Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-03-16 CC Agenda Packet
March 16, 2021 City Council Zoom 7 pm Meeting 4 Larry Odebrechi [helYim}Councd._ X ItOn Land.-[� .r SFD er ,a .S Shawn Sanders Dave Krugler (R... Todd Ganz Jim SFD watchroom X Drs'Pad A►2 Robin Anthony,... Calyssa Hall - Th... Tom Robert Paul J. W. X .r an X = rPadPauI Gadrdan. I WI^ Li 39 1 Mute Step Olden SeewN, Pimecents Cent Shire Seine, Record Renner!, 111 0■ l l el 10,11 gi•■ ',,- . a ite ■•■ 0 Participants i371 Waking Room I21 - Message Admit ali Cardin Melva Claire In tlse Meeting I371 isenh wolf tHoSt mey 4 t� 0 Rase Holman [CO•hOSt1 A I� Dave lunex= 4 Cm Larry Odetoetrit ihereirr Cow— 4 Cb © SalArater Ley Hail 4 cn Qamy .1 C]t QMtany .Ds4s ▪ An A •� 0 Beth wrnson .41ii/ Bill iumhlad X 0 Q cm( $' 0 • Calyssi Ham • The Zephyr Theatre #Qh O Chad Brian Mueller # t� Dave Krugler Mist Engineermg) 0 Drs'Pad Air 2 g C7s 0 Eric Laumeyer dV 0 FD Finance Director, Sharon Provos 4' Os Si ahratrr Lily 11.0 i tafk ing.. N VAT•'• Paul J. W. JA Steven's iPad Beth Harrison Eric Laumeyer Kim Nelson, NCS... CAK Lori Rose Holman F Awl Stillwater AV VAN Claire Amy & Dan Staf... Joel Hauck .0A1 Peter Mayer Tom Hoaley M Wilde Connecting to audio .•• onnecting In audio •.• Pareidpante RR) Dl :Ind a parlscipanr Bete wolf (Host me) Rose Holman (Co -how pare Ainker Stillwater City flap O amy O Amy & Dan Stvffer O Anthony O An • Seth Harmon 113 Bill TvntJad 6 CaMin Mejia g g Calyssa Mail • The Zephyr Theatre ,` Q4 0 Chief Ethan Moeller 0 Claire mdove Krugfer IRFC Engineering] m Dis ipad Air 2 ,( ® Eric Laumeyer qy IDDirector Sharon Provos %! 01 aipad .. OrPad .. DP a levee Metre All 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 REVISED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation - Athlete Anthony Nelson 2. Proclamation - Colorectal Cancer Awareness month 3. Proclamation - Chris Rigney Retirement - Resolution 4. Proclamation - Jon Bell Retirement - Resolution V. 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. VI. STAFF REPORTS 5. Public Works Director 6. Police Chief 7. Fire Chief 8. Finance Director 9. Community Development Director 10. City Clerk 11. City Attorney 12. City Administrator VII. 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. 13. March 2, 2021 regular and recessed meeting minutes 14. Payment of Bills 15. CPC Case No 2019-25 to consider amending the City's sign regulations - Ordinance 2nd Reading 16. Lake McKusick Sediment Removal Project Cost Share Agreement with BCWD - Resolution 17. Recording Secretary Wage Rate Increase - Resolution 18. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Inspection Project 19. Support the Development of a Complete Streets Policy - Resolution 20. Washington County Construction Agreement on Hwy 36/Manning Ave Project - Resolution 21. White Pine Ridge (Whitcomb) Variance - Resolution 22. 819 William Street North Subdivision - Resolution 23. Utilities Commission Appointment of Heidi Rutter VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less. 24. CPC Case 2021-03 and Case 2021-10 to consider a request for an 11-Lot Preliminary Plat, Concept Planned Unit Development, Rezoning from AP to RB PUD, and an appeal request by Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development for the Planning Commission's denial of a variance from the required 100- foot setback from Hwy 96. Property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd. Notice was published in Stillwater Gazette and mailed to affected property owners on February 12, 2021 and March 5, 2021. - Ordinance 1st Reading and 2 Resolutions IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 25. 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. Tabled from March 2, 2021 Council meeting. 26. Creating Stakeholder Group for Expansion to St Croix Rec Center - Resolution 27. Financing Bid for Ameresco's Energy Efficient Improvement Project - Resolution 28. Temporary Outdoor Use Sales Permit Extension - Resolution X. NEW BUSINESS 29. Parking Mitigation Fees 30. Potential Hosting of the World Snow Sculpting Championship Event XI. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XII. CLOSED SESSION 31. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §13D.05, Subd. 3(b) for confidential attorney -client discussion regarding pending litigation in the eminent domain matter City of Stillwater v. John M. Ustipak, et al. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Agenda March 16, 2021 Beth Wolf From: Larry Odebrecht Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:18 PM To: Beth Wolf; Bill Turnblad Subject: Fwd: Opposition to proposal by Todd Ganz and Integrity Development One more to include if possible. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Tom and Patty Hooley <tbhpfh@comcast.net> Date: March 16, 2021 at 4:04:45 PM CDT To: Ted Kozlowski <tkozlowski@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Larry Odebrecht <LOdebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, David Junker <djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Ryan Collins <rcollins@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Mike Polehna <mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Opposition to proposal by Todd Ganz and Integrity Development [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. Mayor Kozlowski and council members, I wanted to write a very brief note to state my opposition to the proposal by Todd Ganz and Integrity Land Development. My opposition is based on a number of factors including the requested variance for the private road which would enter onto Oak Glen Trail. I believe that the opinions and voices of the residents should hold much more weight with the council than the request of the out of town developer. Every one of the residents near the proposed road has voiced opposition to this proposal. And, candidly the fear of many of the people that I have spoken with, is that the voice of the residents simply does not matter. This opinion has been formed by watching the actions of Mr. Ganz as he went far beyond what was allowed as he removed the buffer between his development and Heifort pond. I personally spoke with Mr. Ganz as he was cutting the trees that were supposed to have been protected. He told me directly that the city had given him permission to cut the trees and that he could "cut every branch to the top of the trees" if he wanted to. We then found out that this was not the truth —Yet he did it anyway. The city is now entertaining granting re -zoning and variances that would allow yet more harm to our existing neighborhood. I respectfully ask you to deny this proposal. Sincerely, Tom Hooley 2250 Oak Glen Court Stillwater, MN 55082 i Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS A-1 Hydraulic Sales & Service Ace Hardware Action Rental Inc. Advance Auto Parts Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Armor Security Inc. Aspen Mills Axon Enterprises BHE Community Solar BlueCross BlueShield of MN Inc. Boyer Trucks Brownells Inc Campion Barrow & Associates CCP Industries Century Link Cintas Corporation Coca-Cola Distribution Cole Papers Comcast Compass Minerals Computer Integration Technologies Coremark Metals Corval Constructors Custom Fire Apparatus Dalco DCA Title ECM Publishers Ehrhart James & Mary Emergency Automotive Flaherty & Hood P.A Force America Goodyear Commercial Tire Gopher State One Call Inc. Graffiti Solutions Inc. Grainger Guardian Supply Hagen Fireplace Solutions Helkes Tree Service Heritage Embroidery & Design Heritage Printing Inc. Holiday Companies Holiday Credit Office IAPE International Code Council IState Truck Center Kelly & Lemmons PA Lake Country Door LLC Lametti and Sons Inc Equipment repair supplies Supplies Carpet cleaner Equipment repair supplies Locksmith services Quarterly Monitoring Service Boots and charger - Pasket Tasers & equipment Solar Energy Retiree Health Ins Equipment repair supplies Supplies Law Enforcement Testing Big roll white towel Telephone Uniforms & mat cleaning Beverages for concessions Janitorial supplies Internet & Voice Salt Heirloom & Landmark Website Equipment repair supplies Equipment repair supplies Vehicle repair charges Janitorial Supplies Certificate of title Publications Utility Billing refund Strip equipment from vehicle Classification services Equipment repair supplies Tires Locates Graffiti remover In/Out Board for PD Uniforms SWAT Permit refund Remove trees on riverbank for river walk project Uniforms Rate increase notice Vehicle washes Fuel Membership Code Equipment repair supplies Prosecution Equipment repair supplies Greeley Lift Station 349.69 267.28 27.00 123.93 207.00 84.00 288.90 7,761.25 4,579.01 5,635.50 1,363.05 554.73 880.00 146.65 470.85 364.84 602.66 229.49 467.79 23,885.51 67.50 200.78 469.00 2,741.07 156.14 100.00 298.40 221.25 344.37 360.00 452.77 2,580.58 95.85 395.00 116.06 10,950.94 111.00 53,075.00 124.00 405.75 350.00 273.08 50.00 559.52 1,655.02 8,333.00 249.50 84,265.66 Lawson Products League of MN Cities Ins Tr League of MN Human Rights Commissions LeVander Gillen Miller PA Lincoln National Life Insurance Co Loffler Companies Lone Oak Companies Inc MacQueen Equipment Inc. Mansfield Oil Company McGath James Menards Metro Sales Inc. Metropolitan Council Motorola Solutions Inc. MP Nexlevel LLC NAPA Auto Parts Newman Signs Northern Tool Northstar Companies Office Depot OnSite Sanitation Otis Elevator Company Pavek Kimberly PDQ.com Performance Plus LLC PermitWorks LLC Post Board Postmaster Praxair Ditribution Quill Corporation Regents of the U of M River Valley Printing Inc. Rogness Chad Safe Fast Inc Safety Signs Stillwater Collision and Mechanical Stillwater Motor Company Stillwater Towing Streichers Summit Companies SW/WC Service Cooperatives Thomson Reuters TimeMark Inc. Titan Machinery Shakopee Toll Gas and Welding Supply Tri-State Bobcat US Bank Valley Trophy Inc. Verizon Wireless Vinco Inc Equipment repair supplies Workers Comp Insurance Membership Professional Services COBRA Life Insurance Software maint renewal Utility Bill Processing Reaper Fuel Reimburse for Work Boots Supplies Copier lease Wastewater Charge & SAC Mobile equipment Locating Fuel filters Sign supplies Supplies Covid supplies Office supplies Portable Restroom Elevator Repair Dog license refund Renewal PDQ Drug screen Permits software Renewal 1st Class Presort PI #206 Cylinders Office supplies Shade tree short course Business Cards Reimburse for work boots Supplies Pyramid Bollards Vehicle repair Vehicle service Towing service Ammo Annual Sprinkler Inspection Retiree Health Insurance Information Charges Supplies Equipment repair supplies Cylinders Equipment repair supplies Paying Agent Fees Name plate Wireless Service Traffic barriers Page 2 267.89 83,655.00 100.00 13,210.91 3.60 6,783.14 2,336.82 1,800.00 6,613.69 200.00 1,854.33 44.00 176,916.32 4,238.65 343.75 63.57 2,358.21 19.32 825.00 358.84 1,407.00 2,357.50 60.00 1,800.00 45.00 4,485.00 540.00 490.00 60.85 325.89 300.00 98.00 199.99 262.84 550.00 17,127.98 867.59 560.00 904.30 912.00 62,375.57 301.18 215.99 204.00 40.99 895.48 500.00 17.50 3,273.31 6,000.00 Page 3 Washington Cty Fire Chief Assoc. Xcel Energy York International Corp LIBRARY Ace Hardware Amazon Business Baker and Taylor Blackstone Audio Brodart Co Comcast Community Thread Culligan of Stillwater Ebsco Publishing Faurot Kimberly Hedin Sue Master Mechanical Inc. Menards NAC Mechanical and Electrical Services Nilfisk Otis Elevator Company Scholastic Inc ADDENDUM Ace Hardware Ballis Tom Cintas Comcast Emergency Automotive Enterprise FM Jefferson Fire Parallel Technologies Post Board Pro-Tec Design Simplifile Springbrook TBEI Crysteel Voyant Communications Washington County Sheriffs Office Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 16th day of March, 2021 Mayor Ted Kozlowski Membership Energy Equipment repair supplies Supplies Programs Materials Materials Materials Internet - March Membership Water Li b ra ryAwa re Staff Reimbursement Staff Reimbursement RTU#4 Not Heating Supplies Reprogram VAV2-13 & UH-7 Floor Scrubber Elevator Service Agreement Materials Supplies Reimburse for training Uniforms Internet Vehicle Repair Vehicle Leases Equipment Dome BAS MSA Renewal Milestone camera server upgrade Filing Fees Civic Pay Supplies Phone 2021 SWAT Insurance 50.00 22,343.55 580.00 3.98 414.20 125.52 80.58 7,529.51 376.12 80.00 14.85 966.08 115.97 116.45 968.68 21.12 208.00 4,420.30 2,908.94 1,482.00 50.36 1,383.75 55.20 120.30 189.96 9,824.80 2,140.06 2,790.00 90.00 1,020.00 100.00 295.00 308.04 565.80 578.40 TOTAL 688,778.89 Stiliwater Administration Date: March 16, 2021 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Beth Wolf, City Clerk SUBJECT: Utilities Commission Appointment Staff published the opening on the Utilities Commission, three applications were received and interviews were conducted. Steve Speedling, Chair and Council Liason Polehna has indicated they would like to recommend appointing Heidi Hutter for a three year term with a term ending May 1, 2024. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council agrees with the recommendation, they should pass a motion to approve the appointment of Heidi Hutter to the Utilities Commission. Beth Wolf From: Bill Turnblad Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:02 AM To: 'Tom Ash' Cc: Beth Wolf Subject: RE: Heifort Heights Tom, I'll ask our City Clerk to add your comments to the City Council agenda packet. She sent the main packet out Friday to Council Members, but will send out a supplemental packet Tuesday before their meeting. Bill Original Message From: Tom Ash [mailto:tomash2429@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 5:42 PM To: Bill Turnblad <bturnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Heifort Heights [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. I have spoken with you both before and after the Planning Commission meeting. My wife, Linda, and live at 1943 Swenson St. Stillwater. We wish to protest Mr. Ganz's proposed development. We find the routing of the access road very objectionable due the proximity of the proposed road and believe the intersection will be unsafe. We question the wisdom of placing new homes within the 100' Highway 96 right of way. We believe that the homes will have a noisy backyard due to all the traffic, much of it trucks, on Highway 96. We believe that the development will have a negative impact on the culture and safety of our community. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sent from my iPhone 1 esc REUTERWA LTON mwormo 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 65 City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021 - xxx CREATING A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF A POSSIBLE CURLING FACILITY AND CONNECTOR ADDITION ON THE ST. CROIX VALLEY RECREATION CENTER SITE WHEREAS, representatives of the St. Croix Curling Center and other users of the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center have requested the City Council of the City of Stillwater to consider construction of a curling facility and connector addition on the City's recreation center site; and WHEREAS, the Stillwater City Council approved a resolution in May, 2020 to support the concept of allowing a curling facility on the City's recreation center site provided it benefits the general public, is located on a designated area of the recreation center site, and the St. Croix Curling Center was given three years to raise sufficient funds to construct the facility; and WHEREAS, since May of 2020, the St. Croix Curling Center has updated design alternatives for the connection of a curling center to the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center, involved other groups in the planning process and presented an updated curling center project proposal to the City Council in January 2021 that is expanded in scope, complexity and cost; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interests of the City to create a stakeholder group to define the scope of a possible curling center and connecter addition on the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center site, engage a facilitator to conduct the scoping process, and present a summary scoping document for City Council approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Stillwater City Council hereby creates a St. Croix Valley Recreation Center Expansion Stakeholder Group with representatives from the City Council, the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center, St. Croix Curling Center, Stillwater Area Hockey Association, Stillwater High School Hockey, Stillwater High School Lacrosse, Saint Croix Soccer Club, City staff and other appropriate groups as determined by the City Council to conduct a scoping process for a possible curling center and connector addition expansion to the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Stillwater will engage a facilitator to manage the scoping process with the Stakeholder Group for a possible curling center and connector addition expansion to the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center, and upon completion, the Stakeholder Group will provide a summary scoping report to the City Council for consideration and approval. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 16th day of March, 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk World Snow Sculpting CHAMPIONSHIP STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 2022 a 64. 'l J• - � v Seta a 1► OBJECTIVE To bring tens of thousands of people to Stillwater, Minnesota to view world -class snow sculpting and ice carving events. 4b EXPERIENCE -WINTER FUN Winter Fun, Inc. was founded in 1984. Don Berg is the Event Director and Co -Founder. Fred Raasch has run operations for 25 years and has served as the board chair since 2013. National experience: • Winter Fun has rights to, and has produced 35 United States National Snow Sculpting Competitions, with the last 23 being held in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin • Winter Fun sanctions the individual US state events where the winners qualify to compete in United States National Competition International experience: • Winter Fun is a founding member of the Association International de Sculpture sur Neige et Glace (AISNG) • AISNG sanctions snow sculpting events around the world • Winter Fun has produced 17 International Events in the United States • Winter Fun produced the Olympic International Snow Sculpting Competition in Calgary, Canada • Don Berg has competed in snow sculpting competitions around the world 2022 —February 9th A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE Twelve snow sculpting teams from around the world will kick off the 1st Annual World Snow Sculpting Championship today in Stillwater, Minnesota on the banks of the St. Croix River in Lowell Park. The three -person teams will begin carving at 11:OOAM today and need to complete their sculptures by 11:OOAM on Saturday, February 12th. The winners will be announced on Sunday at 3:OOPM at an awards ceremony. Voting for the People's Choice Award can be done at the site on Saturday, or via text message. For more information on this event go to www.WorldSnowSculptingChampionship.com. HOST RESPONSIBILITIES Core duties include but are not limited to the following. Equipment • Snow making and snow moving equipment • Lights for night sculpting and viewing, and colored lights to showcase the finished piece • Sound system for public address information and background music • Video equipment for interviews with team and spectators, hospitality events and possible time-lapse for future promotion material Personnel • Night site security surveillance • Interpreters for teams and celebrity judges • Volunteers as needed Team Support • Comfort area and secure equipment storage Attendee Support Materials • Team signs, sponsor banners and flag poles • Peoples choice ballets, ballet boxes and on-line voting • Refreshments and souvenirs Legal • General liability insurance, hold harmless agreement, waivers • Permits as required, and for hydrant meter for water used to make snow WSSC RESPONSIBILITIES Core duties include but are not limited to the following • Event Management Staff • Event director, general manaaar Cnn1A, form & site set-up crew, support staff and team recruiter. • This team will work with the chamber to plan and coordinate every aspect of the design, management and execution of this event. • Snow Forms and Blocks • Manpower and supplies for the creation of the snow forms and snow blocks. • Team Equipment • Provide basic tools and ladders for each team. • Rules • Provide and enforce all rules as it pertains to teams and snow sculpting parameters. • Judging • Administrator judging and authenticate results. • Calendar Schedules • For teams: Required participation for sculpting, ancillary events, meals, and meetings. • For full event: Detailed schedule and calendar for all aspects leading up to and during of the event. INVESTMENT ESTIMATE INITIAL INVESTMENT ESTIMATE: $12,000 to $16,000 WSSC to build custom snow form and purchase ladders, and basic carving tool: $8,000 to $12,000 WSSC event creation, initial planning, production schedule and line-up resources: $2,000 WSSC to work with other international events for team recruiting and cross promotion: $2,000 ANNUAL EXPENSE ESTIMATES: $75,000 to $120,000 WSSC Planning, production, travel and management fee: $25,000 to $30,000 WSSC Labor and expenses for set up: 10 people/2.5 days/8 hrs per day = 200 hrs at $30 $6,000 WSSC Labor and expenses for venue: 2 people/4.5 days/10 hrs per day = 90 hrs at $30 $2,700 TRANSPORTATION: Travel vouchers to help offset the cost to fly 30 to 36 people at $250 to $500 per person $7,500 to $18,000 TRANSPORTATION: To and from airport, hotel, venue and hospitality events $2,000 to $4,000 LODGING: Teams: 12 teams for 5 nights/three per room if suites = 60 room nights at $100 to $150 $6,000 to $9,000 LODGING: WF Staff - 6 people for 3 to 7 nights/ two per room = 24 to 28 room nights at $100 to $150 $2,400 to $4,200 MEALS: Teams: 12 teams/3 per team/3 meals per day/5 days = 540 meals at $15 to $20 $8,100 to $10,800 MEALS: WF Staff: 30 total days/3 meals per day = 90 meals at $15 to $20 $1,350 to $1,800 HOSPITALITY: Team Welcoming Reception: 36 sculptors, 6 to 8 WF staff, plus host city personnel and sponsors 50 to 60 people for light hors d'oeuvres / beer & wine for 2 hours at $25 to $50 $1,250 to $3,000 HOSPITALITY: Sponsors & Teams banquet: 36 sculptors, 4 to 6 WF staff, plus host city personnel and all sponsors (1 to 4 per sponsor depending on sponsorship value) = 100 to 120 people for heavy hors d'oeuvres / beer & wine for 2 to 3 hours at $50 to $70 $5,000 to $8,400 HOSPITALITY: Awards Banquet: 36 sculptors, 4 to 6 WF staff, plus host city personnel and sponsors 60 to 80 people for light hors d'oeuvres / beer & wine for 2 hours at $25 to $50 $1,500 to $4,000 PLEASE CONSIDER THIS OPPORTUNITY A WAY TO MAKE STILLWATER, MN A LOCATION FOR: World Snow Sculpting CHAMPIONSHIP SUlIwater The Birthplace 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 16, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation - Athlete Anthony Nelson 2. Proclamation - Colorectal Cancer Awareness month 3. Proclamation - Chris Rigney Retirement - Resolution 4. Proclamation - Jon Bell Retirement - Resolution V. 