0 0 0 rD O (D rD N saTnu!w SO 0 -h O 0_ rD O rD B. = ro 00 v rD 0 Q v A-) S21fO1NOJ n rD rD = 0) Al 7 eP ut V1 n 0 0 (11 -t n O w 0 w 0 0 rD O rD N' VI (0 m� g ,rt rD n rnD r° 0 O = 5 6 (o fD o.)N 0) to = 0 o_ _, 2 = rD rD CD v, rD O_ 0 071 0 r(D 0 N V) 01 S m rD 7 D.)00 7 La v) w 0 O P.,�z(„ n rD —1 0 =-- O = 0� A.)TI S 0 (0 CO m Op �, ,- - -1 Z N NNi w Z 10 Al Z rD W 7 (0 -O n rD -1 rD .-r 0 rD S VI ,°O=2 N en - S V rD 5 (D O_ V1 0 0 O rD lQ 0 N S C v' P N 7-"- rDn O -, O o_ S. v, rD C N C O ,-r Cr) rD CD rD V, lJ'I N rD V ,- LA 00 -n Al 0 v, rD 0 (n a) ,-, = o P.) O O '- S [1VJIdAl1 SAID z m ° 33V321fS 31321JNOJ NIVW1131VM 'a3dI213A a13Id ION '31ISB3M OdO±NW 21Na 3IH1 WO21d PARCEL AND ON STEEPS SLOPES PER LIDAR DATA OBTAINED (/1 m C m m Dn Z m 0 0—I 001 1 n0 OZ 07I C 0 0> m N 0 m 0 TI -H 2 m s D gon -0 m w r ,•--r NJ 0 ,74 rD O a v, N 01 O 0 0 -h rD v, 0 W w V rD rD 0 -h rD m VI 2 a 0 -h rD m v 2 Al -h -h 7- 0 7- (11 p Fri Al 0 -h rD 0 _ w O w -H 2 m D -< 111 0 m z 0 m 0 Z 0 r m D 01 r 0 3 3 -10 r D D m m D z C 0 N nog <c 0.H � N I1 0 D m D m z 1 r r r r r r 0000000 0 10 * 4. W N 0 II II II II II I I 01 01 w 10 213M3S 1N2101S 3JV321fS SnONIW11119 113M3S A11V1INVS O 01 V1 N N lO pp Lri --♦ 1• • 2 0 0 m SVD ONfON02130N11 3N11 JNI011118 0 Z m A1111111 O V3 H213A0 n D O n m m 3NOHd3131 ONfOND2130Nn JIldO TABU ONfOND2130Nn n z p � z �rn m -< (!) z -I '5) 0 z n rn I I N 01 W p TI • z -H m 0 Al 318VJ ONfOND2130Nn J1211J313 ONfON02130N11 z 01 0 0 m 0 2 m n 0 -n N 3NO 113HdOD 2i3d NMOHS 531111I1f1 GNf10202i3aNf1 m 0) rr O 0) -o 0 = O = rD Dy 01 2 - Z 2 nn OD z n� ON Zm o O (n Z cn 00 ((/1 Z O-1 -n m N n (/1 m C z- r 0 m 00 w co 2 m 000 —1-1-1 00 V 01 11 11 11 N N NJ 01 O V 01 0 w w -P V) V) V) ppp 'r1 m m 1 71 71 3A1VA 2101VJIONI 1SOd D D TI 0 Z TI D n_ Z n NJ 000 —1-1-1 v1 w 11 11 11 N N W NJ V1 N Cr) 00 01 01 01010 01 01 V) ppp TI TI m 2 0 v1 m 0 -n m 0 TI Cr D m N 0 Z_ Z n 0 0 z D z n S>IJ`d813S 03SOdO21d v, w 0 ro _ 0 (0 rD Z 0 O 00 Al 3 0_ r rD w N V 01 O O -h rD 0 -' 0 -h 0 0) 0) rD rr rD -h 0 S rD w = (o 0) 0 (0 rD 0 S N 0 _ O rD rD 0 -h Al 0' w 0 w :91ON A3A If1S 0 rD v1 S rD 0 rD rD rD 0 3 (0 n O 0) r-r N 0 _ (DD 0 rD 0 -h 00 —1-1 11 11 N -P 01 N 00 W 01 01 01 pp TI 1 1 D 0 -H O z D r m N 0 m Z D r 0 01 n A.) rD n - v, X 0 S 0 = N X 0..< O n - _ rD(o �S r-r = rD = W O rD V S - 0 V m 3 fDD r-r X O S , r�r 3 0 0.)— = S rr (0 rD 00 — �-r O -0 O - ro S (0 3 -h n' O ,rt 0 —' rDr-r — S S rD (roi N m O (11 0 S = C K 111 N.)= 0 0 (0 0 -,00 rD ' (0 -h rD ,-r ,••r 0 W ' r-' S S AL) rD rD rD 0- O r* n Q1 NJ N 00 rDrD 111 X -1-1 ro(/'0 O -0r.m. (0 O E. 0 n — rr 0 O - O. r* S 3 N S rD (0 v, W N O O -h _ O = 0 S V v, rD W _S rD V 23 N W rD O NJ fir° O SO O rD (0 O NJ 1' o S v, ¢1 rD O v' rD 0 (O w 0 O = Q W N z z cn w m m v1 v) rn D Z oo0 01 Cr) n m D m m z TI r m 0 D 01 0 0 C m Z 0 0 m 0 r 0 D r z 0 n 01 m n -H -H 0 0 D 0 D Lc) V) 2 0 z D D D • r m D • = v3I`d -lv101 w O w (O 01 N p m '9598 L9 2i38Wf1N 1N31Af1JOa O 01 'd`dW DNINOZ (gwo3T!LIM)- L 13J2Pdd SV a31Id SINVN3AOJ 3A11J3102id dO NOLLV IV1J3a D'�1 nc xi w n m cn -I-0 70o D -0 m MIN MI <n Dc m Z m n0 �z m 0D D r 000 0 0 G ocl( T* 0 N3131N 2131VM NIV210 IN1101S NISVB HJIVJ 31OHNVIN A21V11NVS 1fONV31J A21V11NVS 1V1S303d 3NOHd3131 31OHNVIN 3NOHd3131 213131NSVJ 006410U 31OHNVIN 2131VM 113M 2131VM dO1S BN1J NOIIJ3NNOJ '1d30 3N1J 31OHNVW 1A1NO1S NOIIJ3S ON3 0321V1d 31OHNVIN SVJ 310d 213MOd 33111 S1101101330 310d 1H011 33211 S11021331NOJ 213WN03SNV211 J11113313 1V1S303d J1111J313 1VNDIS JI33V211 NOIldI JJS34 1VD31 S31ON 31111 :vlva 1N3WdO13A34 IV 0 z n z m D 0 z EC, 113131N JI 1J313 NOLLVA313 10dS 31OHNVIN JI211J313 JNI2108 110S 213NOI110NOJ 211V 31OHNVIN NMOMIN 1 9 O 03 T 0 O • 1VIS303d Al 318VJ NJIS JI33V211 00 N O D 0 3A1VA 2131VM m m z 0 .0 VI W W o H N o W W I O O rvH (AO 0 0 H 0 0 0 o Z W N NOI1VJ01 1J3fO2Id L / 0u-0 q00 W ND 103 I4 II Y 89e 70.9 noon e4» / S89°27'14 ' 268.96 237.16 SIDE YARD LINE r 228.80 mL m' 248.11 HOT TUB RESTRI C 1f' NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON ---- COUNTY HIGHWAY PER WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 344751 n z n o � 74 0_ '< (0 0 0_ sa7 N3• — o i N N <_� fp00 03 7100 CL o ^ S p ¢, S Q s trt O $, "3 LO N 0 1Vld A21VNIWI132Jd ► . TH LI OF THE SOUTH 1373.77 FEET e THE EI/2 OF THE EI/2 OF HE NE 1/4 OF SE-C. 30, T30R20 889°27' 14"E j 153.34 REAR YARD LINE 119.53 =13.1 1 1 32. 6 UE RST-RICTED ACCE /' l " l f —1 l I—( /— — /— — / /1 / 1 / /— / / r —, oX /m m r—J') 0 m 0 Z 0 0 0 z 0 2 :,kJIJ/A1Nf1OJ 74 NJ p CT) m O �O V —♦ _� D Z 0 m 0 m0 r D Z O D m mn(n D m Z O m 0 Z 0m 0 NW CORNER - FEET OF THE THE EI/2 OF 1/4 OF- SEC. 910 LO L# 'aAV uaaTsaML JON 0S6 L 01 IV 00 W 00 00 n 0*Wv1W 2 0 CO Z mHZrm�1C1 7v20H� DO m Z Z 0 m v)> '- -H oo(m/1m2 z O D _ OZO0H n co 2 = m r D m o Z z Z n ( 0 1J1 D H m m Z M00 c _ Z r Z Z m to v7 I O — — OF THE EAST 245.00 SOUTH 1373.77 FEET OF THE EI/2 OF- THE NE 30, T30, R20 Vl W Ul 01 0 0 01 0 rD O CD rr rD Q m S v1 r* n �* 0 nco3 00c 3 rD rD' 70 rD rD :13V1 N O J rt Ln (11 0 :91141 SV NMOHS 3dV S1N31N3SV3 Aina l QNV 3 JVNIVdC1 O3SOdO21d illwatei THE H I R T H P L A L E [I F M INN E S B! A PLANNING MEMO TO: Mayor & Council Members CASE NO. 2019-25 MEMO DATE: February 24, 2021 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Zoning text amendment revising sign regulations REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION Stillwater's sign regulations are in need of revision for several reasons. First, US Supreme Court cases over the years have refined first amendment free speech law as it applies to signage and those refinements need to be reflected in our sign regulations. Second, institutional signage has largely been ignored by the City Code and needs to be addressed. And third, digital signage has been requested by a few businesses and it seems timely to consider allowing it to some extent. The City Council has seen the draft sign ordinance on numerous occasions now. The last time was the February 2nd work session at which there was unanimous support for all aspects of the ordinance except digital signage. Digital signage was supported in various forms by several Council members, but not all. Staff was directed to restructure the ordinance analysis according to three options: 1) Adopt only those revisions not related to digital signage. 2) Non -digital revision PLUS a 50% option that would allow 50% of a permitted freestanding sign's surface area to be digital signage if the property is: a) a single building with at least three tenants; and b) located along State Highway 36 3) Non -digital revisions PLUS a 50%/25% option that would: a) allow 50% of a permitted freestanding sign's surface area to be digital signage if the property is: i. a single building with at least three tenants; and ii. located along State Highway 36 b) allow 25% of a permitted freestanding sign's surface area to be digital signage if the property is located within the BP-C, BP -I or BP-0 Zoning Districts. Case 2019-25 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST Staff requests the Council to conduct a public hearing and decide which of the three options to pursue. Then approve the first reading of the ordinance according to the chosen option. OPTIONS The details of the proposed ordinance are presented in the attached planning report dated January 28, 2021. Below you will find a summary of the three options that staff was asked to present for the public hearing. 1. Adopt only those revisions not pertaining to digital signage. All Council Members agreed that the non -digital portions of the revised ordinance were acceptable. So, this option would be to delete Subdivision 11, Electronic Message Centers (aka digital signage) and to strike them from the Table in Subdivision 6. 2. Adopt 50% digital signage provision This option would adopt the revisions listed in Number 1 above, plus it would permit electronic message centers to occupy up to 50% of a permitted freestanding sign. Parameters for permitting the 50% digital signage option include: (a) The property must include multiple - tenant building with at least three built - out tenant spaces. (b) The property must be located along Highway 36 in the corridor outlined in the map below. (c) The electronic messaging is only permitted to include text and logo of the on -site business(es). (d) Rate of message change, illumination intensity and other sign details would be regulated as planning report. Properties where 50% option a potential (in dark grey) ..................... detailed in the attached draft ordinance and This option satisfies the originally stated desire of Valley Ridge Mall to replace its banner space (which is not technically allowed for more than 90 days in a year) with a digital option that allows management to rotate sign presence for those businesses that do not have permanent space on the mall's freestanding sign. Case 2019-25 Page 3 3. Adopt 50%/25% digital signage provision This option would adopt the revisions listed in Numbers 1 and 2 above, plus it would permit electronic message centers to occupy up to 25% of a permitted freestanding sign anywhere in the BP-C, BP -I and BP-0 Zoning Districts. Parameters for permitting the 25% digital signage option include: (a) The electronic messaging is only permitted to include text and logo of the on -site business(es). (b) The electronic messaging is only permitted if there is no direct line of sight from a residentially zoned property in Stillwater to the display area of the electronic message center. (c) Rate of message change, illumination intensity and other sign details would be regulated as detailed in the attached draft ordinance and planning report. SECOND READING When a majority of the Council has chosen an option and approved the first reading of the ordinance, staff will revise the draft ordinance accordingly and bring it back for a second reading and adoption. Attachment: Planning Report Draft ordinance bt illwatei THE H I R T H P L A L E [I F M INN E S B! A PLANNING REPORT TO: Mayor & Council Members CASE NO. 2019-25 REPORT DATE: January 28, 2021 MEETING DATE: February 2, 2021 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Zoning text amendment (ZAT) revising sign regulations REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The sign regulations found in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code are in need of revision for several reasons. First, US Supreme Court cases over the years have refined first amendment free speech law as it applies to signage and those refinements need to be reflected in our sign regulations. Second, institutional signage has largely been ignored by the City Code and needs to be addressed. And third, digital signage has been requested by a few businesses and since its technology has evolved dramatically over the last several decades, it seems timely to consider allowing it to some extent in Stillwater. Therefore, the City Attorney and City planning staff have drafted a zoning code amendment to address these issues. We have also taken the opportunity to re -organize the sign code so it flows more logically and is more understandable. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the ordinance on February 26th and recommended approval of it as attached. The City Council has considered this ordinance on several occasions. On December 15, 2020 a vote to approve the first reading failed to garner a majority. There appeared to be support to: 1) update the Code to reflect current law; to 2) create consistency in institutional sign standards; and to 3) add a table showing what signage is allowed in each zoning district. What could not gain consensus was whether or where digital signage should be allowed. SPECIFIC REQUEST Staff requests the Council to discuss digital signage and give staff direction on whether digital signage should be allowed, and if so, where. Case 2019-25 Page 2 ANALYSIS Digital signage. Electronic message center signage (aka. digital signage) is proposed to be added and would be allowed in the BP-C Zoning District on larger properties that abut Highway 36. They would also be allowed under specific circumstances in the institutional and park zoning districts. a. An electronic message center is being defined as a portion of a freestanding sign that is capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that electronically change by remote or automatic means. b. Only one would be allowed per lot or multi -tenant building. c. It must be an integral part of a freestanding sign, not wall mounted. d. The display of an electronic message center would not be permitted to change more than once every twenty seconds. This standard was developed by the International Sign Association to address driver distraction, and is on the conservative end of their spectrum of "safe" change intervals. e. The size of the electronic message center will be limited to fifty percent of a freestanding sign's total allowable area. Limiting the size of the digital display reduces driver distraction and the annoyance/light pollution of large back lit displays. i. A freestanding sign in the BP-C District, for example, could have 100 or 120 square feet of signage, depending upon the size of the multitenant building it is associated with. So, the maximum size of a digital display area would be 50 or 60 square feet respectively. ii. The Valley Ridge Mall has a 110 square foot freestanding sign and they would like to incorporate a digital display into it so they can rotate weekly or monthly the names of tenants that cannot fit on the static sign panels. Now they do this by temporarily hanging a banner under the sign panels. If these sign changes are adopted, two of their three current tenant panels could be converted to an electronic message center, and the banner would be removed. iii. The freestanding sign at the Pizza Ranch in Oak Park Heights (seen to the right) is another example of what could be allowed as an electronic message center according to the new standards. f. Regulations for the electronic message center require either functional automatic dimming capabilities that adjust the brightness to ambient light at all times of the day and night; or the illumination will not be allowed to exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured seventy-one feet from the sign'. g. No off -premises electronic message centers are allowed. 