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. VI. STAFF REPORTS 5. Public Works Director 6. Police Chief 7. Fire Chief 8. Finance Director 9. Community Development Director 10. City Clerk 11. City Attorney 12. City Administrator VII. 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. 13. March 2, 2021 regular and recessed meeting minutes 14. Payment of Bills 15. CPC Case No 2019-25 to consider amending the City's sign regulations - Ordinance 2nd Reading 16. Lake McKusick Sediment Removal Project Cost Share Agreement with BCWD - Resolution 17. Recording Secretary Wage Rate Increase - Resolution 18. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Inspection Project 19. Support the Development of a Complete Streets Policy - Resolution 20. Washington County Construction Agreement on Hwy 36/Manning Ave Project - Resolution 21. White Pine Ridge (Whitcomb) Variance - Resolution 22. 819 William Street North Subdivision - Resolution VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less. 23. CPC Case 2021-03 and Case 2021-10 to consider a request for an 11-Lot Preliminary Plat, Concept Planned Unit Development, Rezoning from AP to RB PUD, and an appeal request by Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development for the Planning Commission's denial of a variance from the required 100- foot setback from Hwy 96. Property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd. Notice was published in Stillwater Gazette and mailed to affected property owners on February 12, 2021 and March 5, 2021. - Ordinance 1st Reading and 2 Resolutions IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 24. 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. Tabled from March 2, 2021 Council meeting. 25. Creating Stakeholder Group for Expansion to St Croix Rec Center - Resolution - avialable Tuesday 26. Financing Bid for Ameresco's Energy Efficient Improvement Project - Resolution 27. Temporary Outdoor Use Sales Permit Extension - Resolution X. NEW BUSINESS 28. Parking Mitigation Fees - avialable Tuesday XI. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XII. CLOSED SESSION 29. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §13D.05, Subd. 3(b) for confidential attorney -client discussion regarding pending litigation in the eminent domain matter City of Stillwater v. John M. Ustipak, et al. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Agenda March 16, 2021 City of iXittivetter, J.iuue5ota Acciamation WHEREAS, .Anthony Nelson is amember of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Football Team, which are 2021 Suyer Bowl Chamyions; and WHEREAS, .Anthony is grandson of Stillwater resident Jerry Nelson, and son of former Stillwater graduate and athletic standout out Jeff Nelson; and WHEREAS, Anthony's accomplishments are: • Three year letter winner of the University of Iowa Football team • Twice all Big Ten Defensive End • .Academic .ACC.American • Drafted in the fourth round by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of NJ'L • 3-Las played in the National JootballCeague for two years NOW THEREFORE, I, .MichaeCTolehna, Tice .Mayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby proclaim _March, 17, 2021 as N Anthony Nelson Day! "- in the City of Stillwater and enourage the citizens of Stillwater to congratulate .Anthony on his accomplishments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Stillwater to be affixed this this 16th day of „March, 2021. Vice .Mayor Cite of 'tittivater, flitune5ota Proclamation WHEREAS, Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second -leading cause of cancer death, but it is highly preventable and treatable when caught early; and WHEREAS, CRC occurs when abnormal cells form tumors in normal tissues of the intestines and digestive system. The exact type of colon or rectal cancer depends on where the abnormal cells first began and how fast they grew and spread, and WHEREAS, CRC may not show any symptoms at first, but as the tumor grows, it can disrupt your body's ability to digest food and remove waste. This causes potentially severe bowel and abdominal problems; and WHEREAS, Studies suggest that lack of access to health care and a lack of awareness, in both young patients and their doctors, about the signs and symptoms of colon and rectal cancers, are causing the higher incidence of colon cancer and rectal cancer in young adults under age 50. NOW THEREFORE, I, Ted _Kozlowski, by virtue of the authority vested in me, as _Mayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby proclaim _March 2021 Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my handandcausedthe seal of the City of Stillwater to be affixed this this 16th day of _March, 2021. .Mayor Cite of *titiivater, fIllinne5ota Resolution 2021-034 Chris Rigney WHEREAS, Chris Rigney, has retired from City employment, as a Stillwater firefighter, effective February 2, 2021. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, wlinnesota, that for his dedicated service to the City of Stillwater, Chris is hereby commended for serving the City faithfully, efficiently and courteously for 10 years. The CounciCregrets that he retiredfrom City employment, and extends to him their appreciation for his dedicated service. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to enter this Certificate of .appreciation upon the official record of the CounciC and to deliver a certified copy thereof to Chris Rigney. .adopted by the City CounciC this 16th day of it/larch, 2021. owls ',moo T E► : �• s �r * z 61; NNiS . t , .Mayor City of 'tuft.ter, flainne5ota Resolution 2021-035 Jon BeCC WHEREAS, Jon Bell, has retired from City employment, as a Stillwater Firefighter, effective ._larch 3o, 2021. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, _Minnesota, that for his dedicated service to the City of Stillwater, Jon is hereby commended for serving the City faithfully, efficiently and courteously for 35 years. The Councilregrets that he retiredfrom City employment, and extends to him their appreciation for his dedicated service. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to enter this Certificate of .Appreciation upon the officiaC record of the Council and to deliver a certified copy thereof to Jon BeCC. .Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of _larch, 2021. .Mayor ti1Iwater The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 2, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 4:30 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Odebrecht and Polehna Absent: None Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Land City Clerk Wolf Community Development Director Turnblad Finance Director Provos Fire Chief Glaser Police Chief Mueller Public Works Director Sanders Library Director Troendle OTHER BUSINESS Chestnut Street Plaza Revised Concept Design Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the objective of the new design to maintain the elements found important to the community, while remaining within the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The Heritage Preservation Commission examined the revised concept and found it to be acceptable. Staff requests direction to begin developing the construction documents. Kathleen Anglo, TKDA presented the design showing the plaza's 60-foot revised design concept maintains the historic street grid of the commercial district, including 8' wide concrete sidewalk zone for lighting, signage, utilities, trees, plantings and drainage along the building fronts on each side of plaza; 8' wide "parking zone" for moveable chairs, permanent concrete and wood benches, and bike racks; 20' of clear space in the center for pedestrians, bicyclists, events, emergency and maintenance access; and a low planter. Councilmember Junker suggested a more prominent indicator that the bike trail goes north or south at the promenade roundabout; and Ms. Anglo offered trail and directional signage. Councilmember Odebrecht complemented the staff working on the new plan, and agreed there should be prominent signage. He expressed concern with the strength of the bollards stopping a speeding truck attack; and Ms. Anglo responded there are a number of designs with varying safety ratings. Mayor Kozlowski also liked the new design achieving all our aims, and was frustrated with all the work put into it originally as a pedestrian plaza, just to have make it look like a street. He asked if the difference between the two blockade perspectives were just the trees on one side; and Ms. Anglo answered it was just an option to replace the lights with banners. City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 On a question by Mayor Kozlowski about who plows and maintains the area; Public Works Director Sanders replied that the City would be responsible for all year maintenance. Councilmember Junker pointed out his disappointment of wasting a year on design efforts of a unique pedestrian plaza introducing the Lift Bridge, to have SHPO requirements turn it into a plank style paver street scape. Mayor Kozlowski inquired about the cost difference to the City between this design and the previous; and Ms. Anglo responded that is a little less expensive with concrete sidewalks. Councilmember Collins asked about the height differences with Main Street; and Ms. Anglo answered that the curbs and street would be at the same height as the sidewalk. Councilmember Polehna raised the issue of the safety of pedestrians versus speeding vehicular traffic, Water Street could be closed off at night, except for garbage and deliveries during the day. Mayor Kozlowski agreed and questioned if Water Street would be cut out to street level; and Ms. Anglo replied that it would be a ramp up to the sidewalk height, like a street wide speed bump. Mayor stated he wanted to look at a barricade that is possibly automatic, on a timer, so the city is not dropping off jersey barriers to close down the street. Councilmember Odebrecht proposed an option for more temporary pieces to bring it closer to the previous design. On a question by Councilmember Junker about the plan timeframe and next steps; Mr. Turnblad responded that staff would begin to design construction documents with bids in winter of '21 with construction in '22. Councilmember Polehna inquired about the pavers being pervious to help with the water issues in the downtown area; and Mr. Turnblad remarked a stormwater system is already in place however we could do plank paver without creating any kind of permeability. Council directed staff to design construction documents. Temporary Outdoor Sale Use Permit Extension Discussion Community Development Director Turnblad explained that Downtown business owners have asked if the City will extend its temporary outside seating area (OSA) policies into a second summer season. Mayor Kozlowski suggested to leave it open for City property and City Streets, and continue to work with agencies and keep the same OSA or close to the same. Councilmember Odebrecht queried if we have had an increase in problems downtown due to the OSA; and Police Chief Mueller answered that we have not. Councilmember Odebrecht then asked Robin Anthony from the Chamber of Commerce what the business community has said; and she answered that it is all good, and it is great idea to keep it going. Councilmember Junker commented that use of the parking spaces on Main Street probably should not be continued through 2021, as well as Ziggy's use of Washington County's property, and Myrtle Street with No Neck Tony's. He also implied that all the orange cones and barriers on Chestnut Street did not present very well. Page 2 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Mayor Kozlowski concurred and requested input and suggestions from Staff to make it better than the urgent reaction from last year. Public Works Director Sanders indicated that he spoke with the County and they are agreeable to closing Chestnut Street again this year, but only temporarily for the pandemic. Mayor Kozlowski suggested that we memorialize the City controlled properties for now, connect with business owners or Chamber of Commerce to see if there is a need for closing Chestnut Street again this year, and then present a better updated plan for the County if necessary. Councilmember Polehna complimented the business that painted the bollards and made it look presentable. He added this is not a permanent solution, but temporary. Mayor Kozlowski suggested keeping the option every year; and Councilmember Odebrecht concurred. Councilmember Polehna clarified items he is not in favor of, but referred to the downtown plan with bump outs for sidewalk cafes, so eventually more could be done. He added that Union Alley looked beautiful, but keeps hearing about not enough parking downtown. Councilmember Junker thought Myrtle Street and Nelson Alley closures should be looked at more carefully. Councilmember Junker raised the issue of businesses making money on public streets; and City Attorney Land spoke to allowing public space to private businesses, and suggested annual licensing for City property, that could be regulated or revoked. Councilmember Collins recommended continuing curbside pickup during pandemic and maybe in the future. Council consensus was to continue forward with the temporary OSA program during pandemic, and include plans for better safety; attractive standard of design; and an annual license to use City property. The use of Union Alley was an attractive idea; use of Myrtle Street needs closer review; Water Street closed off, and other city parking locations addressed. Mayor Kozlowski proposed consumption in Lowell Park allowable without a permit as a permanent item. Possible Curling Facility and Connector Addition at Recreation Center City Administrator McCarty reviewed a concept design process that creates a stakeholder group to define the scope of the project for approval by Council. Once the project scope is approved, funds can be raised to engage a consultant to develop cost estimates and develop a business pro forma for the curling center operations. Then the City can consider the next steps, such as development of a Memorandum of Understanding, fundraising models and full design process. Councilmember Odebrecht liked the approach, and cautioned to include 'shall haves' and 'shall have nots' to keep the pro forma in the black. Councilmember Junker posed the question of what are we really trying to do, bring curling to Stillwater, or is it a mini community center, with meeting rooms and fitness center, etc. Councilmember Odebrecht and Mayor Kozlowski support a third party to be involved. Page 3 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Councilmember Junker volunteered to be representative. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Collins to approve the concept design as presented. STAFF REPORTS Public Works Director Sanders informed that tree removal for the riverbank restoration project has been completed. Police Chief Mueller reported that training is being scheduled in response to the current State Statute changes regarding use of force and deadly force. He attended the Stillwater Human Rights Commission meeting and is looking forward to working them in the future. He gave an update on Mental Health Crisis response, averaging 1/day. Great job to Officers Lund and Frank on investigating thefts down by the Zephyr. Sgt. Julien provided positive outcome with a community member distrustful of police. SPD and State Chief's Association and surrounding PD's and Counties are prepared for upcoming trial in Minneapolis. Fire Chief Glaser stated there were 4 structure related fires in the last 9 days; 2 with auto mutual aid in Mahtomedi; 2 in Stillwater. He provided an update on the Emergency Preparedness Operations plan, and Civil disturbances preparation with the local agencies. He reminded the community that due to warming temps, please practice ice safety, and stay off all rivers and lakes. Community Development Director Turnblad announced that the Municipal Parking Ramp has free hourly parking. Monthly residential permits still require a fee. City Administrator McCarty informed Council that the State Budget and Economic forecast has plus $2.4 billion swing in estimates. Introduction of a bill in the House on a municipal street improvements and in the Senate to create a special taxing district for fire protection taxing districts. A number of individuals have been taking Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) training. TIF District (Long Lake Villas) update where the City completed its payments to the Developer a couple years back, the Developer still believes they are entitled to more TIF increment expenditures. The City met with financial and legal advisors to ascertain that the City has upheld its obligation in the agreement, developer does not agree so will advise as further developments take place. Library Director stated a community survey is being conducted regarding the library's event wing. A program series on mental health with the National Alliance of Mental Illness available in March, April and May. As a Bird City, on March 10 the Library is partnering with AAUW and a local non-profit on a program called Tropical Wings, RECESS Mayor Kozlowski recessed the meeting at 5:58 p.m. RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Odebrecht and Polehna Absent: None Page 4 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Land City Clerk Wolf Community Development Director Turnblad Finance Director Provos Fire Chief Glaser Police Chief Mueller Public Works Director Sanders City Planner Wittman Assistant Engineer Abdullah PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Mayor Kozlowski acknowledged a letter stating the City received a Government Finance Officers' Association Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its annual report for the fiscal year ending in 2019. Council commended the Finance Department for a job well done. Mayor Kozlowski read that the Census Bureau recognized Stillwater for having the highest response rate for the 2020 Census. Mayor Kozlowski recognized that Anne O'Brien requested to place blue ribbons and balloons downtown in City pots for March 9th "Light Up Blue" Day to recognize March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness month. Council approved. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA. February 16, 2021 regular meeting minutes Payment of Bills Hauler Rolloff License for T & T Disposal Mutual Aid Agreement for Fire Services Ordinance 1160, Amending City Codes Section 41-2 Licensing of Tobacco Sales Ordinance 1161, Repealing City Code Section 56-2 Deferral of Special Assessment Resolution 2021-029, Resolution Amending Resolution 2021-002, Adopting 2021 Fee Schedule Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. Page 5 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. City Planner Wittman expained 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; (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; (6) appeal to conditional approval of design permit 2020-32; and (7) use permit approval for short term rental on the site. On a question by Councilmember Odebrecht regarding a fee for future parking in the garage, Ms. Wittman replied that the Downtown Parking Commission did not wish to waive the fees for the parking spaces, but could mitigate those fees at $10 per month. Mayor Kozlowski inquired about the side yard setback requirements in the Downtown area; and Ms. Wittman responded that rear setbacks were for parking and could be reevaluated in the future. Nick Walton, President of Reuter Walton Development described some background of the developers and overall design of the building; and Bob Loken of ESG Architecture & Design gave presentation of the project metrics and parking demand analysis. Mayor Kozlowski asked about the difference in parking; and Ms. Wittman assured the panel that we were in agreement with the new numbers from the initial 4 story design to the 3 story design after Heritage Preservation and Planning Commissions reviews and comments. Councilmember Collins confirmed that 3 units on the 4th floor are included in the new design; and Mr. Loken answered yes. Mayor Kozlowski raised traffic safety issues at that corner of 2nd and Myrtle; and Public Works Director Sanders replied there is little that can be done with those site lines; and Mr. Loken added that drivers will slow down. Councilmember Odebrecht questioned why the 4th story is needed; and Mr. Walton explained that the restrictions do not allow to go lower, evolution of the building, debt coverage to cover the mortgage, penthouse apartments cover the mortgage without it there is no project. Councilmember Junker asked for clarification of the potential for VRBO use and guest rooms. Mr. Walton answered that this issue was discussed between Downtown Parking Commission and Planning Commission and he is very open and flexible to what the City desires. He is used to 10% being short term rental; and would like to start with 2 guest rooms. Councilmember Odebrecht expressed that he is in favor of the flexibility it gives the community to have short term rentals. Page 6 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Kim Nelson, North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters who represent nearly 27,000 union members and their families, spoke in support of the project, the developer, and a 4th floor variance. Alon Ventura, owns 114 Main St N, voiced his support bringing more visitors to the businesses in the area. Roger Burnstrom, Abercrombie Ln, expressed support of the project; it is good for everybody. Paul Kaufer, Main Street South, asserted his support. Ann Martin, stated that she appreciates and approves the project, and would like softening with grace and greenery. Matt Wolf, Chestnut St E, conveyed that this project blocks their view and site lines of the river; does not fill the 3 prong test of a variance, and added parking mitigation and variance concerns. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Mayor Kozlowski inquired about the Conditional Use Permit, if the project did not require variances, they could build this; and City Attorney Land stated that Conditional Uses are generally permitted. Mayor Kozlowski mentioned that we cannot deny a request if it is within in guidelines of the Zoning ordinances. He asked if the 3-prong test of a variance is met, can the request be denied; and City Attorney Land answered that it must meet the practical difficulties test. Mayor Kozlowski commented that is in favor of getting the corner cleaned up. He likes the idea of an additional apartment option in the City, and applauds the work of the developer; he would like to see more arches than straight lines, and parking addressed. Councilmember Polehna questioned if we could set up a downtown parking fund for a parking ramp across the street; and Ms. Land replied that you cannot make a developer pay for future public improvements. Setting up a fund for parking through some other revenue stream is great. Councilmember Junker concurred it would put a strain on parking, but of the three recent developments downtown, there was no hardship on the parking because they provided ample on -site parking. He feels this project will create a hardship. Mayor Kozlowski asked about the parking mitigation strategy; and Councilmember Junker answered that the Downtown Parking Commission did not set any terms. He added that 23 of these parking spaces are compact. Nick Walton responded to those issues that the 2 bedroom units would have 2 parking spaces, but the smaller single units are allotted less than 1, according to parking studies. Housing provides a balance of need at night that offsets the businesses that need the parking during the day. Councilmember Junker countered that the municipal ramp is not for overnight parking, and Shorty's Cleaners parking lot was developed for overflow parking for this project. Page 7of11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Councilmember Odebrecht inquired about the 60 day rule on this project; and City Planner Wittman replied that the deadline is March 30th. Mayor Kozlowski asked for a map of the residential parking available in Downtown; and Mr. Turnblad will provide one. Mayor Kozlowski did not feel the facts would help mitigate this, but maybe coming back to the next meeting would allow them time for a review of residential parking and mitigation. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to table to the March 16 meeting. All in favor. 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. City Planner Wittman described the request of a 20' variance to the required 100' CR 12/75th Street North right-of-way setback. Councilmember Junker asked if the lot was developable; and Ms. Wittman answered that he could develop it with or without the variance. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Jon Whitcomb spoke to the difference of the lots to east being narrower and smaller pads and the rest wider, variance to develop continuity. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve. All in favor. CPC Case No 2019-25 to consider amending the City's sign regulations Community Development Director Turnblad explained that 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 single building with at least three tenants; and located along State Highway 36; or (3) Non -digital revisions PLUS a 50%/25% option that would allow 50% of a permitted freestanding sign's surface area to be digital signage if the property is a single building with at least three tenants; and located along State Highway 36; 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. Councilmember Polehna expressed that it should be grandfathered in. Mayor Kozlowski asked if anyone had a problem with just digital text; and there was. Councilmember Junker questioned if the Mayor spoke with all of property owners at Valley Ridge Mall; and Mayor Kozlowski responded that he did and they do not care anymore, they collected the money, the pandemic hit, the funds were refunded. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. No comments were made. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Page 8 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 The Council consensus was to remove the language related to digital signage until an undetermined later date. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to approve the first reading of 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. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Name the Park for Aiple Property Public Works Director Sanders reminded Council of 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. Council decided to table the Park Board's recommendation in order to gain further input from the community. Submissions were received. The Park Board recommends Riverside Park as the new name for the Aiple property. Council reviewed and discussed several of the suggested names and determined to combine some suggestions to make one name for the park. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve the name Lumberjack Landing for the Aiple Property. Motion passed. Ayes: Councilmember Collins, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: Councilmember Polehna Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve the name Millbrook Field West for 96/Manning property. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Michael Russ - Resubdivision to create a second parcel Community Development Director Turnblad relayed that the applicant is requesting approval of the resubdivision 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. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve. All in favor. Local Road Improvement Program Grant Public Works Director Sanders provided that this past Minnesota Legislative session, the Legislature approved $75M in funding for the Local Road Improvement Program, (LRIP), which 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. Construction cost is estimated at $1.8M, with $1.2M available to the City through the program if successful. Page 9 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt Resolution 2021-030, Resolution Approving LRIP Grant Submittal. All in favor. Plans and Specs for Rec Center Parking Lot Project Public Works Director Sanders described the St. Croix Valley sports complex parking lot built in 1997, and to assess the conditions of the parking lot. Two alternatives for improving the parking lot were provided. (1) remove/reclaim the full pavement, regrade and apply new pavement to the parking lot; (2) remove/reclaim full pavement sections consisting of 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. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt Resolution 2021-031, Approve Plans & Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for St. Croix Valley Sport Complex Parking Lot Improvement Project (Project 2021-04) Plans and Specs for 2021 Street Improvement Project Public Works Director Sanders explained that 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 will be done in the spring, when the weather is more appropriate to do such study. When the data is obtained, staff recommends meeting with the neighborhood to discuss potential traffic calming measures, including 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. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt Resolution 2021-032, Approve Plans & Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02). All in favor. Lake Elmo Airport Commission Representative Selection City Administrator McCarty indicated that 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. The first Commission meeting is expected to be held during the 2nd quarter of 2021, and thereafter expects to meet quarterly. Staff recommends that the City Council name a Councilmember to the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission, as the primary representative to the Commission and naming the Community Development Director as the alternative representative for the City. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Resolution 2021-033, Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Page 10 of 11 City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 Commission and Appointing a Primary and Alternative Representative from the City to the Commission. All in favor. Landucci Homes pending apartment project - 3rd and Myrtle (information only) Community Development Director Turnblad appraised Council of a land use application which involves the possibility of developing City owned land that incorporates the City parking ramp retaining wall. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS There were no council request items. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Resolution 2021-029, Resolution Amending Resolution 2021-002, Adopting 2021 Fee Schedule Resolution 2021-030, Resolution Approving LRIP Grant Submittal Resolution 2021-031, Approve Plans & Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for St. Croix Valley Sport Complex Parking Lot Improvement Project (Project 2021-04) Resolution 2021-032, Approve Plans & Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 2021 Street Improvement Project (Project 2021-02) Resolution 2021-033, Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission and Appointing a Primary and Alternative Representative from the City to the Commission Ordinance 1160, Amending City Code, Section 41-2, Licensing of Tobacco Sales Ordinance 1161, Repealing City Code, Section 56-2, Deferral of Special Assessment Page 11 of 11 Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS 4lmprint A-1 Hydraulic Sales & Service Ace Hardware Action Rental Inc. Advance Auto Parts Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Armor Security Inc. Aspen Mills Axon Enterprises BHE Community Solar BlueCross BlueShield of MN Inc. Boyer Trucks Brownells Inc Campion Barrow & Associates CCP Industries Century Link Cintas Corporation Coca-Cola Distribution Cole Papers Comcast Compass Minerals Computer Integration Technologies Coremark Metals Corval Constructors Custom Fire Apparatus Dalco DCA Title ECM Publishers Ehrhart James & Mary Emergency Automotive Flaherty & Hood P.A Force America Goodyear Commercial Tire Gopher State One Call Inc. Graffiti Solutions Inc. Grainger Guardian Supply Hagen Fireplace Solutions Helkes Tree Service Heritage Embroidery & Design Heritage Printing Inc. Holiday Companies Holiday Credit Office IAPE International Code Council (State Truck Center Kelly & Lemmons PA Lake Country Door LLC Police promotional supplies Equipment repair supplies Supplies Carpet cleaner Equipment repair supplies Locksmith services Quarterly Monitoring Service Boots and charger - Pasket Tasers & equipment Solar Energy Retiree Health Ins Equipment repair supplies Supplies Law Enforcement Testing Big roll white towel Telephone Uniforms & mat cleaning Beverages for concessions Janitorial supplies Internet & Voice Salt Heirloom & Landmark Website Equipment repair supplies Equipment repair supplies Vehicle repair charges Janitorial Supplies Certificate of title Publications Utility Billing refund Strip equipment from vehicle Classification services Equipment repair supplies Tires Locates Graffiti remover In/Out Board for PD Uniforms SWAT Permit refund Remove trees on riverbank for river walk project Uniforms Rate increase notice Vehicle washes Fuel Membership Code Equipment repair supplies Prosecution Equipment repair supplies 886.40 349.69 267.28 27.00 123.93 207.00 84.00 288.90 7,761.25 4,579.01 5,635.50 1,363.05 554.73 880.00 146.65 470.85 364.84 602.66 229.49 467.79 23,885.51 67.50 200.78 469.00 2,741.07 156.14 100.00 298.40 221.25 344.37 360.00 452.77 2,580.58 95.85 395.00 116.06 10,950.94 111.00 53,075.00 124.00 405.75 350.00 273.08 50.00 559.52 1,655.02 8,333.00 249.50 Lametti and Sons Inc Lawson Products League of MN Cities Ins Tr League of MN Human Rights Commissions LeVander Gillen Miller PA Lincoln National Life Insurance Co Loffler Companies Lone Oak Companies Inc MacQueen Equipment Inc. Mansfield Oil Company McGath James Menards Metro Sales Inc. Metropolitan Council Motorola Solutions Inc. MP Nexlevel LLC NAPA Auto Parts Newman Signs Northern Tool Northstar Companies Office Depot OnSite Sanitation Otis Elevator Company Pavek Kimberly PDQ.com Performance Plus LLC PermitWorks LLC Post Board Postmaster Praxair Ditribution Quill Corporation Regents of the U of M River Valley Printing Inc. Rogness Chad Safe Fast Inc Safety Signs Stillwater Collision and Mechanical Stillwater Motor Company Stillwater Towing Streichers Summit Companies SW/WC Service Cooperatives Thomson Reuters TimeMark Inc. Titan Machinery Shakopee Toll Gas and Welding Supply Tri-State Bobcat US Bank Valley Trophy Inc. Verizon Wireless Greeley Lift Station Equipment repair supplies Workers Comp Insurance Membership Professional Services COBRA Life Insurance Software maint renewal Utility Bill Processing Reaper Fuel Reimburse for Work Boots Supplies Copier lease Wastewater Charge & SAC Mobile equipment Locating Fuel filters Sign supplies Supplies Covid supplies Office supplies Portable Restroom Elevator Repair Dog license refund Renewal PDQ Drug screen Permits software Renewal 1st Class Presort PI #206 Cylinders Office supplies Shade tree short course Business Cards Reimburse for work boots Supplies Pyramid Bollards Vehicle repair Vehicle service Towing service Ammo Annual Sprinkler Inspection Retiree Health Insurance Information Charges Supplies Equipment repair supplies Cylinders Equipment repair supplies Paying Agent Fees Name plate Wireless Service Page 2 84,265.66 267.89 83,655.00 100.00 13,210.91 3.60 6,783.14 2,336.82 1,800.00 6,613.69 200.00 1,854.33 44.00 176,916.32 4,238.65 343.75 63.57 2,358.21 19.32 825.00 358.84 1,407.00 2,357.50 60.00 1,800.00 45.00 4,485.00 540.00 490.00 60.85 325.89 300.00 98.00 199.99 262.84 550.00 17,127.98 867.59 560.00 904.30 912.00 62,375.57 301.18 215.99 204.00 40.99 895.48 500.00 17.50 3,273.31 Vinco Inc Washington Cty Fire Chief Assoc. Xcel Energy York International Corp LIBRARY Ace Hardware Amazon Business Baker and Taylor Blackstone Audio Brodart Co Comcast Community Thread Culligan of Stillwater Ebsco Publishing Faurot Kimberly Hedin Sue Master Mechanical Inc. Menards NAC Mechanical and Electrical Services Nilfisk Otis Elevator Company Scholastic Inc Traffic barriers Membership Energy Equipment repair supplies Supplies Programs Materials Materials Materials Internet - March Membership Water Li b ra ryAwa re Staff Reimbursement Staff Reimbursement RTU#4 Not Heating Supplies Reprogram VAV2-13 & UH-7 Floor Scrubber Elevator Service Agreement Materials Page 3 6,000.00 50.00 22,343.55 580.00 3.98 414.20 125.52 80.58 7,529.51 376.12 80.00 14.85 966.08 115.97 116.45 968.68 21.12 208.00 4,420.30 2,908.94 1,482.00 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. 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. 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. 1 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 not 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. 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. 2 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. 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 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: 3 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. (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 4 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. 5. 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; (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. 5 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: 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. 6 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) (8) (9) 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. 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: TABLE 1 Res. Sign type Notes Districts CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD PROS Public sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(a) A A A A A A A A A A A Integral sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(a) A A A A A A A A A A A Political and related noncommercial signs Size limit: 6 sf, O ft tall; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(b)(2) A A NNNNNNNNN Political and related noncommercial signs 35 sf size limit; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(b)(2) N N A A A A A A A A A Political sign During exemption period; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(b)(1) A A A A A A A A A A A Holiday sign Not exceeding 60 days A A A A A A A A A A A Construction sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(c) A A A A A A A A A A A Real estate sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(d) A A A A A A A A A A A Nameplate sign: 1-5 Unit Bldg. 2 sf; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(e) A A A A A A A A A A A Nameplate sign: 2 6 Unit Bldg. 6 sf; See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(e) A A A A A A A A A A A Real estate development project sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(d)(3) A A A A A A A A A A A Window sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(f) A A A A A A A A A A A Garage sale sign See Sec 31-505, Subd 3 A NNNNNNNNNN Temporary real estate "open house" sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 7(d)(2) A A A A A A A A A A A Wall sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(2); Subd 9(b)(2); Subd 9(c)(2); Subd 9(d)(3); Subd 9(e)(2) N PPPPPPPPPP Roof sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 8(h) N NNNNNNNNNN Freestanding sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(3); Subd 9(b)(3); Subd 9(c)(3); Subd 9(d)(4); Subd 9(e)(3) N P PP P PP PP P P Billboard See Sec 31-509, Subd 8(e) N NNNNNNNNNN Awning or canopy sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(4); Subd 9(b)(4); Subd 9(d)(5) N P PP P PPNNNN Projecting sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(aX6); Subd 9(d)(7) N PPP NNNNNNN Three dimensional sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(a)(5) N P P NNNNNNNN Marquee sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 9(b)(4); Subd 9(d)(5) N NNN P P P NNNN Multitenant master sign See Sec 31-509, Subd. 9(b)(5); Subd 9(d)(6) N NNP P P PNNNN Directory sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 10 N NNNP P P P PNN Institutional sign See Sec 31-509, Subd 12 P NNNNNNN P P P A = Allowed without permit P = Permit required N= Not allowed 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. 8 (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 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: (3) 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. 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 9 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 are 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. (d) Off -premises commercial signs. (e) Billboard signs. (f) Any sign that moves or rotates, except barber poles. (g) Signs that display any moving parts, are illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights or are animated. All displays must be shielded to prevent any light from impairing the vision of any driver. No device may be illuminated to obscure an 10 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: (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. 11 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 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: 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. 13 (3) 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: 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. 14 (5) Multitenant master sign. Each multitenant or multi -use building is permitted one (1) building master identification sign which meets the following requirements: 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: (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 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 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. 15 (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. (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. 16 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) (8) 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. 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 17 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: (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 (6 1/2) feet in height. (d) It must only be used for directions and identification. 18 Subd. 11. 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 said sign 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. 12. Institutional Signs. An institutional sign may be either wall mounted or freestanding. The maximum size of the sign 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. (b) In the PA and PROS Zoning Districts a non -electronic message center is allowed as part of an institutional sign. Subd. 13. 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 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: 19 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, 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 , 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Reabar Abdullah, Assistant City Engineer DATE: March 10, 2021 RE: Lake McKusick Sediment Removal Project 2020-08 DJSCUSSION Attached is a cost share agreement with the Brown's Creek Watershed District (BCWD) to pay for the Lake McKusick Sediment Removal project. BCW❑ board of managers agreed in their meeting on January 13, 2021 to pay 50% of the cost not to exceed $40,000 toward the construction of the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the approval ❑f the cost share agreement between the Brown's Creek Watershed ❑istrict and the City of Stillwater for the Lake McKusick Sediment Removal Project 2020-08. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution 2021- APPROVING THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED ❑ISTRICT AND THE CITY OF STILLWATER FOR LAKE McKUSICK SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (PROJECT 2020-08). City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVING THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF STILLWATER FOR LAKE McKUSICK SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (PROJECT 2020-08). WHEREAS, a cost share agreement between Brown's Creek Watershed District and The City of Stillwater for lake McKusick sediment removal project (Project 2020-08) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA that the cost share agreement presented to Council and on file with the office of the City Clerk is hereby approved and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of March 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Stillwater, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Stillwater"), and Brown's Creek Watershed District, a public body with purposes and powers set forth in Minn. Stat. Chapters 103B and 103D ("BCWD"), collectively referred to as the "Parties." WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.59 two or more governmental units, by agreement through action of their governing bodies, may jointly exercise powers common to the governmental units; and WHEREAS, under Minnesota law the Parties are empowered to engage in maintenance of stormwater utilities, including the removal of accumulated sediment at stormwater discharge points ("Sediment Removal"); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into a cost -sharing agreement for the Sediment Removal project at Lake McKusick, more fully described in Exhibit A (the "Project"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promise and undertaking contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to remove sediment from Lake McKusick on property owned by Stillwater, with Stillwater and BCWD sharing in the cost of the Project. B. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of the last party to execute the Agreement ("Effective Date") and will terminate two years from the Effective Date or earlier, upon the written agreement of the Parties. Any responsibility or obligation that has come into being before expiration will survive expiration. C. Duties of Stillwater. 1. Scope. Stillwater will remove sediment from the north end of Lake McKusick on property owned by Stillwater in accordance with the description and plans attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Stillwater is responsible for obtaining all required permits and approvals, including a BCWD permit, if required, and for complying with all laws, including laws requiring location of buried utilities prior to land disturbance. Stillwater may adjust the plans or design during construction based on field conditions or other adaptive design considerations as in its judgment will more effectively achieve the Project purposes. 2. Project Report. Stillwater will submit to BCWD a description of and invoices documenting eligible costs incurred in completing the Project including in -kind contributions, a description of any changes made to the Project plans, and photographs documenting completion (altogether, the "Project Report"). A final Project Report must 1 be submitted to BCWD within 60 days of certification of the completion of the Project. Stillwater must maintain a copy of all records concerning the Project for six years from the date Stillwater completes the Project. BCWD may examine, audit or copy any such records on reasonable notice to Stillwater. 3. Contractor. Stillwater will select a contractor or contractors to implement the Project or complete the Project and will ensure completion of the Project in accordance with Exhibit A. D. Duties of the BCWD. Within 35 days of receipt by BCWD of the Project Report, BCWD will reimburse Stillwater $40,000 or 50% of the documented contracted costs of the Project, whichever is less. E. Civil Rights and Non -Discrimination. The provisions of Minn. Stat. § 18I.59 and of any applicable ordinances relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set further herein and shall be part of any Agreement entered into by the Parties with any contractor subcontractor, or material suppliers. F. Publicity and Endorsement. Any publicity regarding the Project must identify Stillwater and BCWD as the sponsoring entities. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for Stillwater or BCWD individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the Project. G. Indemnification. 1. Stillwater agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless BCWD against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which BCWD may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by Stillwater, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this Agreement. 2. BCWD agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Stillwater against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which Stillwater may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by BCWD, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this Agreement. 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the Parties to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the Parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, as set forth in Minn. Stat. §471.59, Subd. 1a.(b). They are not liable for the acts or omissions of a third party except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other parties as provided for in §471.59, Subd. la. 4. Each party's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and other applicable law. The parties agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled 2 by Minn. Stat. §471.59, Subd_ la. and that the total liability for the parties shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single unit of government as specified in Minn. Stat. §466.04, Subd. 1(a). H. Data Practices. All data created, collected, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of this Agreement is governed by the Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, any other applicable state statute, or any state rules adopted to implement the act, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. I. Notice. Notice shall be sent to the following addresses: Stillwater BCWD Assistant City Engineer Administrator City of Stillwater c/o Washington Conservation District 216 4th Street North 455 Hayward Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55 Oakdale, MN 55128 651-330-8220, ext. 26 KKill@mnwcd.org J. Independent Relationshie_ This Agreement does not create a joint powers board or organization within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §471.59. Furthermore, BCWD does not have any form of interest or ownership in or to any portion of property owned by Stillwater on which the Project will be conducted. K. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the complete and entire agreement among the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, representations and understandings, if any, between the Parties respecting such matters. The recitals stated at the outset are incorporated into and a part of the Agreement. [remainder of page intentionally blank] 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stillwater and the BCWD have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf. CITY OF STILLWATER Mayor Ted Kozlowski City Clerk Beth Wolf Date: BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By: Karen Kill Its Administrator Date: 3/9/2021 4 EXHIBIT A A-1 EXISTING -> 1- LEGEND SRMTANY SEWER ANO MAMEOLE ITO•M SEWER AND RENa1ELLE. WArENMAIN, HYDRANT AND YAW IOPCLMAM RDLI IEAD SANITAR4 SEWER SLRVICC WATER SERVICE ATM CURB STte BOI CATCH BASIN WATER VALVEMANHOLE CULVERT UNDERGROUND TELERHONECAllF OR CONDUIT WIDE AGROUND ELECTRIC CARTE DIL COND JT Gas hum IE LERHONE MANHOLE TE l EPHONE PEDESTAL CAM 1Y PEDESTAL ELECTRIC MANHOLE POWER POLE DOWN GOV ANCHOR LIGHT POLE SOIL BOINNG CGHCREI E CURB AND GLITTER CONCREI E PAVEMENE OR SIDE W W% SIGN WO. PAIR. STOP. CIC STREET SIGN 'NICE TREE IOP011UOW51 TWEE LCDENFCROOSI BUSH. SHRUB WOODED AREA BUILDING CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED P ' - • LA 0 a jllwate THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA /CF c/C,S SFD y - .T REYOVAL PROJECT PROJECT # 7C23-08 CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR: SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT LOCATIONS WY HMI 16 N. ATII sr •goris1 ee; ivammill �- iIi UUhiihpig A t GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS NE 2016 EDITION Of THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECEICATIO NS FOR CONSTRl1CT1ON' SHEET INDEX DESCRIPTION 1. TITLE SHEET 2. NORTH SEDIMENT LOCATION NOTE: THE EXACT LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND GAS, TELEPHONE, FIBEROPTIC, ELECTRIC, CABLE TV AND PIPELINES ARE UNKNOWN, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE PRIOR TO COMMENCING EXCAVATION. STILLWATER, MINNESOTA TITLE SHEET hereby certify that this 01Rn veal prepared Isy me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Professional Fngineer under the laves of the state Dfscrea. Date• 11/10/2020 Reg Nu- 42761 CITY PROJECT #2020-08 RESTORE ACCESS ROUTE TO ORIGINAL CONDITION IN IHE SPRING 4146.100.trPt, PRIMERY STAGING AREA FOR NORTH SEDIMEN F REMOVAL, OTHER AREAS MAY BF PROPOSED FOR STAGING AND USED IF APPROVED EY ENGINEER. SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL AND RESTORATION OF STAGING LOCATION 15 INCIDENTAL TD THE PROJECT REMOVE APPROXIMATELY 2950 CY NON REGULATED SEDIMENT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 FOR RESTORATION PERFORMED PRIOR TO APRIL 15, RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH OATS COVER CROP (MNDDT SEED MIX 21.111, 100 LEIS IACRE), STABILIZED WITH MNDOT MULCH TYPE 3. BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JUNE 15, RESTORE ALL AREAS DISTURBED AS PART OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIVE SEED MIX (MNDOT SEED MIX 34-171 50LBSI ACRE), AND EROSION CONTROL 2. IN THE EVENT THAT RESTORATION CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THE DISTURBED AREA HAS CEASED, TEMPORARY EROSION STABILIZATION SNIPS (LE. HYDRO MULCH 3584.B.2) MUST BE SCHEDULED TO OCCUR WITHIN THAT 7 DAY TIME FRAME 3 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO STREETS, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, AND TRAIL. 4 DAILY STREET SWEEPING REQUIRED DURING HAULING OPERATIONS. 5 ALL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES STOCKPILES TO RECEIVE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION IF UNWCRKED FOR 7 DAYS 5. DEWATERINGIDEICING TO TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ICE 1S TO BE STOCKPILED ON SITE AND PUT BACK 1N LAKE FOLLOWING THE EXCAVATION. DEWATERING PLANS MUST BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SWPPP GUIDELINES. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL DEWATERING ANO EXCAVATION ONSITE AND OFF OF ROADWAY. AND LOAD ANO HAUL OUT USING ACCESS ROUTE 8 CONTRACTOR TO GRADE AROUND EXISTING STORM SEWER STRUCTURES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER 9. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACCESS LIMITS WITH THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD 10 WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS. ALL CLEARING AND/OR GRUBBING OF TREES WITH DIAMETERS LESS THAN 3' AT 4.5' FROM THE GROUND ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRUBBING BID ITEMS. 11. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING PIPES {BURIED AND EXPOSED). FLARED ENDS, AND RETAINING WALLS 0 50 100 t 1=-T 1 # Feet S NO. RY DATE Rr isioNS ITEM DE515r1 C!IECKLD I hereby ceeth That [his plan was prepared by me 0, dAY I wpervi.00 and 11y1 I am a duly Frol► Date. 11 10]2023 Red No 42761 NORTH SEDIMENT LOCATION PLAN LAKE McKUSICK SEDIMENT REMOVAL FILE NO 2020-0R-A DATE 11/10/2020 StIllr Administration TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Tom McCarty, City Administrator Donna Robole, Human Resources Manager DATE: March 10, 2021 SUBJECT: Recording Secretary Wage Rate Increase BACKGROUND The City of Stillwater approved and onboarded a Recording Secretary position in 2012 with an approved hourly wage rate of $15. The wage rate has remained unchanged since 2012. The position records and produces minutes for eight (8) different meetings each month, and the working hours average less than ten (10) hours per week. The position is paid hourly and is not benefits eligible. The City values the high quality service delivered by the recording secretary. Staff have reviewed the wage rate adjustment data since 2012 and recommend an increase to $18.78 per hour effective March 1, 2021, and to $19.15 per hour, effective January 1, 2022. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the resolution entitled "Approving Rate Increase for Recording Secretary." City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVING RATE INCREASE FOR RECORDING SECRETARY WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater, employs a part-time recording secretary; and WHEREAS, the recording secretary performs job duties for the City that average less than ten hours per week; and WHEREAS, the recording secretary is not a benefits -eligible City position; and WHEREAS, the hourly wage rate for the recording secretary has remained unchanged since 2012; and WHEREAS, the City acknowledges the importance of updating the position wage rate for the recording secretary for 2021 and 2022; and WHEREAS, City Staff have reviewed wage adjustment data since 2012 and recommend a recording secretary wage rate increase to $18.78 per hour effective March 1, 2021, and $19.15 per hour effective January 1, 2022. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves a 2021 recording secretary wage rate increase to $18.78 per hour effective March 1, 2021, and to $19.15 per hour effective January 1, 2022. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 16th day of March, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works Date: March 12, 2021 Subject: Sanitary Manhole Inspection Project DISCUSSION: Recently, staff requested consultants to submit proposals to study if groundwater is entering into our sanitary sewer system along the St. Croix River. In reviewing flow data, it appears that during high water events of the river, the volume of flow through the sanitary sewer main is higher than normal. This "clear water" is unnecessarily being treated downstream and impacts our system both financially and mechanically. Consultant work would consist of inspecting and televising the 30 manholes, and provide a report of their findings and recommended repair work. We received three proposals and upon review selected Bolton and Menk who quoted $10,946.00 for the study. Bolton and Menk is a full service engineering firm and has assisted the City in the past on some small infiltration and inflow work and has worked on our Lift station projects the last couple of years. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Bolton and Menk for the Sanitary Manhole Inspection Project. The project would be funded form the Sanitary sewer Fund. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the recommendation they should pass a motion approving Bolton and Menk for the Sanitary Manhole Inspection Project. Ulwater THE B I R T H PLACE CT MINNESOTA DATE: March 8, 2021 TO: Mayor & Council Members SUBJECT: Complete Streets Policy MEMO FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION In February Sustainable Stillwater requested the City Council to adopt a complete streets policy. And they submitted a proposed resolution implementing that action. The City Council directed staff to review the resolution and bring the issue back for consideration. REQUEST Staff requests the Council to consider adopting the attached modified resolution. DISCUSSION The revised resolution does not commit the City to a specific policy or timeline as requested by Sustainable Stillwater. But, it does: 1. support the adoption of a Complete Streets policy at an undetermined future date; and 2. declare intent to achieve Complete Streets throughout the City project by project, where practical and feasible; and 3. commit to considering adoption of a timeframe for development of a Complete Streets Policy during their 2021 annual strategic planning session this summer Attachments: Resolution bt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FOR THE CITY OF STILLWATER WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater strives to be a livable city, and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater recognizes that livability includes safely moving people and goods along all public right-of-ways; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater recognizes that children and seniors are especially vulnerable to pedestrian and bicycling crashes; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater recognizes that Complete Streets are designed and constructed for all users of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater recognizes that Complete Streets enhance business opportunities by encouraging customer traffic, strengthening communities, and creating safe access to destinations; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater recognizes that Complete Streets increase public health by encouraging exercise and providing convenient walking and bicycling options; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan supports Complete Streets by prioritizing sidewalk improvements, on -street bicycle route improvements, and safer connections between pedestrian and bicycle networks; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater is guided by Complete Streets and supports greater implementation; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater is participating in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program, which provides cost-effective best practices for transportation options that improves air quality and reduces Stillwater's contribution to climate change; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has enacted a Complete Streets statute, which encourages cities to adopt Complete Streets policies that reflect local goals; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Stillwater City Council supports the adoption of a Complete Streets policy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council intends for Complete Streets to be achieved throughout the City of Stillwater project by project, where practical and feasible, consistently drawing on all possible funding sources. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council will consider adoption of a timeframe for development of a Complete Streets Policy during their 2021 annual strategic planning session this summer. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this day of , 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works Date: March 5, 2021 Re: Cooperative Agreement for TH 96/Manning Avenue Interchange DISCUSSION Washington County (County) has sent over for City approval the Cooperative Agreement for the Construction Cost of the TH 36/ Manning Avenue Interchange Project. The agreement lists the responsibilities of the project which consists of the County designing, obtaining right-of-way and constructing the project, and the city share in the cost of each of these items. The estimated cost of the project is $33.3M. After reductions from grants received by the County and the cost splits from the County Cost participation policy, the City's cost is estimated at $1,163,693.46, This amount will be adjusted higher or lower depending on the project bid and final quantities pf the project. The City would use monies from the Municipal State Aid and Improvement Bonds to pay for the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the Cooperative Agreement and recommends approval. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Stillwater and Washington County for construction costs of an interchange on Trunk Highway (TH) 36 at Manning Avenue/County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15. DowSign Envelope ID: 70E62045-9733-46D4-9A0C-7C1D14FOEB4E COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST OF AN INTERCHANGE ON TRUNK HIGHWAY (TH) 36 AT MANNING AVENUE/ COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH) 15 WASHINGTON COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 13755 DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION TRANSPORTATION TERM SIGNATURE - END OF PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as the "City", and Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County intends to construct a roadway interchange at the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and Manning Avenue in the City of Stillwater, herein referred to as the "Project" and shown in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, both the City and the County will be obligated for certain local costs attending the Project; and WHEREAS, items included in the Project require City cost participation in accordance with "Washington County Cost Participation Policy #8001 for Cooperative Highway Improvement Projects"; and WHEREAS, the City desires to use Federal Grants, State Funds, State Aid and local funds for these improvements; and WHEREAS, the County desires to use Federal Grants, State Funds, State Aid and local funds for these improvements; and WHEREAS, a cooperative effort between the City and County is the appropriate method to facilitate the construction of these transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to statutory authority contained in Minnesota Statute 162.17 sub.1 and Minnesota Statute 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT 1S HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: A. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is set forth in the above whereas clauses which are all incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and shall consist of this Agreement, Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Estimated Cost Splits Map), Exhibit C (Estimated Cost and Cost Splits), and Exhibit D (Post -Project Right of Way Map). B. PLANS AND SPECIFICATION PREPARATION 1. The County shall be responsible for the preparation of all the plans and specifications for the Project, including but not limited to, compliance with all applicable standards and policies and obtaining all approvals required in formulating the bid specifications for all County and City components of this Project. 2. The following County project number has been assigned to the Project: SAP 082-615-034 (CSAH 15). 3. The following City project numbers have been assigned to the Project: SAP 169-020-011 4. The following Federal/State project numbers have been assigned to the Project: SP 8204-74 (Interchange). Page 1 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70E62045-9733-4BD4-9AOC-7C1 D14FOEB4E C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS 1. The County shall acquire al! permanent rights of way, permanent easements, and temporary slope easements, which will be acquired in the name of the County. 2. Any rights of way, permanent easements, and temporary slope easements that cannot be obtained through negotiation will be acquired by the County through eminent domain proceedings. D. ADVERTISEMENT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT After plans and specifications have been approved by the County, all permits and approvals obtained, and acquisition of necessary rights -of -way and easements, the County shall advertise for construction bids and at the sole discretion of the County award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. E. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, OBSERVATION, AND TESTING The County shall be responsible for the construction administration, inspection, and for the observation and testing for all construction items. F. COST PARTICIPATION ITEMS AND ESTIMATED COSTS The City hereby agrees to be bound to the cost participation provisions in the "Washington County Cost Participation Policy #8001 for Cooperative Highway Improvement Projects", which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. The City's cost participation is set forth in Table 1 and is broken down into five categories which are: 1) Construction; 2) Design Engineering; 3) Construction Engineering/Contract Administration; 4) Right of Way; and 5) County -Furnished Material. 1. Construction Construction costs shall be the cost to construct the Project. The County has prepared a statement of estimated quantities and cost splits hereto attached as Exhibit C. The City shall pay to the County its share of the total cost as shown in Exhibit C and set forth in Table 1. After the County has awarded the construction contract, Exhibit C will be updated to reflect the actual contractor's unit prices. 