1 Regulations developed by the International Sign Association (an independent sign research institution founded in 1944 and based in Alexandria, VA). Case 2019-25 Page 3 h. All other applicable sign regulations found in Section 31-509 must be met. i. In the BP-C Zoning District they would be permitted on the properties abutting State Highway 36 between Industrial Boulevard and Market Drive. This segment of the 36 corridor has somewhat larger properties than the rest of the Stillwater side of Hwy 36, and these properties tend to have multitenant buildings. Note that the former Herberger's site is included in the list of properties that would be allowed to have an electronic message center, but it is technically separated from the highway and its frontage road by a stormwater pond owned by the City. j. In the PA and PROS zoning districts, electronic message centers could be incorporated into institutional signs if: i. In the PROS Zoning District the electronic message center is permitted only if it is located on a property with a recreation center or a multiple use park building; and ii. In the PA Zoning District an electronic message center is permitted only if there is no direct line of sight from a residentially zoned property to the graphic display area. water Zoning Districts RA Skye FenP1 Rrker.9d ▪ TR. uua _IA, rumor. Fyapen•n CTRCCCAai.Klrw� le RWJ.+:u -cc .cwe GResp Reaneuse• ▪ Owl Caw Axnlae,w• Pixwru., MITH. iawnc,Fe — POI - A.M.reel Dc...e ftadenpl Ville.Ccermeico MI A. xu cmnr Coo Cenral BP C. &rename Per,. • Cwmercel - OaO.Ova-mo Pr1 - Onw BP I. Huanele Pont M16,1 .t _ I6 • Hvey 1ww1•I CAD - ranee• R e 4.W e N Cweelrgmr - art- Pie Mn•nnINM - PwF. R.Fryhn d owe 01w Properties where Electronic Message Centers would be allowed: shown in light grey stripes Attachment: Draft ordinance bt ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31-101 REGARDING ZONING DEFINITIONS, AMENDING CHAPTER 31-509 REGARDING SIGN REGULATIONS, AND ENACTING CHAPTER 31-505, SUBD. 3 REGARDING GARAGE SALE SIGNAGE The City Council of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101 relating to the Zoning Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definitions, which shall be incorporated alphabetically, and the entire section renumbered accordingly: Sec. 31-101. — Definitions. Abandoned sign means any sign and/or its supporting sign structure and appurtenances which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Sign applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. If an abandoned sign remains in good condition and without holes or other evidence of disrepair or damage, the sign shall not be considered abandoned for a period of up to one (1) year, after which time, it must be removed. Awning means a roof -like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal or glass designed and intended for protection from the weather or as a decorative embellishment, and which projects from a wall or roof of a structure primarily over a window, walk, or the like. Any part of an awning which also projects over a door shall be considered an awning. Building sign means any sign attached or supported by any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Commercial speech means any speech promoting a business, profession, commodity, service, or entertainment. Commercial sign means any sign that promotes or identifies a product, business, service, entertainment, or any other matter of a commercial nature. Digital sign. See definition of electronic message center. Directory sign means a sign used to guide pedestrians, but not vehicles, to individual businesses within a multitenant commercial area that is placed on the site of the development and may be erected only in internal pedestrian access areas. 1 Electronic Message Center means a portion of a freestanding sign that is capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that electronically change by remote or automatic means. Footcandle means a measure of illumination on a surface that is one foot from a uniform source of light of one candle and equal to one lumen per square foot. Garage sale sign means a temporary sign promoting a garage or rummage sale. Institutional Sign means a sign identifying a church, school, hospital, government or similar type institution. Marquee means any permanent roof -like structure projecting beyond a building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of that building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather. Monument sign means a sign not supported by exposed posts or poles which is architecturally designed and located directly at grade with a base at least as wide as the sign. Multitenant master sign means an on -premise sign identifying multiple tenants in a single building. Non-commercial sign means a sign for a non-commercial expression not related to the promotion of any product or service or the identification of any business. Non-commercial speech means the dissemination of messages not classified as commercial speech that include, but are not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, social, ideological, public service and informational topics. Non -Electronic Message Center means a sign or portion thereof that has a readerboard for the display of text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic or symbol is defined by objects, not consisting of an illumination device, that may be changed or re -arranged manually or mechanically with characters, letters or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign. Off -Premises sign means a sign normally used for promoting an interest other than that of a business, individual, products, or services available on the premises where the sign is located. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101 relating to the Zoning Definitions is hereby amended by revising the following definitions to read as: Billboard means a non -accessory sign erected for the purpose of promoting a product, event, person or subject no usually related to the premises on which the sign is located. Building sign plan means an illustration that shows size, location, materials and lighting for all signs on a building or group of related buildings. Construction sign means a temporary sign at a construction site identifying the project. 2 Freestanding sign means any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on or anchored in the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure. Historic sign means a sign that is of historical significance or that is an historic resource within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Ch. 116B. Illuminated sign means any sign that contains an element designed to emanate artificial light internally or externally. Marquee sign means any building sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any manner, on a marquee. Political Non-commercial sign means a sign designed for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate, proposition or other measure at an. Portable sign means a sign which is manifestly designed to be transported, including by trailer or on its own wheels, even though the wheels of such sign may be removed, and the remaining chassis or support is converted to another sign or attached temporarily or permanently to the ground since this characteristic is based on the design of such a sign. Projecting sign means a sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than one (1) foot beyond the surface of such building or wall face. Public sign means a sign usually erected and maintained by a public agency that provides the public with information and in no way relates to a commercial activity. Examples of public signs include, but are not limited to, speed limit signs, stop signs, city limit signs, street name signs, directional signs, and historic points of interest. Real estate development sign means a sign intended to sell or promote a development project. Real estate sign means a sign placed upon a property to promote that property for sale, rent or lease. Roof sign means a sign erected and constructed wholly or in part on or above the parapet or eave line of a building. Sign means a letter, work or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, promotion, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for information or communicative purposes. Sign structure means the structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and framework which supports or is capable of supporting any sign. Wall sign means a building sign attached parallel to, but within one (1) foot of a wall, painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any 3 building or structure, which is supported by such wall or building, and which displays only one (1) sign surface. Window sign means a building sign, pictures, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes of glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. SECTION 3. REPEAL AND REPLACE. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-509 relating to the Sign Regulations is hereby repealed and replaced as follows: Sec. 31-509. — Sign regulations. Subd. 1. Findings. As a historic community, this city is unique. The proper control of signs is of particular importance because of this historical quality and uniqueness. The city's zoning regulations have included the regulation of signs in an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote the economic viability of the business community, while protecting the city and its citizens from a proliferation of signs of a type, size, location and character that would adversely impact upon the aesthetics of the community and threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community. The regulation of the physical characteristics of signs within the city has had a positive impact on traffic safety and the appearance of the community. Further, the city finds: (a) Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment. (b) Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of messages. (c) Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and detriments to property values, thereby threatening the public health, safety and welfare. Subd. 2. Purpose. It is not the purpose or intent of this sign ordinance to regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor is it the purpose or intent of this section to regulate any building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed from outside a building. The purpose and intent of this section is to: (a) Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of signs within the city in order to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. (b) Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the city by preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community (c) Improve the visual appearance of the city while providing for effective means of communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the city's goals of public safety and aesthetics. 4 (d) Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein under the zoning authority of the city. Subd. 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this sign ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this sign ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the sign ordinance in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. Subd. 4. Substitution Clause. Signs containing non-commercial speech are permitted anywhere that signs containing commercial speech are permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs. Any sign containing commercial speech may substitute non-commercial speech; any sign containing non-commercial speech may substitute commercial speech or other non- commercial speech; any sign containing commercial speech may substitute other commercial speech. This substitution of speech may be made without any additional approval or permitting. The purpose of this provision is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over non-commercial speech or favoring of any particular non-commercial message over any other non- commercial message. This provision prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary. Subd. S. Permit Required. (a) Unless exempted pursuant to Subdivision 7, no person shall erect, alter, reconstruct, maintain or move a sign in the city without first obtaining a permit from the city. The content of the sign shall not be reviewed or considered in determining whether to approve or deny a sign permit. An application for a permit may be obtained from the community development director or designee. The application must be accompanied by the required fee and must contain the following information: (1) Street address or location of the property on which the sign is to be located along with the name and signature of the owner of the building; (2) Name, address and signature of the owner of the sign; (3) Name, address and phone number of the sign installation contractor; (4) The type of sign as defined in this ordinance; (5) A complete set of plans and scaled drawings showing the materials, design, dimensions, structural supports, method of attachment, internal and external lighting and electrical components of the sign; (6) A site plan showing the location of the proposed sign with dimensions to all adjacent lot lines; (7) An approved building sign plan, if there is more than one business or use in a building; 5 (8) Certification by applicant indicating the application complies with all requirements of the sign code. (b) The community development director or designee shall approve or deny the sign permit within sixty (60) days following receipt of the completed application, including applicable fee. A decision must be made in writing and must be mailed or electronically delivered to the applicant at the address or email address provided in the application. If the permit is denied, the reason must be stated in writing and describe the applicant's appeal rights under Section 31-217 and must be sent by certified mail to the applicant. Subd. 6. General Provisions. (a) The following provisions apply to signs located in all zoning districts: (1) All signs must comply with any applicable design guidelines and neighborhood plans adopted by the City of Stillwater and must meet all the size, location and height standards as required in Section 31-509. (2) Repairs. Any sign located in the city which may now be or become out of order, rotten or unsafe, and every sign which shall hereafter be erected, altered, resurfaced, reconstructed or moved contrary to the provisions in this section, shall be removed or otherwise properly secured in accordance with the terms of this ordinance by the property owners, business owners or by the owners of the grounds on which the sign stands, upon receipt of proper notice to do so, given by the community development director or designee. No rotten or other unsafe sign shall be repaired or rebuilt except in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and upon a permit issued by the community development director or designee. (3) Electrical Signs. Electrical signs must be installed in accordance with the current state electrical code. (4) Placement. (5) i. No sign or sign structure may be erected or maintained if it prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign may be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. ii. A sign must not be erected, positioned, or maintained so as to obstruct the architectural features of a building. iii. All signs must be compatible with the building and neighborhood where located, including any approved building sign plan. Temporary Signs. The use of banners, pennants and similar devices for commercial, industrial and institutional uses shall be subject to the following provisions: 6 i. Temporary signs shall require a permit that shall be valid for no more than thirty (30) days. ii. Not more than one (1) temporary sign shall be displayed upon a property at any one time. iii. Not more than three (3) temporary sign permits, or up to three (3) temporary signs for a total of not more than ninety (90) days, shall be issued during any calendar year. iv. The size of a temporary sign shall not exceed the maximum size allowed for a similar type of permanent sign allowed on the property. v. Free-standing or movable temporary signs shall adhere to any setbacks required for similar permanent signage on the property. vi. The temporary sign shall be in harmony, as determined by the community development director or designee, with the surrounding properties and the neighborhood in which it will be displayed. vii. Notwithstanding the foregoing, temporary signs that do not conform to the requirements of this section may be approved by the City Council as part of an event permit, however, all temporary signs must be removed within two (2) days after the event. (6) Maintenance. All signs must be maintained in a safe, presentable and good structural condition at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, cleaning and other items required for maintenance of the sign. Vegetation around, in front of, behind, and underneath the base of ground signs for a distance of ten (10) feet must be neatly trimmed and free of weeds. Rubbish or debris under or near the sign must be removed. (7) Signs on Public Property or Right -of -Way. i. Except for public signs, signs approved by the City Council pursuant to an event permit, and signs allowed by encroachment agreement, no signs may be erected or temporarily placed within any right-of-way, upon public lands or easements without approval from the community development director or designee. ii. The city may at any time and without notice remove signs which have been installed on public property or within public right-of-way or easement without approval. The sign owner may retrieve the signs: from a designated impound area at the city within fifteen (15) days from the date of removal. After fifteen (15) days, the city will dispose of the sign. The city shall not be liable for any damage to removed signs. (8) (9) iii. The city may grant a permit to locate temporary signs or decorations on, over or within the right-of-way. Flags. Non -Commercial flags may be displayed in accordance with state and federal law. No more than three (3) non-commercial flags may be displayed outside of a building. Historic sign. The requirements of size, location and height in Section 31-509 may be waived by the City Council if the sign is an historic resource or if the sign is a reproduction of an historic sign. (10) Graphic design signs. Graphic design signs require a conditional use permit. (11) Table 1 identifies where various types of signs are allowed and whether the sign is required to have a permit: Sign type Public sign Integral sign Political and related noncommercial signs Political and related noncommercial signs Political sign Holiday sign Construction sign Real estate sign Nameplate sign: 1- 5 Unit Bldg Nameplate sign: Z 6 Unit Bldg Real estate development project sign Window sign Garage sale sign Temporary real estate "open house" sign Wall sign Roof sign Freestanding sign Billboard Awning or canopy sign Projecting sign Three dimensional sign Marquee sign Multitenant master sign Directory sign Electronic message center Institutional sign Notes See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(a) See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(a) Size limit: 6 square Feet; 4 Ft tall; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(b)(2) 35 Square Foot size limit; See Sec 31- 509, Subd 7(6)(2) During exemption period; See Sec 31-. 509, Subd 7(b)(1) Not exceeding 60 days See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(c) See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(d) 2 square feet; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(e) 6 square Feet; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(e) See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(d)(3) See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(F) See Sec 31-505, Subd 3 See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(d)(2) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(2); Subd 9(6)(2); Subd 9(c)(2); Subd 9(d)(3); Subd 9(e)(2) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(h) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(3); Subd 9(6)(3); Subd 9(c)(3); Subd 9(d)(4); Subd 9(e)(3) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(e See Sec 31, Subd 9(a)(4); Subd 9(6)(4); Subd 9(d)(5) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(6); Subd 9(d)(7) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(5) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(6)(4); Subd 9(d)(5) See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(b); Subd See Sec 31-509, Subd 10 See Sec 31-509, Subd 11 See Sec 31-509, Subd 13 A = Allowed without permit P = Permit required N = Not allowed Table 1 Res. Districts CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I HMU CMU CRD PA PWFD PROS A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N NNNNNNN N N N N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A NNN NNNNNNN N N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N P P P P PPPPPP P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P PPPPPP P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P PPPPNN N N N P P P NNJNNNNN N N N P P N N NNNNNN N N N NNN P PPPPNN N N N NNP P PPPPNN N N N NNN P PPPPPP N N N NJNNF NJNPPNP N P P NNN NNJNNNNP N P 8 Subd. 7. Exemptions. The following signs shall not require a permit and are allowed in every zoning district. These exemptions, however, shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection, maintenance and compliance with the other provisions of Section 31-509 or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. (a) Public signs and integral signs. (b) Non -Commercial Signs. (1) In any general election year, all non-commercial signs are exempt from regulation and may be posted in any size or in any number beginning 46 days before the state primary in a state general election year until ten (10) days following the general election and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) days following the special election. (2) A political, non-commercial sign outside the exemption period outlined in Subdivision 7(b)(1) of 31-509, is regulated as follows: i. Residential and CA districts: the maximum sign size is six (6) square feet in area with a maximum height of four (4) feet. ii. All other districts: the maximum size is thirty-five (35) square feet in area. (c) Construction signs. A construction sign must be confined to the construction site and must be removed within two (2) years of the date of issuance of the first building permit or upon completion of the project, whichever occurs first. One construction sign is permitted for each street the project abuts. No sign may exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in multifamily residential, commercial and industrial districts and twelve (12) square feet in single-family residential districts. (d) Real estate signs. (1) A real estate sign is limited to up to six (6) square feet in residential districts and up to thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial districts. A real estate sign must be removed within ten (10) days after sale or rental of property. (2) Temporary real estate "open house" signs, provided that: i. The sign is not placed in a manner that creates a nuisance to adjacent owners, does not create a safety hazard or block the view of entrances to streets or intersections. ii. The sign is placed one-half hour before the open house and is removed each day immediately after the open house closes. 9 (3) iii. A maximum of four (4) signs in a residential zoning district are allowed for each open house and are limited to a four -block radius of the open house. iv. The sign must not exceed six (6) square feet. Real estate development project sign. For a development project of up to 25 acres, one sign not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet of sign surface may be erected on the project site. For projects of 26-50 acres, one or two signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggregated square feet of sign surface may be erected. For projects over fifty (50) acres, up to three signs not to exceed three hundred (300) aggregate square feet of sign surface may be erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet exclusive of supporting structures. The sign may not remain after 95% of the project is developed. The sign must be bordered with a decorative material compatible with the surrounding area. If the signs are lit, they must be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other development is open for conducting business. (e) Nameplate sign. (1) A nameplate sign must be placed on a wall of the structure not exceeding two (2) square feet in area per structure. A nameplate sign shall not be constructed as to have more than two (2) surfaces. (2) A single nameplate sign must be placed on a wall of the structure for each dwelling group of six (6) or more units. The nameplate sign may not exceed six (6) square feet in area per surface and may not be constructed as to have more than two (2) surfaces. (f) Window sign. A window sign, which cannot cover more than one-third of the total area of the window in which the sign is displayed. (g) Garage and rummage sale signs, provided they comply with Section 31-505, Subd. 3. Subd. 8. Prohibited Signs. The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts: (a) Abandoned signs. (b) Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles any official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal. (c) Any sign that obstructs the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic control device. 