2. Design Engineering Design engineering costs shall be professional design engineering services, project coordination, preparation of plans and specification, stakeholder engagement, geotechnical studies, and other administrative functions necessary for the Project. Based on the City's share of the construction cost, the City shall pay the prorated cost of design engineering for the entire Project as set forth in Table 1. After the County has awarded the construction contract, Exhibit C will be updated to reflect the actual design contractor's unit prices. 3. Construction Engineering/Contract Administration Construction engineering/contract administration costs shall be construction observation, construction testing, construction administration, staking, conducting and recording the pre -bid, pre -construction and weekly construction meetings, reviewing monthly pay estimates, labor compliance, and other administrative functions necessary for the Project. Construction engineering/contract administration is 10% of the construction cost. The City shall pay 10% of the City's share of the construction cost for construction engineering/contract administration as set forth in Table 1. After the County has awarded the construction contract, Exhibit C will be updated to reflect the actual contractor's unit prices. 4. Right of Way Right of Way costs shall be permanent right-of-way, permanent utility and/or drainage easements, temporary easements, title work costs, appraisal costs, relocation specialist costs, relocation costs, and condemnation commissioner costs. If applicable, the City shall pay their share of the final right of way cost. The estimated amount is set forth in Table 1. Page 2 of 5 DowSign Envelope ID- 70E62045-9733-4BD4-9AOC-7C1D14FOEB4E 5. County -Furnished Material County -furnished material costs shall be items such as light poles, traffic signal control equipment, and street name signs which are separately procured outside of the construction contract and installed within the Project limits. The City shall pay their share of the final County -furnished material cost. The estimated amount is set forth in Table 1. TABLE 1— ESTIMATED COSTS City of Stillwater Cost Summary ITEM TOTAL COST CITY SHARE FUNDING APPLIED CITY COST Construction $24,144,213.05 $1,473,034.20 $1,473,034.20 Design Engineering $2,616,153.00 $159,611.03 $159,611.03 Construction Engineering/Contract Administration $2,414,421.31 $147,303.42 $147,303.42 Right of Way $4,120,000.00 $1,801,596.00 $1,801,596.00 County Furnished Material $0 0% $0 Xcel Tower Relocation Cost $360,000.00 0% $0 BCWD Water Reuse Cost $300,000.00 0% $0 Grant/Bond Funding Applied $2,417,861.19 ($2,417,861.19) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $33,954,787.36 $3,581,544.65 $2,417,861.19 , $1,163,683.46 6. The costs and shares attributable to the City and payable to the County as shown in Table 1 are merely estimated and a final reconciliation of costs as set forth in Section G below shall be done at the end of the Project. Actual City costs and shares are based on the following: a. Construction shall be based on the contractor's unit prices and final quantities at Project completion including all contract changes, less the City's share of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State funding. The City shall pay their share of the cost of the work that the FHWA and State do not pay. b. Design engineering shall be based on the contractor's unit prices at the time of contract award. c. Construction engineering/contract administration shall be based on the contractor's unit prices and final quantities at Project completion including all contract changes and liquidated damages. d. Right of way shall be based on the final costs to acquire right of way. e. County -furnished material shall be based on the final costs to acquire County -furnished material. G. PAYMENT 1. Construction and Construction Engineering/Contract Administration a. After the County has awarded the construction contract, the County shall update Exhibit C to conform the Exhibit to the amounts in the awarded bid and shalf invoice the City 10 percent of the City's estimated construction and construction engineering/contract administration cost based on the updated Exhibit C. b. During construction, the County shall submit to the City partial estimates of work performed by the contractor. The City shall pay to the County its share of the partial estimate as determined in Section F. c. Upon substantial completion of the work the County shall submit to the City a final invoice and final reconciliation of costs. The reconciliation will add or subtract contract amendments to the City's Project components, adjustments for liquidated damages pursuant to Section I., and previous Page 3 of 5 DowSign Envelope ID 70E62045.9733-48D4-9A0C-7C1D14FQEB4E Project cost payments made by the City to the County. 2. The costs set forth in Table 1 for design engineering and right of way shall be separate line items on the invoice and paid by the City on a reimbursable basis. 3. In the event that the City paid more in advance than the actual cost of the City's portion of the Project, the County shall refund without interest the amount to the City. 4. The City shall pay 100 percent of an invoice amount within thirty (30) days of receipt. H. CONTRACT CHANGES Any modifications or additions to the final approved plans and/or specifications of the Project shall be made part of the construction contract through a written amendment to the construction contract and the cost for such changes shall be appropriated as set forth in Section F. of this Agreement. I. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Any liquidated damages assessed to the contractor in connection with the work performed on the Project shall be used to adjust the project completion costs thus adjusting the City's construction engineering/contract administration costs as stated in F.6.c. No adjustment to construction costs will be made to the City's portion of the Project in the event of liquidated damages. J. CONDITIONS The City shall not assess or otherwise recover any portion of its cost for this Project through special assessment of County -owned property. K. CIVIL RIGHTS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION The provisions of Minn. Stat. 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set further herein, and shall be part of any Agreement entered into by the parties with any contractor subcontractor, or material suppliers. L. WORKERS COMPENSATION It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons employed by the City in the performance of construction and/or construction engineering work or services required or provided for under this Agreement shall not be considered employees of the County and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the construction and/or construction engineering work or services to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. M. INDEMNIFICATION 1. The City agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which the County may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by the City, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this Agreement. 2. The County agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which the City may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by the County, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this Agreement. 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the parties to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section Page 4 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7OE62045-9733-48D4.9AOC-7C1D14FOEB4E 471.59, subd. 1a.(b). The parties to this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of another party to this Agreement except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other parties as provided for in Section 471.59, subd. la. 4. Each party's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 and other applicable law. The parties agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled by Minnesota Statute 471.59, subdivision la. and that the total liability for the parties shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single unit of government as specified in 466.04, subdivision 1{a). N. DATA PRACTICES All data collected, created, received, maintained, disseminated, or used for any purposes in the course of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 1984, Section 13.01, et seq. or any other applicable state statutes and state rules adopted to implement the Act, as well as state statutes and federal regulations on data privacy. iN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers. WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF STILLWATER Chair Date Mayor Date Board of Commissioners Kevin Corbid Date City Clerk Date County Administrator A ?,apaygg.loes, tQ form: 02/25/2022 Approved as to form: Assistant County Attorney Date City Attorney Date Page 5 of 5 DocuSigr Envelope ID 7OE62045-9733-4BD4-9AOC-7C1D14F0EB4E V FQ RI EST LRKE SCANDIA 1 MAY TOWNSHIP DENMARK TOWNSHIP COTTAGE! GROVE CSAH 15 (MANNING AVE N) & TH 36 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Exhibit A - Location Map - Page 1 of 1 LONG LAKE STJLLWATER GRANT Project Area ILLVVATE.R j)•TOWNSHIP r � r r ?____ r LAKE (E-LrMOO' Hi hway 36 OAK PARK HEIGHTS BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP • a>.:—)L • :�r, CLOVES DAI.F L4KL Washington DQcuSign Envelope ID: 70E62045.9733.46D4-9ACIC4C141a FOE94E 1,10201 grO_Gosl Parllri➢allon.tlAn Y i.reJec131100P0%1920 �1 1Re +77I2ol1nc�[� 17 300 GLP"imm SCALL 1N FEET 600 S:1 r:sAi 5 IS A. -+ SrA. 'P5,00T . !+i]! 5 WAi I SI: ::T:T . ....U'v • 'lS • \\lW\VW). Exhibit B - Estimated Cost Splits Map - Pago 1 of 1 CNAI I ❑0Z COLINTY C05T ERB I 1 IJ LEGEND COUNTY CITY OF STILLWATER/COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELNA CITY OF STILLMATER FOR TOWNSHIP) im OOT nmo INL)LN AVE N 9 YPASS AN!) BYPASS 1 !On/ C]rY Or 1AKE rLMO COST 1EALI S SPL.1T • SD% COLINrY,55O% CITY OF I -lea• WALL 3 IJOINI Tt•mPOHAIdV oox C!IY \,-p \lllll lull , \11�11 - --- - - - - •--- i l\\ull]]], 1 I F F SIGNAL BO% COUNTY COST. )00 S'IILwArEP COST F 1 1 BYPASS OF LAKE i I MO COST 11t\\.1]Sl go \ Cost Participation Policies TN 36/Manning Ave Interchange Washington County. MN Figure 1 DucaSign Envelope 10 70E62045-9733-401:14-9A0C•7C1❑IA FLIENE Exhibit C - Estimated Cost and Cost Splits - Page 1 of 3 1,eMw 3A44.0. uur mitt cast TOTAL .a..Yrm 6r66n IdtM ... GP Nre.2. alill arlTrER MP,NLT1iII WV OF IY10I34F WW1 e@L110 a*0303! Cll.. ._ ''u11+CMArIYo •1A3 ! Oli*w Iilia ..e1R6i ... aT611lr mitre maw 07 1033 mow! M.0116.r a11R11RFY r MOW mow. 6361.1 �Yv141I o06A6 160 CM 56 92p_ 11,1 NO CO .._ ii 0� 'vs + .L50•WU.. 310 V@6.6V "E?ie0om yieg79J J2?3o 07 61 �g�'p Si_ 13.00000 I uwOm 1 FMcE IR3!.5 EACH NMI +GF E-r0000m 5,00 }S-0V tp001- .jam F I3J00 u0 12.P90.99 51033.q* - --- 6r I..0 QS }7.0 39 00 _ �n ml 4!r n*P .3!l�144m 312+1?6 ..s.'.ggp.AP Tao J i,- w l sa17g7-i_. 66ee .+�' H�6rYm },rrggp_ - i1i�YArx+K: RFYO.% _113 V.I. _ _.3 } A! . 2194S03 1133.50E REMovE+.YLIOPA.GE ASSEYhD.V e.rMON RLYUVF.ARC.• oo*wnso36.00',nrra66. F ppwwNA•.E*lwrrMr 55,611 E5g1 SE0300 655000 a1100so 1.1540 61 rip, - 110 05.l1@AO _ �._. .- 3 3 }I15 OM IX 00 .5 00 ,]_._ Y.15006 .31,A_0m •w�6�i 3 �:ieER cPTr: vo1AT FAG.- 1ie3s4 4 i+.aaw 3 _ 1.r3 2104.3172 f,IC�ii11M10r.1Yl -- sE � !'P[4, EACN selm 3120066 IF 1 3e1200 itX0 66 100 112409 ___ 1Q Y SNQ0000 1.79P?3 Y {1�1 00 6mr. ± f0i 21�p1 Ey R T6PEO rn SeE., •- MI5 i'Sv11N. 6rR6yy k1Y3 on s110m 503yob Er650p'W p¢, 1 p 5' .�- "9Y'9L 1 p f 6h! ___ -ea i MAO -. vs on Et610000„ g90m -Mitt- s10.1m11Q @v{,k4l R060H..IG MUM. F.. 13300 1 I 1m a Jpggm � 3.300 E .- W RE Ynldpk 5' uOer + �HJ.�1 _ _ >✓ 3r64W . wwz y,.'4 .4404. F a0. Z _ sA.10AGEe >n00,. C+ 1 FFA!�6 lyy0.9D Lissom 1 ii I69609 _ ,i 663 ts9Yp 9104509 _.._ vAy3_S1 o _ Ewe kRE 155.00 ? 44.am +9 ? 511p 0* S1Ioo0 T ilQ�11 ni���J $$�py. ,166M TOE SPEC.! Ei. 4C••T+ E N /Clw i26cn 5119 }•m1..m 1..80 1�Y_!9� y9 Tn + KINOO6 33335 i+.*1a �05 1,6e W1 3!R!4RL-.pn�4 3 S•2W =1 �%!07�9r 333...g. AA1'1010001C41 YY Y 1.IR' }3249 !TIC-_ 'i10 _1 QG s12�gra- - _ SEMONE1LPl46401i IA19EnIM REMOVE .,66quI.FrS Hit 0 52"Om00 Ori10 low 400 KOOg2 SE 155000l ._-- 05'.. W^ 21 r]61 y 13.3 3smRYl CaRef yu.**ER 171E* 1N Fr i+576 �00 1f7__ �7p, gq� £"'60 3+ oao VAE49d ,a Ws _ s1520m 51316G1 _ _ i,.se0Sa 31*10 0 _T _ pp,1C_ 5si y7�y�m 'r.°__ 000 -5_w2ri 21S,t3. .:91. w• E 1104_' 1 a 1i1 , �,a 3. .*1 .L+a n Dam* 05*0 ii055D! if06.m, 636.13NE nuARP1_ -6143R MP. IN Ft 12'e. T+'-4L1 -! 0 1• .'9. 3;±.3_r*yp. f2 MOO i} .QO 3'+!P3.r 20�_. i.W.3 ._--__ - __ r„ a]L - .*0'100YJ. Id,. Vt 001d6Y. PeMLrvE L1441. 4e mb.Ewwr MEMO RFJ.p*E&193300.1 PApE0.. *044 10 0 i'0.w. 3004 wn .141 94!iE... it...5m WI00 !] 10000 p:es,e 4II00 gwwr9,1yN.6wHa YGr.cOr 6:t,LVr0L6 Dail 1051 .s61� un..l Tm 610 - - Su s]G o9 - 1AIDL00 Jim _ _ ALA,.. StosewAWS +r vrO!!k. - - MAP 7!S6 iN700 WI _Evo4104* 04 J1 04 .+.46644 Xe.47GA6 . _ 550OQ3a,. _ �2l- .P➢ MFW+3.56[46 nMwµWNHW_ sEV.11� 4. eENs. b E 105320 .. , ,c, k'0:0� .. _ OQ! 00 333R*43003 41 74003r- �rjrp in E.... 303* UM .,S1y k3.04. .W .H+9_ •3 - LE,S't*4 .OP 00 07 3?d3 .6.2. 3 %7PS�rym 5';!10,0$p00 e•roleaoo .� 22s 3345511e? ._� _ .:.dim .. - LYYP @I1M i+m11494 _ .'. _ 3114 -i<556g0 i>_1) e.or.[ 210}eor 2, • I 21650yy7,EitAVATHIN•..CIROE Oe'e9lra �p160.Q4• 7.1i-.A ik0i0.? S3L3*3 331' SFL*1164] 1.%555051.L 1 00 404h3 R30 O3.ni 1Lv1 J.00AYAriII1:00LI1033A 353 N .. 0333 cum, 34*54 .3420 1 ..+LIE... + 73P w•01 LIMN 'sr Immm a 1.,11E 1137, *0.00m s*01iaOm e,.lii130_09 carat, F6id'!a 10!!4 „a� s106.f090.0 1„imm_ _ 93 1;. �. _ _ 41110 ar. Ira' 9xa 1,ww6m of m36.GWJ{,i�AR.EM 41.006¢!„ i7iw71i0Y9M.<Y&1411MI 1% i10 CYW. 31 � v0 i333 497 %`�a7OL 3 3 34 12/054/106 I' H235*R7 s60 *03 a s]Or3 0.(E- RF.9� .-7.- �4$. �� R1bum N3m1 £e25£e Hu%000 5, 1. mace A.5,5005 _ - 30!..311 9. O - 1 ,dvi 0 $14145.00_ Erg•i�pp 5162om - .F.8.0 6,66 020 IS.6W�:l41 �4 n n . 1.2tlmu-.- -- E00594 -P-1.301 *0 .EK,I1 11 rr. If` All _IE.. SYb10W % m t _ Sr m u'61 P, N. f3[9'? •nsm +ws M. 47 _ -� 002435033 iivic1Ass3 A 6.10 359130 la }+1.99609 .__ .r ,4211 Kr 2ao155. MO 5g3n'°F{F s10. r...;t.g4.[ ' .5.T. r. iC91 . Yi S 124E �•• 70N MI slwm +J *40 .W WIN 03 10033 •6030 '.59P 31000 ,6 xi 006 r1>26 9A�665n,� Ft7.Ma) 3SWA 99 32e m 1.6 300m0 9 .�13.swm ita . . 4'+O PI euw NM9m -ea 1M9 t..-. y fe?,ra�em n rr*F3P+xe t:e1N3 Yu UA1 200a •eftl_ 51po0 er F &POm - ,et- 320Q aew.6o3 .23Fk.37R. 360.,04E d9eao1 2.p Spr• 2 pl'.m 161c-51.1 • rypE aP SR4 I3i1 1?.6w�r R��61 + + ray i7R33 137.E YE4 waE kii' 00 r,33030 •31e000 oe�m "yi6,xaoo [.566,56 _ rnr 0.1+ !.,•d%m n?�11:7s6d1 WF 6R03*4 =MEE *0 1Tp1lP wf ppNM rP+ . L3Q9 Sas133 0 1260 :R9L Y130030 4 i+30330 6 __ +g _ _ "e1 Try .1!a&M �00036"2� - 4533 Yrmr,_14*0 'MrIFRk Lo4L Wfa31 riJ 11C*. i3930 _ -2 .Y. e,gp -" LPRES g�mse .:em i*3-14om ,s VA 11�a6 $1a1 i7Y6 ,v 1439 n urwsq 3�a1C 195 RE E.+..�1 P1- 31170VIE.1300 00IT f2 P, r2606` r3_ ' ,FS .11 4],O EOp 3 5405S 3!0}.31. . 2M.fr 415.1049. as0ji61• ---& P 0'1' 1' IIk3 SM15 se �59*7_ yi00 m 15 ..9 JE55 506 1pl5gso lee no o0 Via: �Oo -39666 10 0mm s, i. •„2u6 3+4E+a666 WPpm •• !1. 7l2 .- .._... �! '571 SQTa 15021s t yC{ EL+srui ¢yOr r,3 ,`f 1 ryc621 - N1'53r �1 iPl cuN uNa 1.56 E1, 10E1. rr- jM_.i0046 11 ,360}q - u.m___i! �1ee c9 - G9 363KO259- +a1 _ i, V• .�!.'.r lea dw: 6•2 1eoo-1 _.. .. ... 28L- 1,ADSO DQ _____41 68A5'..09 f+2rpjQ[Q NOL3.1R3_161.31E�0_N..1•.69u ..e71 0 *3*A ICVl "- y000�- },v glGl.t 1MN5 r9 Cu DO ne.m 116.04 ilira 1(.91 1 00 ... ssp.o 3.0333* 22�39q�e 12 i7 .ram'-'•..7301 3!4.414m 11Q0 30* ql�o,,L.nm�� }914� p,g.1220� * e3 6010 s,acaari 1 9Q, ,lA,]00 531 157 is So. Ol 1VI 12111* lr.5n e. 1m93� Imo _ i33_.i+! ?S+ .m m 2. 11301 RE N3�RA..11033 'S6i -I E1W A1LA. _F 3 �r.61F.79 1 {2rI�Mf m w1r0 uv" ,a1 5.. - I,SS001 5100 ,00w e63 5354MOO w, m 11330 s0i'%00 2 6153.P160D ws yu0ogm eMi� ss,0.5u m , R�OI s6E,Wm 121gl_ 11.1..1.2n E`r1101 �r �eiii 2�i E111.,1 .+5130 4"t�+ 1r 31AAe,Ysn EARiN sow xdltod6 061 r0�` 5' l.m.a0 `�_�3i-Y/1..`50 ili o6 ._ $.y13e 3307.�i@, _ yAwi : 6u� 1asr0p Gi5LrA4F fl![y. LS ,.O.Li.O�QR]. _ _ •r2 R#rYR):;4-144l JM IP1 ySi 9y 31 4:0Va 0* 40000 3]!+!_ ;pni 2r •' {.�6 eeem a070j3 AO 31a.!]606 10 V64< 31. ,82. .!1. "!A 104 34 ,933,07 LSI,p6 00 W _ e5F AIa00" }1yOMOp �4rs e..0311N61b.1 i3YLluru endl131 1 I+A _ 1afu 101•99000 W, 52m .ae�i. - lam 1!1 gy _ WM.0303 .4� _ pup ke 3..a3.py0 6,Ar.e pu ,lb? 1xi Rt. 2 2n ,56150E >37 r.4 .At5 ,..I R°J 1AR y1rQY a*51.AI J 1EI.roRAR*• . . rW 4 _ �6u 1 3 }.!.:.1lkAQ .1• A:0m H•603 11s.o0o 3iA91y3*. -1E449RAQ .a•G9 - _ w1 _Et330000 _ Fe1. Fwpt��AMp•1R1pC11Fr F",Y nc w�'AA7bN - 7550.00 51.513 00 1� !lmriq 2 . 3O0,oe.- ,•AO: Fl710d _ ~ .Q..R.C�Jl� �r>� L1 _ t 31.54030 AC 004* PIPE �AW066WW 2,3g,1iu2 ]p, 44* APA011 l A41} FACIE 560 3'�3. 1, [�yyp 1 E 9 Q� }1P.�2, *Al:: EE01 .r R: re�E 5.�3g11 Eu3H 13 J• 333m 00 _ . - � .._ Q00.0m0 x's"oi347ps I x• s%�� 1 11 }3�1RE47 �E'+J3- M.•07@P� 1661.p0E1,'RCSAFEi" a . P..62000 T 11 !2 p0 1561550WE R0 1 E E3eN ir,0�509y��00 �p1 y�07W��.p9p0 _ 3775PO4_ _ _ 25a1 e61�RC i,YLwI*ata.04 3.4.Y 1'.666 0*32047 Rt. y1A1330 OcceSign Envelope ID 70E82045-8733300F9APC4C 1 O14F9E94E li00 9501l00 339.iR1 11.ASn sFx�xlfAlO40.ri+.Y fRv 5 6x5C_ 2,11P1PESF1RER0EA .ti vwTs5n ER ota s i1.0 103 1+•RCPMP! 0 3500 500 ]r1FG ROE 613 19' roll SEVER OES So06CLr asm5os3 ]r q� n.Y 1590502 M300 Y-l1C�n 3�MI it rt SEMCRCLSALX5 E¢▪ I po LGI+RL1 MIRK lo.t S10511AfE%EN R 2311 SW Lff41YY1f__'R_LJR, 14E DESIGN SPED - UFO , I1 10M1*W' S RUC1ut10l �iRnwwe smuc'uRF oeslGrP STRgI,17.E5.J5 YG,_ � q oRPwwm S1RuL:uae FS 0O1A!] C01401 u14Y11f< S1NUC1uRE oeSIG11804,0 . C0?.DR"P!osFf $T?VFT4R€ oE.:2l?P3l_. xe�g_co.re* Dom...cc c1 RUc 1014E ms.. . zwy_v_n- cgyel. owaw_F s*ROcrugc urP s.+p9p moonl c al• Wr S.dyO-,Yr* rs,fis.��g 4'toion •r }RUct'WE DES 020 egli a C0WT pRW\GC onivolLq0ES Q4020 154Ip1 COW qRw sn+pF* WMOS Pkl71 64➢347 giz 1l • MUG, 12 1 e. i5aetµ+ rr9.rt rtn wecw. 31�63 Ste% ;,TNT REo€moll grFa•` j7Q+_941—kLYw4 [LL.cR_t'Pl Oxlry s1iE: LL zormt CSO kittoL oII Mt• Ity1 I1_ _NI��r��1.ilp9D1�'g'1YN��IurFHP' r��-2..AR665s 11591 �P 16 yMb.� ry ]al..00cil€TE M R6-i o2FMER ul Yca 96'0 ;�.7 SOI�IaF��1�.FyL�.=iER C .DGN Sb•a 2351ONGRF*Et,URS{ W11:1:1 L1051 -.1 wa.. ts]101011,5 1RORCATE0 WW1 '.... Sp-1j_.HP x']j,_F 1ri1C5AS1 novo eg sosul1 1SM511 SIIURIROUSCURS 7552. i S011ING JNI1IVPF �?0 sm hut! :riE SO-no! O- iel�l yif�il WG t�wirNo5,1o10 ESO..110 IOIT FDURM1pN CES1Gii1 SIS'pj 0J0yl51 FO1IjOfi_T!frR. pp,re II! 15,05.6 „reAktgLANC.rLRaY 46•5 SE ovoiCoOlt 1055_ 1 )5SF.F5O!+ou7 iRY3 '4 fl0 ell �rgr�n.+�1 2oRk e01 ••.ION+YFRkLN: C ND.RI >ZE5 _A.1 uROE�CIRp.�F/.]-H 1 Z . ./M]�u RGRU9N]0P?•� muss !MEC 1.141[01.1010164 CAKE AC• NAG 1550CW L.9w[I ,QP+DOT0O _ow soi Me Pn ]trout. .1+ �qp a�g y�SiµLti1B11ET __ 11.g WI 2-R01144I04.1..IC C0R1Y11 S9.S41 .PfL 9.S: AlF FW9.4CT1_ 511010.1. rgR6-R �or �oucrOCroft50lc xGBOlLD PQwERsISLO O �Qgt 104O RD 11 p]"a��_0G3 . �_qA0.i4 C:.dI F CQM�Jrr�?9!� IsQF! 3pB0'e�Pi'F�FJF�g1G TGB�-iIMG rsiJE- Y5i0ti.•.1nMktalk......_....._.-. 159� FRIER 001t FJNL61566 law e9a uyti514.4l MI Lad F. SW 00 inW W s„OCR SiOSRP 51•lS0000 S11GA00 1?? yp 50 wOm 11.001 y10 smodol VASCO 1E1003 WO o9 1➢50W sow co WOW 11.012 GO lom yca 1000 vioeo JP co E'Q.±1➢00 RP. m jw 1 111000 315u1m 1S91➢W _ 92S5110 AMOR i•L+w W Eyr100 5111100 oa Exhibil C - Estimated Cost and Cost Splits - Page 2 of 3 ffija EN IIRTMEMI -- Au 1o000 MI $7?d9A.p➢ =1 100 YMOW E.MMmmisa 1,210 ;1114In0o 191 Remo 11 511 Sr>0 SioACV 4 i±S4009 Mom 9i00] aQW O➢ 5+11>li L1155a0 • :• 17,1 �11=IM E=M_ 54•506:: 116nem W,51W lip !ROW is ko1$02 OD } (F9.6200 F5EG Or te... $1764V10 Mi===== .,10121 ���� 1?-1055?9 --�r �M� ,1pe5 � shin➢9 �MEI 1..61. SO 5101 • NON 161p0 W Wo AGON 0ocuSign Ens'elope If, 7QE62045-9733-013114-9AGC-7C 1614 FVE04E Exhibit C - Estimated Cost arid Lost SpIi s - Page 3 of 3 aea0 eon Loaf, pf1[Gf0R DF4& a5! 100YF� ,�45.4666 o 88 r964,T.Cv(rM_243J-3 5u __. 0005 41051 _' _6! .00 S2 ,�`5 580000 mile. 5 tm5 19000 60,6a939. _ 5146 I w 4 i9a7.6 en91e .ass. 3IH i 1 wig . gyp 1 2..E0E00 ON i3OA00.o0 taea EOV ,_2'60N[�GOr�!i 4,bQA0]., 6..xgn66.c.66+5H1. ielri F-i oR fti op shoo ea,Cmm m - _. .}i,S .gyp iv,;gp.gg - - 200 OT ccuu 24120( __ _ °jr , AS8[M%r: 151Fa ._� 1 55031. ##.44 _ ?k i1, m "4z•i 2.- _ yyod 'iilsm 1544.,105. � 552 +1!!6.4R2S•F. •" . rn100P.,.,S l F. I -1 411•5Au11101 EH5i 115d1 suAmm 61,302 1 f,5mMm i2R,15000 _ 2 slomo. 6.0Fa0W ._ ... _ - 564 303 5pejnCl.RRIE0 DESCH 1125055E „ , A.1050 9, 5241.110 - 7@_ - R650 551 bid 543 K..3RRIf°RF9: ✓! I?'.0.,0� . n1.1FIL W..AAlt:R oL...Roa.t-ii, 150 utl11 LIHIi 0234* ." ,6ri fna ae2 aui0 ' 50 sosos000 we.xea 55 i6,Om.W 2554053 _ 0C OSSiON wp, ., 55 �%. 52199.05 W+ 44 _y �' ii 1m ON - � 0*5!0.]. a6w e5. .P[.w,4'E++E.w7a5563 WI'3- - 3(5 301161w1t.501P e11w010. 1� 11� Lh .q w nirl. , m 9-99.0 3264.6iQ1q w 6611pm Mete 0±6 A1.0 0S50R _;7i.$F!0?' 0 ,.--...._m - i. m - .q fam0m - MR .N.SNOW. - -` t ?3a7 1;¢a ya AYE u",En!lr._,5F¢el rcwgl,. PM 13.130 rRy�y n Encn E.a:n � f006m 1 59Wm r26om 3 6265.m - 356i 101 _F.[S Y.. t0Ilc[O5Y16R ii4.a1a2 --- IZFT 5555 52n Ne 5mm - - 9( 34554200 �• - .r,�pg! ? 7_1164.1R4fr:. r!yfrx.rg�rl>�y„ RS:,y ca - _ �,16�H.L W100 a. moo fa. oxm 515 mom ;:mnmm �a:s, 16 a5.01103 DO . NOM 61o06.W 43 e: _ - .,, a i. m a;648 e_00401(50 Mew , F i.009019 - Nf M.w250 Asa602 L1.40.31.2uNgimR sVM5041- llEp OE131EA10R I0 ifICR. 11a,n 995,00 301m 315onL `_ 00 .. Doom AW` 14 mom ' F vim 15 143102 ROW Ar1ENw1 + `L E595.� 22666 - 4 ff5A50A0 } 61.03.13.3 __0, Xe3.e I5 ?i4.4� RkEOG,l fE 945.5 YIW4Ver A11 L.A,.„SIL a� ..1eg,12,5140 ?-?,6.[u0!r..� FJ.02' 51 it A "1 WO CO - 2' feWSW wSO - 41.1 yan u .i. SGu'TM 12 3c - 9[6.40 1 1 .Jg;Om amm _ _ _ -' 1a90 W y965 4!M._?57..R70.E(SRR?.16 uF1ai4+ .4£!GH'AQ5-09Rilvu.P.wrE 90 5.I5I�EF`rnp150[m[11�PE"dxa 3 , cu __L0 66660 2170 31 fy W as6..am S.RUCt E.!!� _PDS.S Ivor ABA§ m )s4.gog ie0e 00 -.Rucnrws,pR.rasrs.5Aoi!,.. 0503 511duc.cwu00011111.43s P.--_ POND i2)8 1ta,0' E i ¢],22, �, - 3-M5d1 20 04a00*015ajv; Srouclo0161,-. v05.56 .i9.go "13941 ,bxr 3599 -6661409 ..r _ -.- .}mil Pa0p _ ?SH.'{15 00l.5 11512 11 6o10CIo•4Ii[ I.vwt. l.39s � Iis+ tort on slcl.s irvs. v 371 : .1250 5008 1^ 50 .04 m6 Lss 31616m W - 9 EY ,f2 010$ i15'0i14" 6 'v_u05Ls 5M0 f,AnEcs iYF[G 4{G$1!166 S10F' s01' 440.00 Aram .. .6i2 mt -61 111 m9.y119➢_ t m _ �__� SL•.W_9.- _____ .SW. 113304 05•S1➢m .51521EA4. su.x5m .�.._. H+05 n.n5 as 1' i1.1y,•p1 .t42Al0 2se. s,e x614a,e -rp_A. all ...53 rr5E a1 11(R 6/1E36 IYv! wSIR.Y 501 ' 53.749 ,44 + .}t5 6490 ir9.9 - _ _ -T _ u m - 4P-96 cc _ _ - --- _ 610 6M6.614A F.199.9.5 . 9(05 2-a4 e52 i5r�'.R. o!xlF_82522!svpcuy Yop. luwiili PANEL tic, 1' CRT 00 6113A0 11 , 14Q i0P 41L_ 6 .t..r.tuli , s,n100 2504.102 OU r MM6CRSIW LAC,' .s .•24" .ifi4por m i •--- ?%4�49!..s.«�L�°..J.ie 2J13R &5015L lu.R!12?4av1 .... sIEEL• u436.. #?1- cam vo!VO oss, 4P99. iT.4 ator ;.1j,, co 6/61; NA50"m. y545105.02 _ .. ' PA@ 1"YF� EAR Yai li5:6.6! 