10 (d) Off -premises commercial signs. (e) Billboard signs. (f) Any sign that moves or rotates, except barber poles and permitted electronic message centers. (g) Signs that display any moving parts, are illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights or are animated, except electronic message centers. All displays must be shielded to prevent any light from impairing the vision of any driver. No device may be illuminated to obscure an official traffic sign or signal, including indoor signs which are visible from public streets. (h) Roof signs. (i) Any sign with banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, string or light bulbs, spinners or similar devices, except where used for noncommercial purposes or as part of an approved sign application. (j) Portable signs including signs with wheels removed, attached temporarily or permanently to the ground. (k) Signs mounted on a vehicle for promotional purposes, parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the related business when the vehicle is being used on the normal day-to-day operations of that business. (1) Signs painted, attached or in any other manner affixed to trees, rocks, or similar natural surfaces, directly on building walls, or attached to public utility poles, telephone cables or wires, bridges, towers, or similar public structures or the supports thereof. (m) Illuminated signs or spotlights giving off an intermittent or rotating beam. (n) Revolving beacons, beamed lights or similar devices. (o) Hot air, gas filled or inflated objects used for commercial speech. (p) Signs supported by guy wires. (q) Signs in a state of disrepair. Subd. 9. Specific Regulations by Zoning District. In addition to the signs allowed in Subdivision 7 of 31-509, the following signs shall be allowed within the specific zoning districts: (a) Central Business and General Commercial Districts. All signs in the CBD-central business or CA -general commercial districts are subject to the following requirements: 11 (1) General regulations: i. In addition to the signs allowed without a permit pursuant to Subdivision 8 of 31-509, only one (1) wall, monument, awning, canopy or three-dimensional sign is allowed per business within the CA -general commercial district. When a building or business abuts two or more public streets and/or public alleys, one (1) sign is allowed on each street building face. ii. In addition to the signs allowed without a permit pursuant to Subdivision 8 of 31-509, two (2) signs are allowed per business within the CBD-central business district. The two (2) allowed signs must be one (1) wall sign and either a three-dimensional sign or a projecting sign. iii. All signs in the CBD-central business district must meet the downtown design guidelines for signs. (2) Wall signs. Wall signs shall meet the following requirements: (3) i. The total building signage may have an aggregate area not exceeding one (1) square foot for each foot of building face parallel or substantially parallel to a street lot line. ii. It must not project more than twelve (12) inches from the wall to which the sign is affixed. iii. It must not project higher than the parapet or eave line of the wall to which the sign is affixed or fifteen (15) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever is less. iv. Externally illuminated letters are allowed, but no internally illuminated signs are allowed. v. Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more permitted uses, the operator of each use may install a wall sign for its use consistent with a building sign plan approved by the City. The total gross signage for the entire building may not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of the building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line with a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet per business. Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall meet the following requirements: i. The area of a monument or freestanding sign may not exceed thirty (30) square feet. ii. A monument or freestanding sign may be located in any required yard but must have a setback of fifteen (15) feet from any point of vehicular access, public roadway and property line. iii. A monument or freestanding sign may not project higher than six (6) feet, as measured from the base of the sign or grade of the nearest roadway, whichever height is less. iv. The area around a monument or freestanding sign must be landscaped. v. Externally illuminated letters are allowed, but no internally illuminated signs are allowed. vi. Pedestrian and vehicular sight lines must not be blocked. (4) Awning or canopy signs. Awning or canopy signs shall meet the following requirements: (5) i. The gross surface area of an awning or canopy sign may not exceed fifty (50) percent of the gross surface area of the smallest face of the awning or canopy to which the sign is affixed. ii. An awning or canopy sign may not project higher than the top of the awning or canopy or below the awning or canopy. Three-dimensional signs. The total area of a three-dimensional sign is determined by enclosing the largest cross section of the sign in an easily recognized geometric shape and computing its area, which may not exceed nine (9) square feet. (6) Projecting sign. A projecting sign shall meet the following requirements: i. The total area of a projecting sign may not exceed six (6) square feet. ii. It must be easily visible from the sidewalk and not be a hazard to pedestrians. iii. If lighted, the sign must be externally illuminated. iv. The bottom of the sign and bracket must be at least eight (8) feet above sidewalk grade. (b) Business Park and Highway Mixed Use Districts. All signs in the BP-O, BP-C, BP- I, HMU and CMU districts are subject to the following requirements: (1) General regulations: In addition to the signs allowed without a permit pursuant to Subdivision 8 of 31-509, a property may have one (1) freestanding 13 sign, one (1) wall sign per business, and as many awning, canopy, marque, or multitenant master signs as provided in subdivision 10(b)(5) of 31-509. (2) Wall signs. Wall signs shall meet the following requirements: (3) i. The gross surface area of a wall sign may not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of building, parallel or substantially parallel to the front lot line. ii. It must be located on the outermost wall of any principal building but may not project more than twelve (12) inches from the wall to which the sign is affixed. iii. It must not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is affixed or twenty (20) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever height is less. iv. Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more uses, the operator of each use may install a wall sign for its use consistent with a building sign plan approved by the City. The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line or a minimum of twenty-five (25) square feet per business, whichever is more. v. Only one (1) wall sign per building face is allowed. Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall meet the following requirements: i. The gross surface area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet for each exposed face nor exceed an aggregate gross surface area of two hundred (200) square feet. ii. A freestanding sign must be set back fifteen (15) feet from the front or side property line. iii. Along State Highway 36, freestanding signs may not project higher than twenty-five (25) feet. Along County Road 5 from Highway 36 to Croixwood Boulevard and South Greely from Orleans to Highway 36 freestanding signs may not project higher than twenty (20) feet. In all other locations, a freestanding sign may not project higher than six (6) feet. Signs shall be measured from the base of the sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever height is less. iv. There may be one (1) freestanding sign per development site. (4) Awning, canopy or marquee signs. Awning, canopy or marquee signs shall meet the following requirements: 14 (5) i. The gross surface area of an awning, canopy or marquee sign may not exceed fifty (50) percent of the gross surface area of the awning, canopy or marquee to which the sign is affixed. ii. A sign may be affixed to or located upon any awning or marquee. iii. An awning, canopy or marquee sign may not project higher than the top of the awning or marquee to which the sign is affixed. Multitenant master sign. Each multitenant or multi -use building is permitted one (1) building master identification sign which meets the following requirements: i. If the multitenant commercial building has a floor area of 40,000 square feet or less, the building may have a freestanding sign with a maximum of one (1) square foot for each five (5) feet of building frontage or forty (40) square feet maximum with a maximum height of eight (8) feet. ii. If the multitenant commercial building has a floor area greater than 40,000 square feet, but less than the 100,000 square feet, the entry may have a master identification sign with a maximum of seventy-five (75) square feet on each side and with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. iii. If the multitenant commercial building has a floor area greater than 100,000 square feet, the building may have a master identification sign with a maximum of one hundred and twenty (120) square feet on each side and with a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet. (c) PA, PROS and PWFD Districts. All signs in the PA, PROS and PWFD districts are subject to the following requirements: (1) In addition to the signs allowed without a permit pursuant to Subdivision 8 of 31-509, one (1) freestanding sign and one (1) wall mounted sign are allowed for each facility. (2) Wall signs. Wall signs shall meet the following requirements: i. The gross surface area of a wall sign may not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of building, parallel or substantially parallel to the front lot line. ii. It must not project higher than the parapet or cave line of the wall to which the sign if affixed. (3) Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall meet the following requirements: 15 i. The gross surface area of any side of a freestanding sign must not exceed 120 square feet. ii. It must be set back fifteen (15) feet from the front or side property line. iii. Along State Highway 36, freestanding signs must not project higher than twenty-five (25) feet. In all other locations, a freestanding sign must not project higher than twenty (20) feet. Signs shall be measured from base of the sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever height is less. (d) Village Commercial. All signs in the VC -Village Commercial district are subject to the following requirements: (1) In addition to the signs allowed without a permit pursuant to Subdivision 8 of 31-509, one (1) other sign is allowed per business. It may be a wall, monument, awning or canopy sign. When a building or business abuts two (2) or more public streets, one (1) sign is allowed on each street building face. (2) All signs in the VC -Village Commercial district must meet the approved Liberty Village design guidelines for signage. (3) Wall signs. Wall signs must meet the following requirements: i. The gross surface area of a wall sign shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of building, parallel or substantially parallel to the front lot line. ii. It must be located on the outermost wall of any principal building but may not project more than twelve (12) inches from the wall to which the sign is affixed. The location and arrangement of all wall signs is subject to the review and approval of the community development director or designee. iii. It must not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is affixed or twenty (20) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever height is less. iv. Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more uses, the operator of each use may install a wall sign upon each share of the building. The signs are subject to the following restrictions: a. All signs must be visually consistent in location, design and scale. b. The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line or a minimum of twenty- five (25) square feet per business, whichever is more. 16 (4) Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall meet the following requirements: i. The gross surface area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet for each exposed face nor exceed an aggregate gross surface area of two hundred (200) square feet. ii. A freestanding sign must be set back fifteen (15) feet from the front or side property line. iii. It shall not be higher than twenty (20) feet measured from the base of the sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever height is less. iv. There may be one (1) freestanding sign per development site. (5) Awning or marquee signs. Awning or marquee signs shall meet the following requirements: i. The gross surface area of an awning or marquee sign must not exceed fifty (50) percent of the gross surface area of the awning, canopy or marquee to which the sign is affixed. ii. A sign may be affixed to or located upon any awning or marquee. iii. An awning or canopy sign may not project higher than the top of the awning or marquee to which the sign is affixed. (6) Multitenant master sign. Each multitenant or multi -use building is permitted one (1) building master identification sign which meets the following requirements: (7) i. Building master identification signs must not contain the names of any tenants or occupants of the center. ii. The multitenant commercial building may have a freestanding sign with a maximum of one (1) square foot of sign for each five (5) feet of building frontage or forty (40) square feet maximum with a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Projecting sign. A projecting sign shall meet the following requirements: i. The total area of a projecting sign must not exceed six (6) square feet. ii. It must be easily visible from the sidewalk and not be a hazard to pedestrians. iii. If lighted, projecting signs must be externally illuminated. 17 (8) Total allowable sign area. The total aggregate sign area allowed on a property for all signs permitted in subparts (d) through (g) above shall be as follows: i. A minimum of one hundred (100) square feet; and at a rate of one (1) square foot of signage for each lineal foot of the building wall facing a public street, up to a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet. ii. When a building faces two (2) or more public streets, the building wall area shall be determined by adding the wall area of each building wall that faces a public street and dividing by the number of public streets the building faces. (e) CRD, Campus Research and Development Districts. All signs in the CRD, Campus Research and Development districts are subject to the following requirements: (1) In addition to the signs allowed without a permit pursuant to Subdivision 8 of 31-509, one (1) freestanding sign and one (1) wall mounted sign are allowed for each facility. However, if the facility is large or consists of several buildings, additional signs may be allowed with a conditional use permit. (2) Wall signs. Wall signs shall meet the following requirements: (3) i. The gross surface area of a wall sign must not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of building, parallel or substantially parallel to the front lot line. ii. It must not project higher than the parapet or eave line of the wall to which the sign if affixed. Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall meet the following requirements: i. The gross surface area of any side of a freestanding sign must not exceed 120 square feet. ii. It must be set back fifteen (15) feet from the front or side property line. iii. Along State Highway 36, freestanding signs must not project higher than twenty-five (25) feet. In all other locations, a freestanding sign may not project higher than twenty (20) feet. Signs shall be measured from base of the sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever height is less. Subd. 10. Directory Signs. Directory signs are used to guide pedestrians to individual businesses within a multitenant commercial area and are permitted in BP, PA and CRD districts. The sign area used in directory signs shall not be calculated against the total allowable sign area. Directory signs in the permitted zoning districts shall meet the following requirements: 18 (a) It must be placed on the site of the development and may be erected only in internal pedestrian access areas and not in vehicle access areas. (b) It must have a maximum area of one (1) square foot for each business listed on the sign and four (4) square feet for the name of the building or complex. (c) It may be freestanding but must not exceed six and one-half (61/2) feet in height. (d) It must only be used for directions and identification. Subd. 11. Electronic Message Centers. Except as provided in (h), an electronic message center is allowed if it meets all of the following requirements: (a) Located only on property zoned PA, PROS or BP-C as specified below: (1) In the BP-C Zoning District an electronic message center must only be located along State Highway 36 in the following corridor of properties listed below and depicted on Map 1: i. Properties abutting 60th Street North between South Greeley Street and South Holcombe Street; and ii. Properties abutting West Frontage Road between South Greeley Street and Market Drive; and iii. Property at 2001-2011 Washington Avenue; and iv. Properties abutting Market Drive between West Frontage Road and Curve Crest Boulevard. (2) In the PROS Zoning District an electronic message center is permitted, but only if it is located on a property with a recreation center or a multiple use park building. (3) In the PA Zoning District an electronic message center is permitted if there is no direct line of sight from a residentially zoned property in Stillwater to the display area of the electronic message center. If there is a direct line of sight, then any message center must be a non -electronic message center not an electronic message center. 19 MAP 1 Properties where Electronic Message Centers are allowed are shown in dark gray Zoning Districts — E.Ceen.Y..o C rp.n. A e A9xuWai Mum.. RA. mg. T., R..C.nY RR •T.e gm" I TR .....e�.�R..ati. - LA. Lag..0...aM. CR. Ca.o. R..0..4w CCRRP. CCons. R...a.... Cnw. CO.. Te.Rww. R.Yanw ▪ TM Tom... AC.. Y.Oun Dewy ReYW.o. - RCM . 419/10... / Re.bru YC. v_ Cen.+MCW - CA • Cw.MM CainvrtW COD • ColM Owens Ortt UDC. Owen. ea, • C evrWTW - se9. sew.. e.n. Once ▪ ee-. Owen.. e... teaser - CRD Cam. kn..Om .s.. - vA. Poet Am..e.aon ▪ MMO5.e.. RCS MID aOpal Spac. may ROAD PATER • (b) Only one (1) electronic message center per property. A "property" for purposes of this section is one lot, or a single building that spreads over several lots, or a campus or integrated cluster of buildings that is owned or managed as a single entity, complex or development. (c) Must be integrated within a freestanding sign and shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the freestanding sign's total allowable area. (d) The copy of an electronic message center shall not change more than once every twenty (20) seconds. (e) Includes functional automatic dimming capabilities that adjusts the brightness to ambient light at all times of the day and night; or the illumination does not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured seventy-one (71) feet from the sign. (f) No off -premises electronic message centers are allowed. (g) All other applicable sign regulations found in Section 31-509 are met. 20 (h) Institutional signs may include an electronic message center if they comply with this Subd 11, the zoning district in Table 1 and the performance standards in Subd. 13. If not, then the institutional sign shall only include a non -electronic message center. Subd. 12. Non -Conforming Signs. It is recognized that signs exist within the zoning districts which were lawful before this sign ordinance was enacted, which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this ordinance or future amendments. It is the intent of this sign ordinance that nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent of this sign ordinance to permit legal nonconforming signs existing on the effective date of this sign ordinance, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, are maintained so as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed subject to the following provisions: (a) No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. (b) Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to an extent greater than fifty (50) percent of its replacement cost and no building permit has been applied for within one hundred and eighty (180) days of when the property was damaged, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. (c) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after it is moved. Subd. 13. Institutional Signs. An institutional sign may be either wall mounted or freestanding. The maximum size of the sign, including any electronic or non -electronic message area, is 32 square feet and is subject to the following: (a) In residential zoning districts only non -electronic message centers are allowed as part of an institutional sign. Electronic message centers are not allowed in residential zoning districts. (b) In the PA and PROS Zoning Districts a non -electronic message center is allowed as part of an institutional sign. If the standards in Subd. 11 (a) (2) or (3) are satisfied, an electronic message center is allowed instead of the non -electronic message center. Subd. 14. Violations. (a) All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the community development director or designee. (b) The city may require the removal or repair, at the owner's expense, of any sign if the requirements of this ordinance are not met. (c) Upon receipt of a notice of violation, the record owner of the property on which the sign or sign structure is located shall take corrective action. If the property owner 21 fails to comply with the corrections outlined in the written notice, the city may initiate any lawful action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation. SECTION 4. ENACTMENT. Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-505, Subd. 3 relating to Garage Sale Signage is hereby enacted: Subd. 3. Garage Sale Signage. A temporary sign promoting a garage sale is permitted, provided that: (a) The sign does not exceed four (4) square feet. (b) The sign is not more than three (3) feet in height. (c) The sign is removed the same day when the sale closes for each day. (d) The sign is permitted by the owner of the property on which the sign is placed. (e) No more than two (2) garage sales per year are held by any address in any calendar year with each sale lasting no longer than three (3) days. (f) The sign may not be placed upon the right-of-way, parks or public property in a manner that creates a nuisance to adjacent owners, creates a safety hazard or blocks the view of entrances to streets or intersections. SECTION 5. 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 sign ordinance has been revised to add additional sign definitions to the general definitions section of the zoning code, add provisions surrounding the use of noncommercial speech, reorganize sections for clarity, move garage sales signs to the residential section of the zoning code, provide consistency in terminology, add electronic message center criteria and otherwise update the ordinance to ensure it is content neutral. SECTION 6. 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 ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk , 2020. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 22 liwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOIA Memo To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Shawn Sanders Public Works Director Date: February 24, 2021 Re: Name the Parks BACKGROUND Back on August 4th, 2020, Council was presented with the Park Board's recommendation for the naming of two parks. 'Millbrook Field West' for the property at TH96 & Manning and 'Old Mill Park' for the Aiple Property. Upon review, Council decided to table the Park Board's recommendation in order to gain further input from the community. Park name suggestions were then received from St. Croix Preparatory Academy we well as a Facebook post. DISCUSSION At the February 22, 2021 Park and Rec Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the names for the Aiple property and selected the top 5; Zephyr Park, Gateway Park, Tamarack Park, Riverside Park, and Old Mill Park. A matrix was created that tallied scores head to head, with 'Riverside Park' receiving the top score. Although the Park Board's top choice was Riverside Park, they recommend submitting the five names to the Council for discussion and to select a name for the Aiple property park. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should discuss and approve a name for the Aiple property park as well as accept 'Millbrook Field West' as the other park property name. Names compiled from Aiple Croix Reserve Aiple Gateway Landing Aiple Landing Aiple Park Aiple's Station Akina Landing Bluewater Landing Buster's Landing Castle Park Cayuga Park Compassion Park Cottonwood Point Croix Landing Croix Mill Commons Dacotah Park Depot Landing Fayette Park Frank's Place Gateway Commons Gateway on the River Croix Gateway Park Gateway Reserve Gateway Timber Mill Park Heritage Park Island View Park Lake St.Croix park Lakehead Park Legacy Landing Legacy Park Limestone Park Log Jam Park Logger's Landing Loggers Mill Park Lumber Barrons Point Lumber Mill Lumberjack Park Memorial Park Mill Landing Mill Pond Mill Road Park Mill Run Park Minnesota Landing Misery Whip Park Mule Landing Not -Just -A Park Okina Landing Mayor's Facebook Old Mill Park Oneota Landing Oneota Park Parky McRiverface River Current View River Mill Park River Rest Park River Run Landing RiverPine Landing Riverscape Park Riverside Landing Riverside Park Riverway Mill Park Rolling Cedar Park Rolling Pine Park Rookery Park Sawmill Park Serenity Park St. Croix Boom Park St.Croix Commons St.Croix hideaway Park Steamboat Park Stillwater Gateway Stillwater Springs Tamarack Park Timber Landing Timber Town Park Timbermark Park Vi's Landing Wild River Gateway Zephyr Overlook St.Croix Prep Suggestions Brown's Creek Riverside Park Aiple's Haven Log Stop Park Riverside Park Zephyr Park COS Staff recs 5/2020 Croix Nature Park Peavey Park Riverside Park St.Croix River Shores Park Tamarack House Park Timber Town Park B-Gateway Park C-Tamarack Park D-Riverside Park E-Old Mill Park A -Zephyr Park A4 B1 A3 C2 A2 D3 AO E5 B-Gateway Park BO C5 BO D5 BO E5 C-Tamarack Park Cl D4 CO E5 D-Riverside Park D5 EO E-Old Mill Park Final Selections Total Riverside Park 17 Old Mill Park 15 Zephyr Park 9 Tamarack Park 8 Gateway Park 1 iliwater THE BRTHPLLEOF M I N N F ti 0 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: REVIEWED BY: Mayor & Council Members February 25, 2021 March 2, 2021 Michael Russ Michael Russ Resubdivision to create a second parcel 819 William St North RB, Two -Family Residential Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator Abbi Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-02 INTRODUCTION The applicant and homeowner, Michael Russ, is requesting to split his lot, 819 William Street North, into two individual lots. This lot is a 15,000 square foot corner lot located at the intersections of Elm Street West and William Street North. There is currently an existing house within the western half of the lot which recently was approved a variance to the rear yard setback in anticipation of a lot split. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of the resubdivisionl of the 15,000 square foot platted parcel at 819 William Street North into two parcels: a 7,500 square foot parcel for the existing house and garage; and a 7,500 square foot vacant lot. ' As defined by City Code Sec. 32-1, Subd. 4(2). Case No. 2021-02 Page 2 ANALYSIS Dimensional Standards Parcel B (Existing House) Parcel A Standard Existing/Proposed Standard Proposed Lot area 7,500 sf 7,500 sf 7,500 sf 7,500 sf Lot width (interior) 50' NA 50' 75' Lot width (corner) 70' 100' NA NA Lot depth 100' 75,2 100' 100' Lot cover: bldg. 25% 19.9% 25% TBD Lot cover: other impervious 25% 8.3% 25% TBD Front setback (William St N): house 20' 26.6' 20' TBD Exterior side setback: (Elm St W): house 20' 29.3' NA NA Interior side setback (east lot line) house 5/15'3 17.2' 5/15' TBD Rear setback (south lot line) house 25' 21.5'4 25' TBD As seen in the table, if the lot is split as proposed, Parcel A (existing house) will remain in conformity. In addition, Parcel B meets the minimum standards for a buildable property in the RB district. Sewer and Water — There is currently sanitary sewer and municipal water at the existing property. And, there are no pending utility assessments for this property. Though, it should be noted that when a building permit is requested for the new building site, utility connection and meter fees will be due on the new home. In 2021 those fees are $3,939.50. Easements - City Code Section 32-1, Subdivision Regulations, Subd. 6, Minimum Design Standards, Subsection (8) requires an easement of ten feet on the front lot lines and five feet on the rear and side lot lines must be provided for public utilities, as well as surface drainage. Also, utility wires cut across the northwest corner of Parcel B in order to serve Parcel A. While staff would like to see these wires buried, a five foot easement favoring the private homeowners will be required on both sides if the utility will continue to cross over 819 William Street North. The easements will need to be submitted to the City prior to release of approved deeds from City offices for recording with Washington County. 2 Due to the historical development pattern of the lots being changed, a reverse corner lot has been created. This in turn has reversed the lot depth and width, so that the lot is now wider than it is deep. The Planning Commission has legitimized the (now) non -conforming lot depth by approving a rear -yard setback variance in a public hearing held on February 24, 2021. 3 A total of both interior side yards of 15', with a minimum of 5'. A variance to the rear yard setback was approved. Case No. 2021-02 Page 3 Park & Trail Dedication — This case has not yet been brought to the Parks Commission, and this must be completed prior to finalizing the lot split. That being said, in cases where neither parks nor trails are planned for the property or its immediate surroundings, the Park Commission often recommends the payment of fees in lieu of land. The fees are $500 for trails and $2,000 for park dedication. ICIAW Mr' RCM 1YtJY_4 J9 R aw F ,50. o0 or PARCEL. 1 a 1.5RQO ,, Ffyce -tom Neighbor Comments - The City received one letter of concern. The letter is from a property to south of 819 William St North. The letter stated that she was not against the lot split, but was concerned about water drainage when another house is built. The letter explained that the space between the 819 William property and 501 Elm Street is like a bowl, and that if the division "leads to a new house being built facing Elm Street, water drainage will need to be engineered carefully." This concern, though, will be addressed during the building permit application process. This property is managed by the Middle Saint Croix Water Management Organization, and any new lot getting developed with over 500sf of impervious surface coverage requires a stormwater management plan. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The City Council has the following options: A. Approve the requested resubdivision with the following conditions: 1. Any substandard drainage and utility easements platted around the lots of the existing parcel must be vacated and new drainage and utility easements must be created by the owner around the two proposed parcels. These easements must be submitted to the City prior to release of approved deeds from City offices for recording with Washington County. 2. The existing utility wires which cut across the northwest corner of Parcel B in order to serve Parcel A, need to be addressed. The wires should be buried. The applicant shall choose one of the following: i. Grant a five-foot easement on both sides of the utility (preferred option by staff) ii. Reroute the wires (underground) so that they do not cross over Parcel B 3. This case shall be brought to the next Parks Commission meeting for their consideration of park and trail land dedication requirements. In the circumstance of fees in lieu of land, a $500 trail fee and a $2,000 park fee will Case No. 2021-02 Page 4 be due to the City for Parcel A upon release of its deed from City offices for recording with Washington County. B. Deny the requested resubdivision. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the requests for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends approving the lot split with the conditions above. Attachments: Location map Certificate of Survey Letter of Concern cc: Michael Russ II x Ada • -,74111110 IR HICKORY W. ELM ST RON WE WEST ELM STREET NB9.45'14"E 150.00 ION. 750.00 009'45'74"W .110 Ro Met AL 301 CORMA UTILITIES NOTES: FOISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 6A5 SHOYM GN AVAILABLE to RECORDS, Lots 2 N 3. mock 12, STAPLES AND MAK AMNION, WaiNnsPo. CwMv TLE NOTE 7.0 MOR TITLE A VICEIVED THAT RECawD LEGAL DESERTION OR ANY .SEtE1.1T5OR .CUMBRANCID DEEM% DR PARCEL SUMMED WE RESERVE THE RIGHT RD .313re THIS SURVEY OWE MID TITLE WORK 15 RECEIVED. EASEMENTS MAY DIRT THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. SURVEY NOTES I. ISEARING5 ME 4WD ON THE SYSTEM RAD 19.3. BEARING MDry1E IFFTDEmINGTONTT SHOWN OHE RECORDED PLAT. AM, INTERIOR ANGLES MATCH THE RECORDED T 1.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GMAT ONE LOCATES AND ANGLES AS-RUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CM' OF snuWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 3. TARE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND ORM., GM, ELECTRIC. ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. PROVEMEN NOVSE-I.z15 pN SDIMM rEEn CONC./5TEP5/PAYus -130 RANDOM WALLS 3s TOTAL MPROVEMENTS = 2,059 SOFT. - 13.RE DEVELOPERENT DATA Toni otanNG PARCEL Mu- 15,00050. ET. PROPOSED ARcu A _ 7,50050. ET. PROPOSED PARCEL B = 7,500 SO ET. PROPOSED DIPROV EMENTs - un.R SUBDIVISION 17 SO, 106.9% PARED. e - TBU (SHED ...ENDUED, RENDUED, PROPOSED LEGATIONS: Elm. pan of Lees 2 and 3. Wasempton no.ABmreQ�M4R 12, STAPLES of AND nmfeu theNol. PARCEL 8 TM moody 75.00 feet of Lou. 2 and 3. Noce 12, STAPLES ANO MACS ADDITION, 169319noton Coon, 1Anne.a. MODES HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD VUTILIA ANDERIsnGMUWMC5. THE SURVEYOR LMLLSNO UC GUARANTEE IN THAT nA OTHE.GBDI OnFInEBA NDWN NED. THE SE SURVEYOR FUR.ER DOES N AREA. TM: THE DUNNDABANDONED. RGROIUIND UTILITIES SHOWN ME IN THE DACT LOCATIONINDICATED ALTHOUGH ROMTM�wRMA THAT A ALAABLEL MS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND NORTH UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBua2031719136 RESPONDSOME TO 0 20 40 MTHE AY LOCATE REQUEST 'ITIIXUL untrnts Or W 1. Wt Mt UNAWARE Gopher State One Call CONTACT' LEADERL 4050 LIADER REAL ESTATE GROUP 612-325-1325 0004S/Pleader-Esq.TOm COUNTY/CITY' WASHI NGTON CO IJ NTY ITV OF STI LLWATER REVISIONS: BATE N n• le z0 SUMOmwED PROJECT LOCATION' WILLIAMS ST. N. PID#2803020210089 1970 NortIme Rion Ave one 651.275.6969 dmotestormY not CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. EREUBNu655 PROJEECT NO. 222065S MINOR SUBDIVISION Graham Tait From: Dana Jackson <danaleej3@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:50 PM To: Graham Tait Subject: Re: CPC2021-02 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Graham, Thanks for sending me the materials about the 819 William St. N. subdivision request. My address is 814 Everett St. N. so part of my lot backs up to the property to be divided. I'm not against it being subdivided, but am concerned about water drainage when another house is built. The application states: " Also, there is ample opportunity for rainwater infiltration on the property because the surface coverage is well below the maximum allowed 50%." However, the space between the 819 William property and 501 Elm Street is like a bowl. If the division leads to a new house being built facing Elm Street, water drainage will need to be engineered carefully. Is water drainage only an issue in an application for a building permit or will it be considered in this variance application? Dana Jackson On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:45 AM Graham Tait <gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us> wrote: Good afternoon, I hope this helps. Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks, Graham Tait City Zoning Administrator City of Stillwater - Community Development 651-430-8818 gtait@ci.stillwater.mn.us i MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council , •Lcj From: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works Date: February 23, 2021 Subject: Local Road Improvement Program Application Approval DISCUSSION This past Minnesota Legislative session, the Legislature approved $75M in funding for the Local Road Improvement Program, (LRIP). The LRIP provides funding for construction costs to counties, cities and township for certain road improvements as long as they meet certain criteria. In looking at future projects, the extension/connection of Curve Crest Boulevard, in the southwest corner of the City would be a candidate for the LRIP. Curve Crest Boulevard is designated as a Municipal State Aid Street has had segments previously constructed on each end and has a 4000-foot gap in the middle that remains in order to complete the segment. Completion of Curve crest Bouleavrd would be categorized as Route of Regional Significance in that the road would provide for future economic development of the Lakeview Hospital site, would provide access to the future hospital, would provide for congestion relief to Highway 36 and it would connect county road system on each end of the road. Construction cost is estimated at $1.8 M, with $1.2M available to the City through the program if successful. A requirement of the application submittal is a resolution from the Council approving the project and pledging support to fund non-LRIP costs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council the approve the resolution approving the Local Road Improvement Program application submittal ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving Resolution No. 2021- RESOLUTION APPROVING LRIP GRANT SUBMITALL City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- RESOLUTION APPROVING LRIP GRANT SUBMITALL WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater is a Municipal State Aid City; and WHEREAS, Curve Crest Boulevard is located in the City and is designated as a Municipal State Aid Street (M.S.A.S. 169-121) WHEREAS, the extension of Curve Crest Boulevard between Manning Avenue South (CSAH 15) and Stillwater Boulevard or (CSAH 5) is listed in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a Planned and Programmed Roadway; and WHEREAS, Curve Crest Boulevard is located between Manning Avenue South (CSAH 15) and Stillwater Boulevard or (CSAH 5); both functional Classified as A Minor Expander; and WHEREAS construction of the TH 36/Manning Avenue Interchange Project (SP 8204-74) will be constructed in 2021 and 2022 and will increase development potential to the northeast corner of the intersection of Manning and TH 36; WHEREAS, the northeast corner of the Manning Avenue Intersection is the proposed location for a new a hospital, new medical office buildings and other office buildings on the site; and WHEREAS, construction of Curve Crest Boulevard from 400 feet east of Manning Avenue to 4000 feet east of Manning Avenue, is necessary to provide for safe and direct access to the new hospital site and will provide an alternate route for regional traffic and local traffic to the hospital site and retail area on the east side of County Road 5; and WHEREAS, Curve Crest will be designated as Municipal State Aid Road and be constructed to Municipal State Aid Standards WHEREAS, the construction cost estimate for the project is $1.79M and planned for construction in 2022-2023 WHEREAS, $75 million in Local Road Improvement (LRIP) funding is available, with a cap of $1.25 million for each project; and WHEREAS, LRIP funds can be used on reasonable elements associated with roadway construction and that other costs; consultant engineering and inspection, utility construction, as well as construction costs above the LRIP award will need to have alternate funding sources; and WHEREAS, the completion of Curve Crest Boulevard would meet the LRIP requirement of Routes of Regional Significance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater; 1. Supports the construction of Curve Crest Boulevard project, and agrees to maintain such improvements. 