36 :uuv:U1 -. i3P0.656. WOO MI - 1 � web.2d ; - - oe. x1.xaAo .3i3M. F €L9f05932G14.00 ,t,E,ent. c., .3�'e u a r1 S wi34010�ci_. wu.s .. N+5w 54.999q 515450Oil30 5 *A{tlO5 .m 0 W.mn.W i9.0 3#E5511. 1111 1NAFr10Cpr11N0L LIC S0ER3E.R _ .._6666646 iN454.. ➢49 ,Ss*J.4.HQ°.Q4O9. ,. 41 HE�0607 1i655,v 514 mas TR.FFIC �y M00525 600811 nEv4E;-Ex.oruFr-F_:..-draYEii c 1143.000i0 mom w uyo6u5 5a56.F9R.0.0 + aail 9»o�6 .i5e143A.A 1G1 1 W E161Am.80- 17.4.459.. .. -_ a013531 bp!. 01.LA�OLdi0L)0647 v1!:%Si Fu49�u9W5 !w.f: q.9R, u:,`SW si5050 nor _ I 1 y0pp44 3,04521m S20-.L64 010 ia,ma.m 0.1' y]pgW /►(m 00 r^• GI - ,� I.Omm .5 n._wZ 10Fae9a ii�nrunuu4'.E onpe .ai R" an.vf45905 F55009.B _4r5Do_ - i?2020 ,n 5 4Fe2P9 1 1146 4;15339. 15 _ 2t 9P 51 .1 "}gsoo3 7i.-239 };wco 7R.:4 5. it-6.1b9R.. 9040959 656, 9g L.R. aQks. 9 rr6k m." - f+i0 p!,. 7050549, w.ao Lgeg9 6La6054 0 41_ i63a9 H. 552E in.,mm u20A6 13a5_ 5i}0050 1153 41 44 00 "naaw •11-E02E', roc 1n 5400 1� ..t0 9/assa. 15,3505 • ElSir+4T1m181f.l9Ixr2N,�1E}nlw.5FR SM...'-_ 55s* a1a .s _.1f. i 11Er ffi �� - .299 ,L39 so 5 'A,ao 110 09Sem ,`&y_f.�s!L.1+_3:$S44_,. 05.SA n>asec345 .uW 01.51. 6!2000 ,.X_4, -*AMA - R� 155 .i0_59 92 .i,t6�.-_6561 5946/A ?5. .8 .116.20R49 1 5N000 4 semen_ 25,.505 25.1055p 501%OR0Fv.R.L10.5 i - - OVA- to. 3:- Doss . 5050 pg 52.F6e•s Iap "`2k i]I0.Ea INK i4C✓9 01 3€5 SIM_ i4. 55pq 3V,,A 1 a 0-5 9(0444. 32ee li a 5:S 59 r5 53 FE Riirt£rt 1514 s(701,�4 " .i,Q-50 - 3.6m .a 9} ix.Amm - .. 105 i1rs5 oA "}52a14 *USA 694 � -.99 i+�.5m _ 6,b5u 2.6! a F.ER.1A. �_ 052005 6 2F[0eva.r4 0600.ar 6 W �� 060 90 ,0_ j+a000 11 74e6v Ov S.S"oo -i1�m ... �nn Si0500S 15Y e5 s1•vnr ,.R1 i WEED 16.l400Fas la w n•, .612949 0 a.,nn 0 - 11w .1 .. 4+„396.r 9 �.=y _- �3p� 2i'i6- -j3..E sri " _, .. "A 71Ho.. m 5-+v EO MEOW &'>5. •I..nv . _ 71.W - i .:4�0_ 1 .EY2 09 ---' 11] - .P - .1.9 Ire sssam ee s, 35sico ffin r554e 6aLo x151034 aa•2e1 uaf95)1i rn.mc 3R49 - �'' 5550911p L.�t6R4 ..-.�3f. 10.. -- .W 6504!" 566654 J.? 56Wm li '�53 00030Iro OE40III)32 ur2100 535350 a, 1e5,amm 7 i1p(6(0 f/.WAS^ ... 11] 2fia.is4m r50 for a0 06 p6�301 ROLIPOE,C'1,5.vn�va5•Iouu0Ecox1 Os ...*0/i6.:^1.E6i.WQ C11'l,0i`1Ii ui9[liaiiarF 4999: }, ,0 100 5 .650319!.0Q 6W „9QW _ 0142omd Si1n1m 1¢50 4!B9!!p. ! r• 112i01100 65Uoeo5 ref ...fl e'e06600 3y5 1,0i•2 Ou aa1166 EMI rt w[rvh...:,t11 r2R.u-.: 1'i.151,rc.1..5. •.. a: [,. inS., .,.••[I'C«y-.11.evilr n:. 64+:.!'w yt i155 2155 00 19.13000 kit i "gay_. 4150 61 . 6i:1.c as 3n., D0 SAS a•g0(IO. nF vkr.i;wa; '."' -6a .s15 _ y1FG _ 5ne615 .166T ZN50i ELM lm i50P12L.[.PAA11.L:.: ,MI5 SOLID o1Ni 0,430 3.....041 +9�•• .} nm 449ft � _ _ _ _. .__!En .._ - 10 F1as1 3405 00 .662y26. am? ,6•� In.q 4u1ii Wui 4' so:lalln11001A _236 11 Z,,_ i066 eee9_ awl .047i594 ulem ,w0 tii Se i1.� Iro m Alm $2.2 16E0e03 6•svu)lv.Eri CA 6 ypz q+55 x'1719R' ¢p1/49_ SM.,,,,,, lw{ i75o�a_ xrs 5.,,.a i3R6�3 jj00}} 1103043ea2lpr_01 3452,l in4 Y0ni.CO1�RGgvr0905 uv yrrw E.v., i 40455e 140 :9. sot 4014_ i+�•am T .6% . .!k 550 4,avr, j 110 ai,11io0 ,• pan DO 0Sp2.485 3,0411.l5!ilrcaw GR 5N(In.[, Wes I.00 6....E9 ?44R9. iics. 'f50 ,99 01 11].m - T-'•• 346a.630 .'v6Le sO.IV I1REw11� C 309331E i.wa, 3 05 65 i64I6Ii!5F _. Feµ a; iFp S1050 .11 i5 a'1145 4.6p50� _ _ _ _-'- -. _ 1r1} -S 2170 y N'2o6.5_P m1t 1tw55i �o �. �55a' .., EA663.6. _ EMMEN PRO TA. OH 0.0 39W 9..5Om .i•.'W.90 336 1' 0433 .. _- 740 �4�dd 10.11.s 2321 TAvf in. !'DQ?" 9(5. ggQQ��FS!II.n[v ',SF PGq.ii. (.v: ¢, •.[..: mP.4 13 5 •i4F0R'� PO -- _ •'.1 0! 575,e as 6451003 M iSigyR . 2se1 s63"-ii 00YYEo1lnE agF.c il4x.ax Uen 14W 20 9!ws5 _. 01 516033 25f22./ 052.�4 3.05 1i PMR 1168 .E.RE.-114E p Gt,40 1 531' *1105 x. 3E6E160)*.50 592' 4xam iR002021 vna.-1.0.ovi.«esu SO,' 4+e00 A a a0�A...45i1a905 4444.59 _ _?442 i _ _ .. 9? a,l 1010 5ae2m 55'/.15; i.>_'ra,.n i0i.L 61F.616111M N7QM1.1. 116,404.14441 411491.14 DocmSign Envelope 70E62045.97334 004.9AUC-7C1o14F0Ea4E r 0207CAD_BIM Gra nlcslROW Gratin co020i M Prouus11000 [Exhibil D - Post-Prajeci Right of Way Map - Page 1 of 1 LEGEND 144001 OWNED RIGHT OF HAY CITY OF STILLWATER OTNE0 RIGHT OF WAY CITY OF LAKE ELMO OWNED RIGHT OF TAY WASHINGTON COUNTY OTN€O RIGHT OF TAY CITY OF GRANT' rt 5B MANNING AVE F + 11� er• —+: �• •'p L NB MANNING 'AVE 1 4=V ^4:t>'.g.� -F, • 'P.: CI rY OF SrILLwA @WALL l (za• [[Po EB 60TH ST N •t SW RAMP _ : € RIALL 3 (24. 343E1 a a .--e I� RiIAI L ] S25C[P] EB LINDEN AVE 9, NE RAMP LOCAT(f- a xCC, POALB L1.4.5 r,cn 5. f .t ROT ASSUMPTIONS. PROPOSED ROW WAS PLACED BASED 0HO 1. THE ROADWAY CONSTRUCT ICN LIMITS INCLUO ING LIMITS To THE TOE OF SLOPE AND BACK OF DITCH. 2 10 HALLS FOR RAIROM NTENFAIIICE RREEGOIRELENTS. ALL WALL HEIGHTS WERE HEA5LMED FROM THE NA% STEN HEIGHT BASED 4N THE EKISITN OR FUTURE CAONNKLINE. Atr PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY TH 36/Manning Avenue Interchange i0 l3 c Washington County. MN 11 Figure 1 1 City Council Memo MEMO DATE: March 9, 2021 CASE NO.: 2021-07 MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021 LANDOWNER: Jon and Ann Whitcomb REQUEST: Adopting Resolution of approval LOCATION: 12950 75th Street North REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION At the Council's last regularly -scheduled meeting the Council considered a request for a 20' variance to the 100' 75th Street North right-of-way setback for one lot to be located in the future White Pine Ridge residential subdivision. In a 5-0 vote, the Council found the applicant had established practical difficulties and approved the requested setback variance. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution memorialize the request. RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN A RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION TO FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH CPC CASE NO. 2021-07 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a request from the Applicant Jon and Ann Whitcomb a 20' variance to the 100' right-of-way setback from 75th Street right-of- way to allow for the future construction of a home, to be associated with the future White Pine Ridge residential subdivision, to be located at 12950 75th Street North (PID 3003020140012), legally described as follows: The south 1373.77 feet of the East Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 30, Range 20, Washington County, Minnesota; excepting therefrom the north 58.61 feet of the west 268.95 feet of the south 1373.77 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the west 80.00 feet of the south 720.00 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the east 245.00 feet thereof; and also excepting therefrom all that part which lies southerly of "line 3" as described as follows: "Line 3" is 75.00 feet northerly of and parallel with the following described centerline: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 01°04'48" West, assumed bearing, along the north -south quarter line of said Section 30 a distance of 38.03 feet to the beginning of said centerline; thence North 81°50'36" East, a distance of 1,395.68 feet; thence Easterly a distance of 1,279.97 feet along a tangential curve concave to the South, having a radius of 5,729.58 feet and a central angle of 12°47'59" and a chord bearing of North 88°14'36" East to a point on the East line of said Section 30, said point being 262.54 feet Northerly of the east quarter corner of said Section 30, and said centerline terminating at said point WHEREAS, City Code Section 31-302 allows for the construction of new structures to be setback 100' from the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had a future structure to be located 80' from the right- of-way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicants' Application at their regular meeting on January 27, 2021; and WHEREAS, at the January 27, 2021 Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted, 4-3, to deny the request; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicant's Application in a public hearing held on March 2, 2021, and found the Applicant had established practical difficulty warranting the granting of a variance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the city of Stillwater hereby approves a 20' variance to the100' CR12 Right -of -Way setback for the future Lot 1, Block 1, White Pine Ridge to be located at 12950 75th Street North. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this March 16th, 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk City Council Memo MEMO DATE: March 9, 2021 MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021 LANDOWNER: Michael Russ REQUEST: Adopting Resolution of approval LOCATION: 819 William Street North REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-02 INTRODUCTION At the Council's last regularly -scheduled meeting the Council considered a request to subdivide the property at 819 William Street North. In a 5-0 vote, the Council conditionally approved the resubdivision request. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution memorialize the request. RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2-3, BLOCK 12, STAPLES AND MAY'S ADDITION CASE NO. 2021-02 WHEREAS, Michael Russ, landowner, made application to subdivide their lot into two parcels; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the subject lot to be resubdivided is: Lots 2-3, Block 12, Staples and May's Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject lot is to be resubdivided into two parcels described as follows: Parcel A That part of Lots 2 and 3, Block 12, Staples and May's Addition, Washington County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the easterly 75.00 feet thereof ; and Parcel B The easterly 75.00 feet of Lots 2 and 3, Block 12, Staples and May's Addition, Washington County, Minnesota. ; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing on the resubdivision and found it to be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the City's Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, Comprehensive Plan, and infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the resubdivision of Lots 2-3, Block 12, Staples and May's Addition 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. Page 2 of 2 2. The existing utility wires which cut across the northwest comer 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 be due to the City for Parcel A upon release of its deed from City offices for recording with Washington County. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 16ih day of March, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk I iwater FFIF RIFITHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT MEMO DATE: HEARING DATES: LANDOWNER: DEVELOPER: REQUEST: 1. 2. 3. 4. LOCATION: COMP PLAN: ZONING: REVIEWED BY: March 10, 2021 Planning Commission Park Commission City Council Gary Jorgensen CASE NO.: 2021-03 February 24, 2021 February 22, 2021 March 16 Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development Rezone from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential Concept Shoreland District Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat approval of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, a 12-lot residential development Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of Highway 96 setback variance 13187 Dellwood Road North (aka State Hwy 96) 2384 Oak Glen Trail Low/Medium Density Residential 1) Base Zoning: AP, Agricultural Preservation 2) Overlay Zoning: Natural Environment Shoreland Management District Shawn Sanders, City Engineer Abbi Wittman, City Planner Tom Ballis, Deputy Fire Chief Dan Scollan, DNR East Metro Interim Hydrologist Cindy Shilts, Stillwater Building Official David Kratz, MNDOT Senior Transportation Planner Karen Kill, Administrator, Brown's Creek Watershed District REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director 60-DAY DEADLINE: March 23, 2021 BACKGROUND Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, LLC, is proposing to develop 4.19 acres of land that currently includes two parcels with a home on each. These parcels are located at 13187 Dellwood Road North (State Hwy 96) and 2384 Oak Glen Trail. Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition March 10, 2021 Page 2 About half of the property (2.02 acres) lies within the Natural Environment Shoreland District of South Twin Lake (see Map A). On these 2.02 acres, development must either be on one acre lots or must occur as a Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD). A shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the site remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake; 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. The developer has chosen to develop the entire site as a PUD, and the western 2.02 acres according to Shoreland PUD standards. South Twin Lake Shoreland Management District SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested the following of the City Council: 1. Rezone the property at 13187 Dellwood Road from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 2. Concept PUD approval for a 12-lot development plan (includes both parcels); 3. Preliminary Plat approval of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, an 11- lot residential development (not including the existing lot at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, which is already platted); and 4. Appeal of variance denied by the Planning Commission for 60-foot setback from State Highway 96 in order to build new houses as close as 60 feet to the standardized right-of-way, whereas 100 feet is required. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST 1. REZONING The parcel at 13187 Dellwood Road North is currently zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation. The developer is requesting that it be rezoned to RB, Two -Family Residential. The lot at 2384 Oak Glen Trail is zoned RA, Single -Family Residential and the plan is to keep the zoning the same. The rezoning to RB for the larger parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides development of the property as Low/Medium Density Residential. The Zoning Districts that are consistent with the Low/Medium Density Residential classification are: CCR, RB and CR. The first addition of Heifort Hills Estate was also rezoned to RB. II. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the portion of the site within the shoreland district remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake; 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site shoreland district portion of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. This Concept PUD includes nine detached townhomes, one new single family home, and two existing single family homes that will be incorporated into the PUD. The cluster of nine detached townhomes has been located toward the east side of the property furthest away from South Twin Lake. Even though the PUD includes the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, the preliminary plat does not, since it is already platted. See Map C on the Page 5 for the Concept PUD layout. Access Access is the most complicated aspect of this project. MnDOT will allow the existing access on Highway 96 to remain, but only one additional house may use this driveway. And, given that the east bound right turn lane into Oak Glen Trail begins right where the driveway intersects with the highway, MnDOT would prefer if the existing drive were eliminated. Since no additional access is allowed onto Hwy 96, an alternate access point would be needed to develop the property. To accomplish this, the developer has acquired control of the Oak Glen Trail lot. And he proposes to align the private road past the existing house at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 4 The normal minimum distance between centerlines of offset legs of an intersection is 150 feet. The proposed offset is only about 30 feet. As a PUD, this project is allowed to develop with alternate road design standards. But, the alternate design still needs to be safe to be acceptable. As seen in the attached Traffic Impact Study prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer, this causes concern. As quoted from the study, "The combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway (Neal Court) and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway". A safer intersection alignment is illustrated by the crosshatched roadway in Map B below. This represents the midway point between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane to its south. The disadvantage of the safer alignment is that the house at 2384 Oak Glen Trail would have to be moved or demolished. Map B Alternate intersection alignment Density Two separate density expectations are at play with this project. The first is that the Comprehensive Plan encourages 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre across the property. But, working against this density expectation is the fact that half the land lies within the South Twin Lake Shoreland District, which incorporates regulations that reduce its density considerably. Specifically, the State's shoreland PUD rules calculate density based upon what type of shoreland district is involved, the minimum lot size of that district, and the distance away from the lake. As long as 50% of the area within the lakeshore district is preserved as Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 5 permanently dedicated open space (i.e. an undevelopable outlot), density increase bonuses are allowed. And, the further you get from the lake, the greater the density bonus. The resulting number of houses allowed in the shoreland district of this project is calculated and presented in the table below. Residential PUD Analysis - Natural Environment Lake Density and allowable unit calculation Allowable Allowed Units with Units Allowed Total Unsuitable Suitable Min. Base Density Density Proposed transferred with Tier Area Area Area Lot Size Density Increase Incr Units to next tier transfer 3 73,852 0 73,852 40,000 1.85 200% 3.69 2.70 1.0 2.70 4 14,150 0 14,150 40,000 0.35 200% 0.71 1.60 0.0 1.70 88,002 0 88,002 4.40 4.30 1 4.40 In summary, 4.4 houses are proposed within the shoreland area of this PUD, and 4.4 houses are permitted. Map C 7 Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition So_ Twin Lake shoreland district Private street New house Existing house I -// /// /A Shoreiand District open space Open space outside of Shore€and 100' setback Standardized 150' wide r-o-w Pervious turnaround Mire ' Concept PUD Layout 0 Swe Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 6 Open space within shoreland district As mentioned already, 50% of the area of a PUD within a shoreland district must be permanent open space. 50% is provided, as can be seen in the darker green color on Map C on the previous page. However, to get to 50%, the "grasscrete" pervious turnaround surface for the private road was considered open space.1 Impervious surface Only 25% of a Shoreland PUD is allowed to have impervious surface. The portion of this PUD within the shoreland district shows 24.5% impervious surface2. Setbacks With a PUD there are generally no setbacks required, except from the perimeter of the project. In this case, the setbacks of the underlying zoning district (RB), shoreland overlay district, and Highway would apply to the property perimeters. Therefore, the setback lines will be: 25' from the east, south and west; and 100' from a standardized right of way line along State Highway 96. The required highway setback is shown by the red line in the graphic below and the magenta line in Map D on the next page. The City requires a 100-foot setback from arterial roads such as Hwy 96 due to higher traffic volumes and speeds than found on local streets. The proposed PUD plans a house setback of 60 feet and a patio setback of 45 feet. (The patio is not required to meet the 100- foot setback.) The developer has therefore requested a 40-foot variance from the Hwy 96 setback. The requested 60-foot setback is in keeping with the established setback line of the neighborhood, as evident in Map D on the next page. 1 Roads and driveways within the open space area are not considered open space except for the pervious turnaround. 2 88,120 sf total area in shoreland district area. 66,570 sf pervious, which includes turnaround and secondary drive on Lot 8. 21,550 sf impervious. Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition March 10, 2021 Page 7 Map D Hwy 96 setback line The Planning Commission denied the variance request and the developer has appealed the decision to the City Council. As detailed in the attached appeal letter, the developer asks the Council to reconsider the variance for the following reasons: 1. The traffic from 2017 shows 7,600 Average Daily Trips. This has been reduced by 30% according to the County due to the opening of the new St Croix River crossing. 2. With nine homes in Oak Glen along Hwy 96 that do not meet this requirement, it appears there is no harm in allowing the same standard to be applied to Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition. III. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Overview The preliminary plat for this first phase consists of: • Nine detached townhomes, one new single family home, one existing single family home that will be incorporated into the PUD. As noted above, the project incorporates the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail as well, but it is not proposed to be included in this plat. • A 562' private road is proposed. This is in keeping with the 600-foot maximum allowed on a single access road. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 8 • Lots for the detached townhomes are planned to be large enough for the house and 5' setbacks from lot lines, but no private yard space. The rest of the property will be platted as an open space outlot lot that will be owned in common by all the 11 lots in the plat. 2. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the plan set and finds the following. • The private road will need an easement, since it is in the Home Owners' Association outlot and not being platted. • A private street maintenance agreement will be needed. • Water mains and sanitary sewer within the private road will have to be private. • Since the water main in this project will provide public water looping, that portion of the water pipes that are public should not be in the private street. A preferred location would be in an easement along the south edge of the project. The City hired a traffic engineering consultant to study the potential impact of this residential subdivision on the intersections and roads in the neighborhood. As seen in the attached study, the projected traffic generation would not alter the current levels of service at any intersections. They will continue to operate at A and B levels. 3. Fire Safety • A cul-de-sac is preferred to a Y turn around. But, the Y turnaround is acceptable if it complies with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. • The proposed street name will need to changed, since there is already a road with that name in Stillwater. 