2. Supports submittal of the LRIP application. 3. Provides assurance that the City will pay all costs associated with the project beyond the LRIP grant award, including additional construction costs, right-of-way, engineering and inspection. Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of March 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Reabar Abdullah, Assistant City Engineer Date: February 26, 2021 Re: ST. CROIX VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (Project 2021-04) DISCUSSION The St. Croix Valley sports complex parking lot was built in 1997. The complex's administration approached the city's Engineering Department to assess the conditions of the parking lot. A walkthrough review of the parking lot pavement shows deep cracks in the pavement, deep potholes, and some curb and gutter damage. The Engineering department has prepared two alternatives for improving the parking lot. The first option would remove/reclaim the full pavement, regrade and apply new pavement to the parking lot. The second option would remove/reclaim full pavement sections over 8 feet wide areas over the existing deep cracks, mill 1.5 inches of pavement over the other parts of the parking lot, and overlay the full parking lot with new layer/s of pavement. In both options, damaged curbs would be repaired, and an extra catch basin would be added towards the southwest end of the parking lot. A decision would be made to adopt an option after the bid opening. Plans and specifications for the St. Croix Valley Sports Complex Parking Lot Improvement Project are complete, and staff is requesting approval for the plans and specifications and authorization to bid. Bid opening is scheduled for April 2nd' and bid results would be presented to Council at the April 7th meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve plans and specifications for the St. Croix Valley Sports Complex Parking Lot Project and order advertisement for bids. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE ST. CROIX VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2021-04. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR ST. CROIX VALLEY SPORT COMPLEX PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT 2021-04) WHEREAS, pursuant to a request from the St. Croix Valley Sport Complex administration, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the St. Croix Valley Sport Complex Parking Lot Improvement Project (Project 2021-04) and has presented such plans and specifications to Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA: 1. The plans and specifications presented by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk is ordered to prepare and cause to be inserted in The Gazette and online at QuestCDN.com the advertisement for bids upon the making of the improvement under the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published once in the Stillwater Gazette and for two weeks online at QuestCDN.com and shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until April 2nd, 2021 at 10:00 am at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Engineer; will then be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at their next regular Council meeting on April 6th, 2021 in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for ten (10) percent of the amount of the bid. Adopted by the Council this 2nd day of March 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Reabar Abdullah, Assistant City Engineer Date: February 25, 2021 Re: 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02) DISCUSSION At the last Council meeting, a public hearing was held for the 2021 Street Improvement Project. During the public hearing, property owners along Maryknoll Drive expressed concern about the increase in traffic, speed, and overall pedestrian safety on the street. Staff has begun to look at traffic calming measures but felt the first step is to obtain data on volume and speed on the street. This can not be done until the spring, when the weather is more appropriate to do such study. When the data is obtained, staff recommend meeting with the neighborhood to discuss potential traffic calming measures. Traffic calming measures could include, Chokers (bump -outs), diverters, traffic circles, speed humps, display signs, etc. Staff feels that this ongoing discussion would continue and that any measures taken would not hold up or delay the project. Plans and specifications for the 2021 Street Improvement Project are near completion, and staff is requesting approval for the plans and specifications and authorization to bid. Bid opening is scheduled for April 2nd' and bid results will be presented to Council at the April 6th meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve plans and specifications for the 2021 Street Improvement Project and order advertisements for bids. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2021 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2021-02. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 2021 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT 2021-02) WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on February 16th, 2021, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02) and has presented such plans and specifications to Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA: 1. The plans and specifications presented by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk is ordered to prepare and cause to be inserted in The Gazette and online at QuestCDN.com the advertisement for bids upon the making of the improvement under the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published once in the Stillwater Gazette and for two weeks online at QuestCDN.com and shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until April 2nd, 2021 at 10:00 am, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Engineer; will then be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at their next regular Council meeting on April 6th, 2021, in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for ten (10) percent of the amount of the bid. Adopted by the Council this 2nd day of March 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk „L.,, Ilwater Administration TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Tom McCarty, City Administrator DATE: February 26, 2021 SUBJECT: Participation and Appointment of Representatives to Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Stillwater has received an invitation from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to participate as a member of the newly created Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission. As a Commission member, the City Council can appoint a primary representative and an alternate to serve on the Commission for a two year term. (See attached letter, draft by-laws and draft workplan elements for the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission.) The first Commission meeting is expected to be held during the 2na quarter of 2021, and thereafter expects to meet quarterly. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution agreeing to participate in the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission, naming a City Council member as the primary representative to the Commission and naming the Community Development Director as the alternative representative for the City. 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 Website: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE LAKE ELMO AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION AND APPOINTING A PRIMARY AND ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY TO THE COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater has been invited by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to participate in the newly created Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission; and WHEREAS, participation in the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission will provide a forum for airport users, stakeholders and community members to interact and advise the Metropolitan Airports Commission on matters concerning the airport; and WHEREAS, as a member of the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission, the City Council can appoint a primary representative and an alternate to serve on the Commission for a two year period; and, WHEREAS, it is in best interests of the City of Stillwater to participate in the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission and appoint representatives to serve on the Commission. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota, hereby supports authorizes participation in the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby appoints Council Member as the primary representative and the Community Development Director as the alternate, to serve on the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission on behalf of the City of Stillwater for a two year term. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 2nd day of March, 2021 CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk d6 rvo 18 � C m 7 C MAC February 12, 2021 Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450 • 612-726-8100 • metroairports.org Mr. Tom McCarty Stillwater City Administrator 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. McCarty: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) invites the City of Stillwater to participate as a member of a newly formed Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission ("Commission"). This Commission will support the ongoing efforts to engage the stakeholders of the Lake Elmo Airport community. This Commission will provide an open and balanced forum for strengthening relationships between MAC, airport users, stakeholders and the community. The proposed membership consists of representatives from surrounding cities, townships, Washington County, airport businesses, pilots and the Experimental Aircraft Association. The role of the Committee will be to participate in discussions about matters concerning the Lake Elmo Airport as well as share information with their respective communities about the Airport. The first meeting is anticipated to held during the second quarter of 2021, with quarterly meetings the remainder of the year. If necessary, virtual meetings will be held due to the health pandemic to be consistent with Governor Walz's directives. Attached are two documents providing more information about the Commission: 1) proposed draft bylaws; and 2) draft annual work plan. We invite the City of Stillwater to appoint a primary representative and an alternate to serve on this Commission for a two-year term. Please provide formal appointment documentation (e.g., resolution or official letter). The representative must be vested to represent their entire constituency. MAC staff will follow-up with a phone call to answer questions you may have about the commission and discuss representation. We look forward to working with your appointed representatives over the next two years. Sincerely, Dana Nelson MAC Director, Stakeholder Engagement Veierin Cc: Joe Harris, MAC Director, Reliever Airports Minneapolis -St. Paul International • Airlake • Anoka County -Blaine • Crystal • Flying Cloud • Lake Elmo • St. Paul Downtown DRAFT BYLAWS OF LAKE ELMO AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (LEAAC) ARTICLE I The name of this organization shall be the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." By appointing representatives to this Commission, the appointing authorities do hereby endorse the purpose and goals as identified in these bylaws and authorize and support the Commission as an advisory body to the respective appointing bodies. ARTICLE II PURPOSE AND GOALS GOAL: This Commission is formed to further the general welfare of the community and the Lake Elmo Airport, a public airport in the City of Lake Elmo, County of Washington, state of Minnesota, through minimizing or resolving problems created by the aircraft operations at the airport. PURPOSE: 1. The Commission shall advise the community and the Metropolitan Airports Commission with regard to all matters affecting the Lake Elmo Airport, the classification, rules and regulations supplied to the operation of the Airport and the development of lands adjacent to the Airport. 2. The Commission shall cooperate with the Metropolitan Airports Commission staff in reviewing matters affecting the use and control of the Lake Elmo Airport. 3. The Commission shall make its recommendations to the Metropolitan Airports Commission regarding any proposal affecting the use or operations of Lake Elmo Airport. ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP 1. Officially designated representatives and their alternate representatives shall be appointed to serve for two (2) year terms and until their successor is appointed. Vacancy shall be filled by the appointing authority for a new two (2) year term commencing with the date of appointment of such successor representative. 2. In addition to the designated USER and PUBLIC Representatives (or their appointed alternate), non -voting membership to the Commission may include TECHNICHAL ADVISORS. TECHNICAL ADVISORS — Officially recognized organizations or agencies may be called upon to advise the Commission that include: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Metropolitan Airports Commission Board Members or staff, and any other organization or agency that can provide technical assistance to matters of interest to the Commission. 3. Voting membership of the Commission is as follows: Public Representatives (Official City Council, Town Council or County Appointment) One (1) representative from City of Bayport One (1) representative from Baytown Township One (1) representative from City of Lake Elmo One (1) representative from City of Oak Park Heights One (1) representative from City of Stillwater One (1) representative from West Lakeland Township One (1) representative from Washington County User Representatives (Airport Manager Appointment) Two (2) representatives from Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 54 Four (4) representatives from airport business or at -large airport user One (1) representative from airport FBO Both Public and User representatives must be vested to represent on behalf of their entire constituency and vote accordingly. ARTICLE IV VOTING RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP 1. A quorum at all meetings of the Commission shall consist of attendance by three (3) USER REPRESENTATIVES and three (3) PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES, or duly designated alternatives. 2. Each USER and PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE, or a duly designated alternate, shall have one (1) vote. 3. The Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of membership provided that notice of such proposed amendments shall have been given ten (10) days prior to the Commission meeting. Voting may be conducted via email, or by members in attendance at a meeting in -person or through use of virtual collaboration tool. ARTICLE V CO -CHAIRPERSONS The representatives shall elect by majority vote from membership present (in -person or through use of virtual collaboration tool) at the time of voting two (2) chairpersons; one (1) from the PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE constituency and one (1) from the USER REPRESENTATIVE. The chairpersons will alternate conducting chairperson duties from one meeting to the next. The Chairpersons shall serve for a two (2) year term or until his/her representation on the Commission terminates, whichever occurs first; and until his/her successor is elected. The powers and duties of the Chairpersons are as follows: 1. To preside at all meetings of the Commission. 2. To call special meetings of the Commission as he/she deems necessary, or upon request by two (2) USER or two (2) PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES. 3. To sign as Chairpersons of this Commission, with the approval of the membership, certifications and other papers and instruments in writing that may require such signature. 4. To perform such other duties and tasks as these Bylaws or as the membership shall from time to time prescribe. ARTICLE VI RULES OF ORDER 1. All administrative support will be provided by a staff member of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2. All record retention will be provided by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. 3. Meetings will be held on a semi-annual basis at a minimum. 4. Membership will establish the location of meetings. 5. Roberts Rules of Order will preside on issues of disagreement. 6. Financing of the Commission initiatives relative to the respective constituencies will be provided by that constituencies appointing authority, or as other sources of funding are established. LEAAC Draft Work Plan (2021-2022) 1. NAP and pilot guide 2. Airport 101 3. Noise 101 4. Environment 101 5. Mobile Noise Monitoring Study 6. Monitor developments on airport 7. Receive updates about Land -use developments (comp plan updates, etc.) 8. Airport Tour 9. Celebrate runway grand -opening Summer 2022 fflwateL FYI THE H i R T H P L R L E [I F M INN E S B! A TO: Mayor & Council Members MEMO DATE: February 25, 2021 RE: Pending apartment project on 3rd and Myrtle FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Nathan Landucci of Landucci Homes plans to submit a planning application on February 26th for a market rate apartment building on the Whitcomb property on 3rd and Myrtle as well as on the neighboring Balay lot. The Balay residence would remain in place, but the apartment building would wrap around it. As you will see on the attached site plan, the City owns slivers of land in the Balay rear yard. These slivers are for the retaining walls constructed when the parking ramp and adjacent parking lot were built. If approved by the City, these retaining walls would be replaced by the apartment building foundation. The City Council will see the application in a month or so. At that time the developer will ask for approval of the project and permission to buy the slivers of land on which the retaining walls are located. Attachment: Narrative and site plan bt February 19, 2021 Abbi Jo Wittman City Planner 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Narrative Dear Abbi, This is a formal request to the City Council for their consideration in transferring ownership of a small irregular strip of city owned land to our private locally owned entity that would own and manage the proposed apartment building. In this application we have submitted a preliminary site plan that shows the land assembly of 4 parcels owned by Jon Wittcomb, 1 parcel owned by Mark and Catherine Balay and the proposed acquisition of the city owned land denoted in red crosshatching. I currently have control of both the Wittcomb and Balay properties; the sites are under contract. The city's property that I am looking to acquire has 2 retaining walls. The walls retain dirt due to elevation changes by the the city's parking ramp and bridge to the ramp. Our structural engineer's opinion is that we will be able to remove portions of these walls in our proposal to redevelop the site. Our Architecture, Engineering and Civil plans will show how our building and retaining walls can sufficiently retain the soils during construction and upon completion of the project. The city would also take advantage of the fact that those existing retaining walls would no longer have to be the responsibility of the city to maintain and monitor. Please refer to the engineering opinion by my structural engineer, Kerry Rauschendorfer; Larson Engineering. His letter details further explanation of the current conditions and the steps we would take to ensure the construction and engineering details are acceptable to the city. Our site plan also shows the interconnected design with existing city parking and shows a net benefit of an additional 3 parking spaces. Our attached concepts shows elevations and floor plans of the proposed 54 unit market rate apartment building. We plan to promptly submit a planning and design application but per city staff request, the current application has to occur first. I appreciate the consideration of City staff and City Council in this matter. Best Regards, Nathan Landucci; Landucci Homes, Inc. PROPOSED NEW PROPERTY LINE ADD PARKING AND UPDATE SIDEWALK UILING 50SF • TPRI NT EXIST SINGLE FAM I LY HOME TO REMAIN E� EPS� ��E M`(R 15'-0" 0 30'-( 107 3RD STREET NORTH, STILLWATER UYilSite U 4931 W.35THST.,#200 ST. LOUIS PARK. MN 55416 Office: 612.615.0060 www.CivilSiteGroup.com Project Number: Issue Date: 21043 2/18/21 Revision Number: Revision Date: EX 1 Washington ---------County County BOARD AGENDA March 2, 2021 - 9:00 AM Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Declaration declared by the Governor of the State of Minnesota and Declaration of Local Emergency issued by the Washington County Board of Commissioners on March 17, 2020, some or all of the county board members may participate by video conference, telephone or other electronic means and the Board meeting will be conducted pursuant to and in compliance with Minnesota Statute 13D.021. The County Board meeting will be conducted at the regular meeting location of the Board Room, Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, MN. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, or view/monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location via live web stream. Board of Commissioners Fran Miron, District 1 Stan Karwoski, District 2 Gary Kriesel, District 3 Wayne A. Johnson, District 4 Lisa Weik, Chair, District 5 Members of the public who wish to share their comments or concerns on any issue that is the responsibility or function of Washington County Government, including the items that are listed on this agenda, may provide that comment via email at administration@co.washington.mn.us, or by telephone at 651-430-6001. Any comments of concerns shared, either prior to or during the board meeting, will be provided to each county commissioner. 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 February 9, 2021, County Board meeting minutes. B. Approval to appoint Temmy Olasimbo, Woodbury, to the Community Development Agency Board of Commissioners as a District 5 Representative, to a partial first term expiring December 31, 2022. C. Approval to appoint Don Pereira, Afton, to a partial first term expiring November 14, 2023, as a Manager on the Valley Branch Watershed District. D. Approval to appoint John Brach, West Lakeland, to a partial first term expiring November 14, 2022, as a Manager on the Valley Branch Watershed District. 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 Washington County Consent Calendar continued E. Approval to appoint Wendy Ward, Marine on St. Croix, to the Groundwater Advisory Committee as a Municipal Government Representative, to a partial first term expiring December 31, 2023. F. Approval to appoint Shelley Quam, Oakdale, to the Mental Health Advisory Committee as a District 2 Representative, to a partial term expiring December 31, 2023. G. Approval to appoint James Lovold, Oakdale, to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee as a District 2 Representative, to a partial term expiring December 31, 2023. H. Approve Contract No. 13954 with Stepping Stone Emergency Housing in the amount of $240,000 for the period of February 15, 2021, through January 31, 2022. I. Adopt a resolution providing a favorable recommendation to the Department of Revenue for conveyance of tax forfeited lands to the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Scandia by conditional use deed. J. Adopt a resolution setting a public auction of tax forfeited land April 9, 2021, approving the tax forfeited land Auction List #2021-1, terms for the sale and setting the appraised value and basic sale price of the parcels to be sold. K. Approval of an application for renewal of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License for VR US Holdings, Inc., Afton Alps Resort, located in Denmark Township. L. Approval of an application for renewal of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License for the Disabled Veteran's Rest Camp Association, located in May Township. M. Adopt a resolution of support for Washington County's application to the Metropolitan Council to pursue funding from the 2021 Regional Parks System Competitive Equity Grant Program in the amount of $400,000 for capital projects and non -capital expenses that will strengthen equitable usage of regional parks and trails. N. Adopt a resolution to submit two applications for state funding through the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Local Road Improvement Program. O. Approve the 2020 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Agreement No. 13978 between the Minnesota Depai tuent of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and the Washington County Sheriffs Office, in the amount of $183,750 for the period of January 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. 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 Washington County 4. 9:10 Washington County Community Development Agency - Karly Schoeman, Deputy Executive Director A. Adopt a resolution to approve Substantial Amendment to Washington County's 2019 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant, and authorizing submission of such grant request to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. 9:25 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator A. Legislative Update 6. 9:40 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. 9:55 Executive (Closed) Session - Public Works A. Executive (closed) session pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.05 subd. 3(c) to review the appraisal for the property located at PIDs 05.031.20.33.0001 and 06.031.20.44.0001 as it pertains to its purchase for inclusion into Big Marine Park Reserve. 9. 10:40 Adjourn 10. 10:45 Board Workshop with Public Works A. Update on the MOVE Washington County Wayfinding Plan, which establishes a long-term vision for wayfinding signage along Washington County trails. 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