4. Tree Preservation & Landscaping More than 35% of the tree crown coverage on the site is being removed. So, tree replacement will be required. Also, landscaping requirements of the subdivision code call for three trees per lot. The landscaping and tree replacement standards together this development require 88 trees. 76 are shown in the plan set. So, the plans need to be revised to add the 12 more trees. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 9 In addition, the mix of tree species needs to become more varied. The spruce, crabapple, and sugar maple planned represent three of the five most common genera of trees in Stillwater. They are significantly overplanted. To protect the urban forest against tree pests and disease, a greater variety of trees would be helpful. Also, the dwarf burning bush listed in the planting schedule for this project is listed by the MN Department of Agriculture as a noxious weed. It needs to be replaced in the plans with a native shrub option. 5. Park and Trail Dedication The City's Comprehensive Plan shows neither public park improvements nor public trails planned on, or along the perimeter of the property. There is a future trail envisioned along Highway 96 that would provide connections between Stillwater Township and Brown's Creek Trail. However, it is premature to acquire easements for this trail, since it has not been determined yet whether the trail should be on the north or south side of the highway. In addition, the land directly abutting the highway is not owned or controlled by the developer. It is owned by residents living in Stillwater Township on the north side of the highway. Therefore, the Park Commission recommended cash dedication in lieu of park or trail improvements. Funnre Trail in red NCI* Comrnuni Park �� South La k NI Creek 55 y �V l▪ eo qt— FA V 4 y =w� • • 111 The park dedication fee is $2,000 per new home and the trail fee is $500 per home. For the 10 new homes the total dedication will be $25,000. This fee will be due prior to release of the final plat. Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition March 10, 2021 Page 10 ACTION REQUESTED Integrity Land Development requests the Council to: 1. Approve the first reading of an ordinance to rezone the property at 13187 Dellwood Road from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 2. Approve the Concept PUD for a 12-lot development plan (includes both parcels); 3. Approve the Preliminary Plat of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, an 11-lot residential development (not including the existing lot at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, which is already platted); and 4. Overturn Planning Commission denial of variance from the minimum allowed setback distance from State Highway 96 in order to build new houses as close as 60 feet to the standardized right-of-way, rather than the 100 feet required. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends denial of the development as proposed with the private road north of the home on 2384 Oak Glen Trail. If the Council wishes to approve the development with a condition to relocate the private road per the recommendation of SRF, then staff recommends attaching the conditions listed below. 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Site Plan Sheet C1 dated 2/17/21 • Removal Plan Sheet C2 dated 2/17/21 • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Sheet C4 dated 2/17/21 • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Sheet C5 dated 2/17/21 • Utility Plan Sheet C6 dated 2/17/21 • Utility Plan Sheet C7 dated 2/17/21 • Plan and Profile Sheet C8 dated 2/17/21 • SWPP Sheet C10 dated 2/17/21 • Landscape Plan Sheet L1 dated 2/17/21 2. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 3. The design of the pervious turnaround section of the private street must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Assistant Fire Chief. 4. A minimum of 10 feet must be provided from back of curb to every house foundation. 5. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, a private road easement and maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the City and found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer. 6. The water mains and sanitary sewer lines located within the private road must be private utilities. Heifort Hills Estate 2°a Addition March 10, 2021 Page 11 7. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, the section of water main that provides a public water loop must be encumbered by an easement found acceptable to the City Attorney and City Engineer and located along the south edge of the project. 8. The "Y" turnaround must comply with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. 9. The private street name will need to be changed on the final plat. 10. The access point for the private road must be shifted southward similar to the alignment shown in Map B. 11. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing any tree removal or grading on the site, and prior to holding a pre -construction meeting with the City Engineer for the project. 12. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for any grading or other work within their right of way. 13. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to releasing the final plat for recording with the County. 14. A total park and dedication fee of $25,000 shall be paid to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 15. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 16. The Developer will be responsible for paying trunk sewer and water fees. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 17. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted together with final plat materials. The revised plan must show a total of 88 trees. The mix of all the tree species should be more varied and found satisfactory to the City Natural Resources Specialist. In addition, the dwarf burning bush must be replaced with a native shrub option. 18. If the Developer desires to have a neighborhood entrance monument for the subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application materials. Otherwise, such a sign will not be permitted in the future. cc Todd Ganz Attachments: Variance appeal letter Rezoning Ordinance Resolution Development Plans SRF Traffic Impact Study MnDOT Review Letter Public comments 13635 Johnson Street NE Engineering, Inc Ham Lake, MN 55304 Office (763) 862-8000 Fax (763) 862-8042 February 26, 2021 Bill Turnblad City of Stillwater 216 N Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: Heifort Hills 2nd Addition Dear Bill, We are formally requesting a variance appeal in regards to case number CPC-202103. The Stillwater City code requires 100' from the R/W of State Trunk Highway 96. The nine homes directly adjacent to Heifort Hill's 2nd addition within the Oak Glen 10th, 1 1th, and 15th addition do not currently meet this requirement. While we do not know the history of the reason for the discrepancy, it was most likely the intent to prepare for future expansion of State Trunk Highway 96 and to provide a proper setback from that expansion. However, South Twin Lakes is a natural obstacle and with the present climate of allowable wetland impacts, seems unlikely to be allowed to expand in this manner. Also the traffic from 2017 shows 7,600 Average Daily Traffic. This has been reduced by 30% according to the County due to the opening of the bridge located on State Trunk 36. With nine homes directly adjacent to this new development that do not meet this requirement, it appears there is no harm in allowing the same restriction of the roughly 60' setback that currently exists within the Oak Glen 10`h, 11th and 15th addition, therefore we request a variance and apply the same 60' setback as outlined in the report from the planning department. Sincerely, RFC Enginee jng, Inc. David A. Krugler, P.E. Senior Engineer Cc: Gary Jorgensen Cc: Todd Ganz cc: 2021 correspondence w w w. R F C e n g i n e e r i n g. c❑ m ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 31-300 ENTITLED ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES TO RB, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Case No. 2021-03 The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. The zoning of the following property is hereby amended to RB, Two - Family Residential: That part of East 1/2 of the West 1/2 Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Northerly of the Northerly lines of Lot 10, Lot 11, and Lot 13 and the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 10 all in Block I, OAK GLEN 8th ADDITION, as monumented, and lying Northerly and Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lot I, Block 2, and Lot 3 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot I all in Block I, OAK GLEN I Oth ADDITION, as monumented, according to the plats on file in the office of the registrar of titles, Washington County, Minnesota, Stillwater Township. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after publication according to law. Section 3. This Ordinance shall not be published until the Final Plat for Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition is approved by the City Council. effect. Section 4. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and Adopted by the City Council this day of April, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION CASE NO. 2021-03 WHEREAS, Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, has submitted an application for approval of: 1. Rezoning of the subject from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 2. Concept PUD approval; 3. Preliminary Plat approval of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, an 11-lot residential development; and 4. Appeal of variance denied by the Planning Commission for setback from State Highway 96 in order to build new houses as close as 60 feet to the standardized right-of-way, whereas 100 feet is required; and WHEREAS, the property subject to the terms of this Resolution is legally described as: That part of East'/2 of the West'/Z Northwest'/ of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Northerly of the Northerly lines of Lot 10, Lot 11, and Lot 13 and the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 10 all in Block I, OAK GLEN 8th ADDITION, as monumented, and lying Northerly and Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lot I, Block 2, and Lot 3 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot I all in Block I, OAK GLEN I 0th ADDITION, as monumented, according to the plats on file in the office of the registrar of titles, Washington County, Minnesota, Stillwater Township, and Lot Three (3), Block One (1), OAK GLEN 10TH ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Washington County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2021 the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater held a public hearing on the Concept PUD, preliminary plat, rezoning and Highway 96 setback variance for Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition and upon hearing testimony from the public voted 7-0 to deny the variance and recommend denial of the Concept PUD, preliminary plat and rezoning; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing on the requests and found them to be substantially consistent with City development standards, the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plans of all surrounding jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the requests for Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following plans on file with the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by the conditions herein: • Site Plan Sheet C1 dated 2/17/21 • Removal Plan Sheet C2 dated 2/17/21 • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Sheet C4 dated 2/17/21 • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Sheet C5 dated 2/17/21 • Utility Plan Sheet C6 dated 2/17/21 • Utility Plan Sheet C7 dated 2/17/21 • Plan and Profile Sheet C8 dated 2/17/21 • SWPP Sheet C10 dated 2/17/21 • Landscape Plan Sheet L1 dated 2/17/21 2. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 3. The design of the pervious turnaround section of the private street must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Assistant Fire Chief. 4. A minimum of 10 feet must be provided from back of curb to every house foundation. 5. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, a private road easement and maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the City and found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer. 6. The water mains and sanitary sewer lines located within the private road must be private utilities. 7. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, the section of water main that provides a public water loop must be encumbered by an easement found acceptable to the City Attorney and City Engineer and located along the south edge of the project. 8. The "Y" turnaround must comply with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. 9. The private street name will need to be changed on the final plat. 10. The access point for the private road must be shifted southward similar to the alignment shown in Map B. 11. A Development Agreement found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing any tree removal or grading on the site, and prior to holding a pre -construction meeting with the City Engineer for the project. 12. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for any grading or other work within their right of way. 13. The developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the permit must be issued prior to releasing the final plat for recording with the County. 14. A total park and dedication fee of $25,000 shall be paid to the City prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 15. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specified in the plans submitted for final plat approval. 16. The Developer will be responsible for paying trunk sewer and water fees. These fees will be due prior to release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 17. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted together with final plat materials. The revised plan must show a total of 88 trees. The mix of all the tree species should be more varied and found satisfactory to the City Natural Resources Specialist. In addition, the dwarf burning bush must be replaced with a native shrub option. 18. If the Developer desires to have a neighborhood entrance monument for the subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application materials. Otherwise, such a sign will not be permitted in the future. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 16th day of March, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2021- CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION DENYING CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION CASE NO. 2021-03 WHEREAS, Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, has submitted an application for approval of: 1. Rezoning of the subject from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 2. Concept PUD approval; 3. Preliminary Plat approval of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, an 11-lot residential development; and 4. Variance for setback from State Highway 96 in order to build new houses as close as 60 feet to the standardized right-of-way, whereas 100 feet is required; and WHEREAS, the property subject to the terms of this Resolution is legally described as: That part of East'/2 of the West'/Z Northwest'/ of Section 20, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota lying Northerly of the Northerly lines of Lot 10, Lot 11, and Lot 13 and the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 10 all in Block I, OAK GLEN 8th ADDITION, as monumented, and lying Northerly and Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lot I, Block 2, and Lot 3 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot I all in Block I, OAK GLEN I 0th ADDITION, as monumented, according to the plats on file in the office of the registrar of titles, Washington County, Minnesota, Stillwater Township, and Lot Three (3), Block One (1), OAK GLEN 10TH ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Washington County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2021 the Planning Commission for the City of Stillwater held a public hearing on the Concept PUD, preliminary plat, rezoning and Highway 96 setback variance for Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition and upon hearing testimony from the public voted 7-0 to deny the variance appeal and recommend denial of the Concept PUD, preliminary plat and rezoning; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the denial of the variance to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing on the requests for the Concept PUD, the Preliminary Plat, the rezoning and the appeal of the denial of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the evidence, testimony and written reports received, the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby denies the Concept PUD, Preliminary Plat, and rezoning based on the following findings of fact: 1. The Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat are denied because as proposed, they are found to be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, specifically due to the following factors: a. The Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat provide a private roadway that accesses onto Oak Glen Trail in a manner that is unsafe from a public safety and traffic standpoint. The normal minimum distance between centerlines of offset legs of an intersection is 150 feet. The proposed offset is approximately 30 feet, causing a potentially dangerous traffic situation. b. Additional reasons are articulated in the Memorandum dated February 18, 2021 from Jeff Bednar of SRF, which is incorporated herein, specifically that: "The combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway (Neal Court) and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway". c. The location of the private driveway for the residence at 2384 Oak Glen Trail directly abuts the new proposed private roadway access, causing competing access points, additional congestion and unsafe access onto Oak Glen Trail for all traffic. 2. The Rezoning is denied based on the denial of the Concept PUD and the Preliminary Plat. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Stillwater denies the appeal from the variance and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance based on the denial by the Council of the accompanying planning applications. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 16th day of March, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk PLAN SYMBOLS EXISTING CENTERLINE PROPOSED EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE PROPOSED CONSTRUCNON EASEMENT LINE PERMANENT LOT PROPERTY LINE SECTION - -901- - - -- INTERMEDIATE - -901 .25- -INDEX GRADE BREAK 90 INTERMEDIATE 900 CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CLEAR ZONE EXISTING CONTOURS 901.25 INDEX PROPOSED CONTOURS SB 0 —xxx— W X BM -WB - » OHE EXISTING BUILDING SETBACK EXISTING TREES SEDIMENT LOGS SILT FENCE W W WETLAND BOUNDARY O TREE SYMBOLS EXISTING TREES (TO REMAIN) BENCH MARK / IRON MONUMENT UGHT POLE / BOLLARD BUILDING RIPRAP EXISTING SOIL BORING ADDITIONAL SOIL BORING WETLAND BUFFER UTILITY SYMBOLS OHE OVERHEAD » >>E>XISNNG »» PROPOSED I PROPOSED PROPOSED � EXI5TING PROPOSED 0 0 0 ELECTRIC POWER POLE STORM DRAIN LINE FLARED END SECTION CATCH BASIN MANHOLE WELL SEPTIC SYSTEM CLEANOUT AND MANHOLE - EXIST<NGPROPOSED < - SANITARY SEWER I-410- WATERMAIN AND HYDRANT PROPOSED EXISTING 041 EXISTING N VALVE PROPOSED —I-1—I—I-1—I— DS GAS METER 2" SPRINKLER LINE DOWNSPOUT LOCATION HATCH LEGEND EXISTING GRAVEL REMOVAL AVERAGED WETLAND BITUMINOUS REMOVAL GRAVEL BUFFER \\\\\\\\\\ 8 FOOT POND ACCESS ROAD TEMPORARY EROSION CONSTRUCTION EXIT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONTROL BLANKET HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 11111 I 0 50 100 FEET 200 VICINITY MAP SEC. 20, T30, R20 WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA STATE HIGHWAY 96 0 ',Jj 0 \k NOT TO SCALE CML ENGINEER: RFC ENGINEEERING, INC. DAVID A. KRUGLER, P.E. 13635 JOHNSON ST. NE HAM LAKE, MN 55304 TEL 763-862-8000 FAX 763-862-8042 LAND SURVEYOR: CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. DANIEL L THURMES 1970 NORTHWESTERN AVE. SUITE #200 STILLWATER, MN 55082 TEL 651-275-8969 FAX 651-275-8976 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC DEBRA A. SCHROEDER, P.E. RYAN M. BENSON, P.E. 6160 CARMEN AVE. E. INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076 TEL 763-499-9175 FAX 651-389-4190 WWI ;calk VIEERVeli Nommin PLAN REVISIONS DATE SHEET NO. APPROVED BY PROJECT LOCATION WASHINGTON COUNTY THE 2018 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" AND THE 2018 EDITION OF THE "MATERIALS LAB SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" SHALL GOVERN. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2018 EDITION OF THE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL PLATES FOR STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MMUTCD, INCLUDING FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS. SHEET NO. 1 S1 S2 S3 L1 C1 C2 C3 C4-05 C6-C7 C8 C9-C10 C11-C15 C16 C17-C18 C19 C20 INDEX DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TREE TABULATION PRELIMINARY PLAT TREE CANOPY AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN SITE PLAN REMOVAL PLAN PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION GRADING PLAN GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN UTILITY PLAN PLAN AND PROFILE SWPPP DETAILS INTERSECTION DETAILS RETAINING WALL DETAILS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNING AND LIGHTING PLAN THIS PLAN CONTAINS 30 SHEETS ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES WILL BE COMPLIED WITH IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SIGNED DAVID A. KRUGLER DATE: REG. NO. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FINAL FIELD REVISIONS, IF ANY, OF THIS PLAN WERE MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SIGNED DATE: REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street NE Telephone 763-862-8000 Ham Lake, MN 55304 Fax 763-862-8042 JOB NO. 1908 SHEET NO. 1 OF 25 SHEETS E 103 -> E / GAs� OHE OHE OHE 0 m OND 1\ W ..:•5.6 OHE OHE OHE 7 COS OHE� HE - CP \ 1 \ GAS GAUGE UGEZ ' t8SSCRETE' ACCESS RETAINING2WALL RETAINING-WAI`L — 0 TOP 907.00 TOP 907.00 BOTTOM j904.0_ -1307M 9904.00_ FFE 9)11.73 6\ �6GFE J08.50 S OHE \ OHE \GF 91Q 10 9(2 FE 913 33 LFEE3[50 TRUNK HSGNWAY 96 -0� OOHE-$_ ),@0 OH S- OHE N ---- 1-IWL 907.7 oHE 910.10 FE 913.33 LF19050 FE 912.91 I GFE 910 40_ oFE 910.50 G WALL 908.33 0TT0M 904.3 • MH 125 RETAIN!I TOP 91 BOTTOM CD — CD Q -- RETAINING ALL TOP 910.00 BOTTOM 906.00 / 7 OHE 120'SETBACK CB CBMH 23 A 122 / / / 7 7 SWENSON,STREET II I / / / \ NOTES: 1. SEE RETAINING WALL PROFILES FOR DETAILS 2. RETAINING WALLS BY OTHERS. LEGEND Ds DOWNSPOUT LOCATION 0 15 30 60 FEET REAR1OF LOT �111 pS/' I 1QI L �10i FRONT OF LOT TYPICAL EASEMENT DETAIL LOT WIDTH AT BACK OF LOT LOT LENGTH LOT NUMBER LOT WIDTH AT FRONT OF LOT TYPICAL LOT DETAIL GOPNE1140 STATE ONE Sits CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION SITE PLAN DWG: 1908 SITE PLAN DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C1 OF 30 FILE: 35-2-106 DATE REG. NO. DESIGN BY: G=1 DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC rn 0 0 SXW 7� /Al.JMINOUS PAVEMENT ev 0 _..L GE ,,.,.. UT BI11JMINOUS_-. PAVEMENT /CR-1`• f . • • • • • 0 0 �. �9p rn 0 0 e ' • ,cam \ r • 7< —1 —1— REMOVE CLEANOUT • REMOVE EXISTING SEPTIC PER MN RULE 7080.2500 * I 1911 1 0 REMOVE CLEANOUT OHC 0 REMOVE CLEANOUT REMOVE EXISTING SANITARY LATERAL 1'908 Iei 0 a ak —T • ' r 1� REMOVE WATER LINE COORDINATE WITH CONNECTION TO WEST 0 —Yx— k x— — —iv _ — AF I e1 49 �® 10 • i + _nt- 19 ........ y� r 1 `, 1 3 {�\ r ) rr II(I W „ I/ I t----..-..- `� r•▪ -y f I lT::;' ` I • rr rr K t • 1 r • •\ rI C., <C+ti - r ` t r N``I .- • ~r r 1 11\ " - rl 1 r 9 - HIGHWAY 9s-- °f•iQ -ROAD O+fE iT CAP WELL AT ELEV. 899.70 AND BURY PER MN RULE 4725.27 �J ---, 7 I QLiri --�-Z_J 0—• — 0 1 /C41-/:i� I —- — SWENSON STREET 1 NOTES: 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. 2. ALL LOCATIONS OF STOCKPILES SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE Cf1Y ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO STOCKPILING. ALL EROSION CONTROL FOR STOCKPILES SHALL BE PER BMPs AND SWPPP. 3. ALL SILT FENCE MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE ANY LAND IS DISTURBED. 4. ALL OAK TREES TO BE REMOVED MUST NOT BE REMOVED OR TRIMMED BETWEEN APRIL 1ST AND JULY 15TH. IF OPERATIONS RESULT IN WOUNDS TO THE OAK TREES OR ROOTS BETWEEN APRIL 1ST AND JULY 15TH, ALL WOUNDS MUST BE TREATED IMMEDIATELY WITH A LATEX BASED PAINT AND ALL STUMPS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SETE IMMEDIATELY. 5. ALL PROTECTIONS ARE INCIDENTAL. 6. ALL TREES DETERMINED TO NEED REMOVAL BY CONTRACTOR AND NOT MARKED FOR REMOVAL ON THIS PLAN. MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER BEFORE REMOVAL. PLEASE SEE TREE REMOVAL PLAN. 7. ALL REMOVALS TO BE DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. DARKER TREE ICONS INDICATE REMOVAL e REMOVE * REMOVE SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT ,r♦• • • • •\ \ •",r\\ • • • • -r 0 15 30 60 FEET DO NOT REMOVE DO NOT REMOVE �ti HoPB® ^gyp' a Y , CEA 800-252.1166 651•454.0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2769 COMCAST (952) 607-4D78 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 %CEL ENERGY (812) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY D 2 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 DER MY DIRECT SUPERNSI• • ' •+ �I All A DULY ENGIRE RE'1� ESOTA. 5 GF THE AN — PATE REG- NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13535 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION REMOVAL PLAN DWG: 1908REMOVE1 DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C2 OF 30 DESIGN BY: DAH DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-107 UGE GPVrGE GAUGE =— /PRIVATE OHE OHE— �/ �/I I / 7 - >- * r r j HOUSE GARAGE DRIVEWAY HOUSE GARAGE 0 0"I" 00 00' DRIVEWAY TYPICAL FRONT FOUNDATION PLANTING IIIII I I 0 4 8 16 FEET LANDSCAPE PLANTING COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME TOTAL PLANTINGS SIZE AT PLANTING SPRUCE, BLACK HILLS PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 41 6'-0" CRABAPPLE, SPRING SNOW MALUS SPRING SNOW 10 1 1/2" MIN CALIPER 0 HACKBERRY CELTIS OCCIDENTALS 12 0'-2 1/2" MAPLE, SUGAR ACER SACCHARUM BALISTA 18 O. —2 1/2" WIEGELEA, RED PRINCE WEIGELEA RED PRINCE 50 3 GAL Q DWARF BURNING BUSH EUONYMUS ALATUX COMPACTUS 40 3 GAL O DAY LILY HEREOCALLIS STELLA DE ORO 30 1 GAL TOTAL TREES 81 TOTAL SHRUBS 120 NOTES: 1. REQUIRED TREES: — X PER PUD ORDINANCE — X PER DNR SHORELAND ORDINANCE 2. REFER TO DETAIL PLANS FOR TREE AND SHRUB INSTALLATIONS. 3. PLANT BLACK HILLS SPRUCE TREES WITH 20' SPACING TO GIVE ROOM FOR GROWTH. 4. TREE LOCATIONS ON PLAN SHEET ARE APPROXIMATE. TREE REPLACEMENT BASED ON 117 TREES REMOVED AND 70% REPLACEMENT. UTILITIES: GOPE11140 STATE ONE Air CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/202 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 414DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO IIjjAATTii��I AM A DULY REGIST RB1lUIONAL ENGINE Fjt('t`6D gnFl C4WS OF THE FNESOTA. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION LANDSCAPE PLAN DWG: 1908LANDSCAPE1 DATE 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: L1 OF 30 FILE: 35-2-105 DATE REG. NO. DESIGN BY: G DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC NOTES: SOG GFE: 907.9 FFE: xxx SOG GFE: 908\50 FFE: 911.7r3 SOG GFE: 910.20 FFE: 912.78 � I wo 9O? 1-L wo GFE: 910.10` � GFE: 910.10 LFE: 903.50 LFE: 903.50 V�o GFE: 910.10 LFE: 903.50 11 1. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING OF TOPSOIL TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS DESIGNATED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. COVER OR SEED ALL STOCKPILE AREAS. 3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. *SEE SWPPP AND THE PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION GRADING PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO BEGIN PRIOR TO SILT FENCE PLACEMENT. 5. AREAS USING SEDIMENT LOGS WILL BE PLACED AS THE SECOND LAYER OF PERIMETER CONTROL BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, CLOSEST TO THE PROTECTION AREA 6. SILT FENCE CANNOT BE REMOVED UNTIL RCWD HAS DETERMINED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE FULLY STABILIZED. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CANNOT BE REMOVED. 7. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE EROSION. 8. SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO THE STREET FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL BE REMOVED ON A DAILY BASIS. 9. WHEREVER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT(MUD) BY RUNOFF OR VEHICLE TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A SEDIMENT CONTROLLED DISPOSAL AREA. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. 10. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SILT FENCE AND ROCK EXITS, WHICH SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MADE SERVICEABLE PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING OPERATIONS. 11. ALL EROSION FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS AND UNTIL AFTER TURF IS ESTABLISHED. 12. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF LEGALLY AND OFF -SITE, ALL TREES, STUMPS, BRUSH OR OTHER DEBRIS FROM REMOVALS OR ANY DEBRIS THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS. 13. ALL GRADED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 4:1. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND CONNECTION POINTS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES, CITY , STATE AND COUNTIES. 15. ALL INFILTRATION AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREA AND THIS AREA IS PROTECTED FROM COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA. 16. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTION TO SURFACE WATER. 17. ALL RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A FILTER MATERIAL OR SOIL SEPARATION FABRIC AND COMPLY WITH THE 2018 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 18. TREE PROTECTION CONSISTING OF SNOW FENCE OR SAFETY FENCE INSTALLED AT THE DRIP LINE SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY GRADING OR DEMOLITION WORK AT THE SITE. 19. GRADES SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS REPRESENT FINISH ELEVATION. 20. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PREFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 21. AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND PRIOR TO TURF ESTABLISHMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DE -COMPACT THE SOILS IN AREAS THAT WERE DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DECOMPACTION SHALL CONSIST OF RIPPING, CULTIVATING, OR SCARIFING THE TOP 12" IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE INFILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOILS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE LOW IMPACT EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS FOR BOTH TEMPORARY AND FINAL GRADING AND SMOOTHING OF THE TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SEEDING. PAYING FOR DECOMPACTION SHALL BE FOR THE PRICE QUOTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 22. SPECIFICATIONS THAT APPLY ARE THE CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNDOT AND BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL DUST CONTROL THE COST SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. 24. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE A AND B WILL BE RETAINED, STOCKPILED, STABILIZED AND USED IN POST CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION BASINS. IF C OR D SOILS ARE FOUND IN THE INFILTRATION BASIN, THEY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A OR B SOILS. 25. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS ROADWAY SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS. 26. DEWATERING IS NOT ANTICIPATED DUE TO GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, IF DEWATERING DOES OCCUR IT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE WATERSHED. DEWATERING AND DRAINING NOTES: • CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SKIMMERS AND FILTERS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. • DEWATERING SHALL TAKE PLACE AFTER SEDIMENT HAS SETTLED. • CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT EROSION AND SCOUR AT DISCHARGE POINTS THROUGH THE USE OF AN ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICE. • DEWATERING MUST AVOID NUISANCE CONDITIONS. 1 0 10 20 40 FEET n) GOPEIlliy. STATE ONE Air CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 ��JDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO TSIO �TF{AT1 AM A DULY REGI T R NAL ENGINE +0411 :NESOTA.S OF THE 1F15 DATE REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN WEST PLAN DWG: 1908 GRADING 1 DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C4 OF 30 DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-109 NOTES: _ OOHHE 907.7 —9i-3 1 m v v v v OHE OHE� MH 125 IL OHE \ OHE r —, I 120' SETBACK 1 i 1 7 v v 2^- Q CD- I YAI DRAINS C_J CBM 124 t 1— J 2 I / CB 237 CBMH 122A� 1. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING OF TOPSOIL TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS DESIGNATED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. COVER OR SEED ALL STOCKPILE AREAS. 3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. *SEE SWPPP AND THE PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION GRADING PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO BEGIN PRIOR TO SILT FENCE PLACEMENT. 5. AREAS USING SEDIMENT LOGS WILL BE PLACED AS THE SECOND LAYER OF PERIMETER CONTROL BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, CLOSEST TO THE PROTECTION AREA 6. SILT FENCE CANNOT BE REMOVED UNTIL RCWD HAS DETERMINED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE FULLY STABILIZED. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CANNOT BE REMOVED. 7. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE EROSION. 8. SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO THE STREET FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL BE REMOVED ON A DAILY BASIS. 9. WHEREVER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT(MUD) BY RUNOFF OR VEHICLE TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A SEDIMENT CONTROLLED DISPOSAL AREA. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. 10. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SILT FENCE AND ROCK EXITS, WHICH SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MADE SERVICEABLE PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING OPERATIONS. 11. ALL EROSION FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS AND UNTIL AFTER TURF IS ESTABLISHED. 12. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF LEGALLY AND OFF —SITE, ALL TREES, STUMPS, BRUSH OR OTHER DEBRIS FROM REMOVALS OR ANY DEBRIS THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS. 13. ALL GRADED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 4:1. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND CONNECTION POINTS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES, CITY , STATE AND COUNTIES. 15. ALL INFILTRATION AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREA AND THIS AREA IS PROTECTED FROM COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA. 16. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTION TO SURFACE WATER. 17. ALL RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A FILTER MATERIAL OR SOIL SEPARATION FABRIC AND COMPLY WITH THE 2018 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 18. TREE PROTECTION CONSISTING OF SNOW FENCE OR SAFETY FENCE INSTALLED AT THE DRIP LINE SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY GRADING OR DEMOLITION WORK AT THE SITE. 19. GRADES SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS REPRESENT FINISH ELEVATION. 20. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PREFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 21. AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND PRIOR TO TURF ESTABLISHMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DE —COMPACT THE SOILS IN AREAS THAT WERE DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DECOMPACTION SHALL CONSIST OF RIPPING, CULTIVATING, OR SCARIFING THE TOP 12" IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE INFILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOILS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE LOW IMPACT EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS FOR BOTH TEMPORARY AND FINAL GRADING AND SMOOTHING OF THE TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SEEDING. PAYING FOR DECOMPACTION SHALL BE FOR THE PRICE QUOTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 22. SPECIFICATIONS THAT APPLY ARE THE CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNDOT AND BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL DUST CONTROL THE COST SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. 24. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE A AND B WILL BE RETAINED, STOCKPILED, STABILIZED AND USED IN POST CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION BASINS. IF C OR D SOILS ARE FOUND IN THE INFILTRATION BASIN, THEY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A OR B SOILS. 25. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS ROADWAY SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS. 26. DEWATERING IS NOT ANTICIPATED DUE TO GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, IF DEWATERING DOES OCCUR IT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE WATERSHED. DEWATERING AND DRAINING NOTES: • CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SKIMMERS AND FILTERS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. • DEWATERING SHALL TAKE PLACE AFTER SEDIMENT HAS SETTLED. • CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT EROSION AND SCOUR AT DISCHARGE POINTS THROUGH THE USE OF AN ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICE. • DEWATERING MUST AVOID NUISANCE CONDITIONS. !''! I 20 FEET 40 n/ GOPHfl ,, STATE ONE 41?r CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 414DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO REGI TI �TF{A3tI AM A DULY REGI R NAL ENGINE +0gtli1:NESOTA.OF THE 1F15 DATE REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN NORTH — EAST PLAN DWG: 1908 GRADING 2 DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C5 OF 30 DESIGN BY: D-.K DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-110 _ I I / 1/ 2 z , I Q _1 0 15 30 60 / v _ —7 EXISTING MH 112 LOT STUB ELEVATION AT ROW FEET / 1 NOTES: -� L_ 1 I 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, \ • Z — 1 n - 1 897.BB MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF \ \l I I MH 111C v - t --- I ---- I 2 aea.33 ROUGH GRADING. 2. THERE SHALL BE NO STOCKPWNG INCLUDING _ ig 1 TEMPORARY STOCK PILES OF MATERIALS IN MH 111D I INSTALLS"VALVE V �\ 1 I 3 89E.53 WETLAND AREAS. \ INSTALL HYD I 11107 TO I 4 898.70 3. ALL LOCATIONS OF STOCKPILES SHALL BE �— > GND EL V= v LF BERTH BEND y=j \ rg.I 1 1I \ CD Q /-- 5 a9a.91 SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO STOCKPILING. ALL .0 1— 1 1 1 1— 1 I— I , 1 1 I < I— 6 899.2o EROSION CONTROL FOR STOCKPILES SHALL BE INSTALL 8" VALVE 'irisY.:,r::• a V \; 0 -- �/ \ 1 iPER — 898.79 BMP'S AND SWPPP.V \\ w a 999.79 9 898.89 \ �000"� � /0 INSIALL 11 I CD 2 `�I---CD I 8 \ T Q _— \ \ \ \ \J 1 _ 711E 901 1 0 1 k k� IINSTALLS" SWENSON STREET -VALVE \ 1 vim\ A� � 1 1 1 / // INSTALL 8"X8"X8" TEE � I I \.• \/ / J 1 1 1 ppx 1111r 4I, /INSTALL 4' DIA MH I 1 _ C4i � \ _ cc I MH 1116 0 ""°° _- \ry\yV^`�( r— I I 1 1 1 I 1 i J INSTALL 8" DIP OFFSET 1 I _ r-� �I ___,.___,_,__,_1,_,__, I 3 —1-1 1 I-1-1 1—I-1 , ;-- �1—I-1 e-� 1 ,—, ,;— L -J I SCALES: 1" = 30' HOR 1" = 3' VER .�-N- PRIVATE 1 /\` \ ` GA1 EXISTING MFf'r�1 —J DRIVE 909 '1 6 rn 00 0 N '/H (0 o) 110E 0) E=907�� 0) 4 -- o I cc?, _ _I• o o °' _ — REMH R E STAe,13+79 00 19 1 ' 09.1 1 6wLT rn ---0 CO RE=908.1 STA=15+0b 0) co o 6, 33' RT ,. 0) 00 in Iri 0) ao o 4 al co 909 , o.ao% CO 906 03 a STA=1%Y+94.9 �.sq� —/ i 33% \ -g MN 110B RE=907.41 15+44 2, 32' RT 906 903 — 8.0' —COVER MIN 903 900 _ 734 LF 8" CL 52 DIP TOP \'VM •89 2)7 900 __------ 897 PVC SAN 0.4% PROPOSED STORM 897 142 LF 8" PVC SAN eb9 nI - 98.71 (E) -' 894 SANITARY SEWER INV=897.97 W INV=897.18 INV=897.28 _ NV-896.83 (NiNV=896.93 S (SE) ( 894 891 0 W/1 00 0 Z NO hi 01 891 (0 d O 888 01 (0 o CO N: O O 0) 01 0) 140 F 4 O O o 01 rn CO N r- O O o 01 0 r LO O) a0 O O- o 01 Nk .— O 0) O- o 01 00 N - 0) O- o 01 o LO 01 O a0 O- o 01 O N O a0 O- o 01 CO O (O O o 01 in N N I() O O o 01 in CO '1 1ri O O o 01 in N 4 N O O o 01 N) D7 O o 888 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 00!■®4b; ON6?x 800A252-116649651":54-0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 n / CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 STAR CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 CALL XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO �T AMA DULY REG! T R NAL ENGINE �j OF THE g NNEsoTA. �1 RFC ENGINEERING INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 P HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION UTILITY PLAN DWG: RCP02001 1�22�2021 CITY SUBMITTAL DATE: 02/17/21 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL : JOB NUMBER1908 SHEET: C6 OF 30 FILE: 35-2-111 Q DATE REG. NO. DESIGN BY: D-.1' DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC SCALES: 1"=30' HOR 1"=3'VER • n: A... "POND _ 1 ^� �I 1 0 (" V VN v �� �� - I :o- _;, 1 �1 ___- 1 \ \ \ \ \� — e 9 WO 01 g , _ �� I I 0 15 I 30 I 60 I NW, ;•5.6 \\.n\ ..I v I FEET I I 1, a i " % 1 . , i 1V �` 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, 9O CBMH 122 c�" •:� •; ,y�.� �,:: t,t « MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ••• \ l �j _ �< —�� - - - - ROUGH GRADING. ` ' \ _ `\ II ___��� ---INCLUDING \� vl II I TEMPORARYSTOCKPILES OFMATERIALSIN 1GN.!LYi16 *ra, .. 1 1 II II WETLAND AREAS. L. / I) — , 3. ALL LOCATIONS OF STOCKPILES SHALL BE '' I _ - M II II 'y _ L I v SUBMITTED FOR THE CITE ENGINEER'S r-1 3 04 APPROVL PRIOR STOCKPILING. ALL OFOR a `- I I , I I o c '` I - I - I—I—Q _ EROSION CONTROL STOCKPILES SHALL BE II lI _. —� x� x � 0 L7 r O / ® o L- ---�-J PER BMP'S AND SWPPP. - "� - '' I CONNECT TO DIP WATERMAIN TO BE \ EXISTING MEGA -LUG RESTRAINED WATERMAIN OR APPROVED EQUAL I VERIFY ELEVATION 40+25 TO 44+00 I \ IN FIELD , ,,\--) I I 633 LF I(CON-CON) / -,. x= o 6" DIP WATERMAIN • `\ WATER VALVE MANHOLE . GAS I i \ ' / L----J �\ � i � • N� ' • I I ��\ i �� ` • I . , \� �\ \, �'� i \ . /' / '\ lb- 40 O,' / CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN VERIFY ELEV IN FIELD , i �� —� WATERMAIN L OP = �� 4.4 , 906 N Oi 0000 N o) oo u7 t0 co /- / T�— O / co Lo —— o) co �� Nt — � co N _ _ o) — Ir or — — — N t0 _ � � _� ao� 00 o) oo LO I� O co M N oo 906 to- 000 903 ax / / 903 900 / PROPOSED GRADE — 900 897 / TOP WM 897 894 / / 894 891 891 888 W O a ro W .giro 888 885 N Cr;71- 0) 0) m co N O L O O O O o) rn 0) t0 N M O O o) 0 t''7 Ln ,- IP rM O O o) rn in co ,- r- M O O o) 0 I: O o) N ,- M O 0 N . N M O O o) 0 00 N. 0) co if) O O o) rn N r O o) N O o) 0 r7 O o) 0 O o) LC) O O o) 0 o) 0) oo 885 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 00!■®4b; OM 8UUPLOT A252-1166 TE: 2/17/2021 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 n CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 t� COMCAST (952) 607-4076 STATE CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 ?x CALL XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 651-454-0002 49 DATE REVISION HISTORY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO �T AMA DULY REGI T R NAL ENGINE �j S OF THE g NNESOTA. �1 RFC ENGINEERING I N C . ConsultingEngineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 P Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION UTILITY PLAN DWG: RCP01003 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL DATE: 02/17/21 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET: C7 OF 30 FILE: 35-2-112 Q DATE REG. NO. DESIGN BY: D DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC ■*-Ba'as'25"I ` - I/-Cul_AR T = 34,88 V z Q --� ] I I`4 6 15 3O FEET 60 i___ 1 / r1 iiii if NOTES: ■. R=35.00II M = �__--z�J-�Y1. ALL OISTURB£D AREAS TG BE SEEDED, AHD FER1U2E0 WRHIN 7 DAYS OF Q _MULCHED -` ROUGH GRADING. y��y ,* 11 - f 2. TiERE SHALL BE NO STOCKPILING INCLUDING J 11 I T:MPORARY STOCK PILES OF MATERE4L5 kN E0 ' 11+t0-00)1,.\\: S 69.04'C�3" I V 11 I 1 3. ALL LOCATIONS OF STOCKPILES SHALL BE _ , - - .-.- ��• I 281.59 Irr .l I 1 I SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY ENGINEER'S I -- / APPROVAL PR30R TO STOCKPILING. ALL 1/EROSION CONTROL FOR STOCKPILES SHALL BE f _ r: Wx C 1 PER BHP'S ANO SWPPP. I1iii,I T I .r -- /---I - Iinhillli I Al J y l ciRCu 1 .!� �1 1 d V PISto�+10.40 _ I; f - f . I \`\` \ ` ' n I /j n .:. /� a 1 T 35.0 S ON STREET dI IT1- v .n • c\ jjjjjj v>t.. _ I 1. j I Mil 1 f ink 69 r' } + f 1 I - 1 I .. I CAR I - - - -_ N. ti " I 11 1.. 30' HOR NEAL COURT 1' - 3' VER 915 (NI K./ Kp 0) °o Cr 0) n 0) ca CO ea C17 0) c� 01 1r) 0 0 rn n 0 0 rn d a1 0) 0) co LV T. di 0) ca o toLV C§ C11 °a 1[] of 0) °0 o 0 n 0) 0 to T. Ili 05 CO 0 N3 d 05 915 912 n -1 a Y n n _ 2CURVE IIi n ): g of r1 r n 8 VPI STA = 13+75.00 VPI EL = 909.50 CURVE LEN = 75.00 K=35.18 VPo STA VPI ELF K F3C.OQ EFq'3 � 15i-0O.DD 908.50 _EN = 75.00as 2 + II n a. d 912 ,� E=0.20 ] 909 WI STA = 11+57.a3 VPI EL = 907.47 > g _ - _ . - -- --- --- __ g - -a.aa% - - -- 909 906 - / 1.33� • 8 -_� 906 903 a a I .1$ A q) CI a r- • w n ►- RBM90 CURVE LEN = 0.00 37 903 VPI A a 12+04.90 > 900 CURVE K - E= LEN = 75.00 41.02 D.17 x x rF �+ 5 1 `gn 1 d 21'i 900 ; 897 o W a �J` - - - - - - - v vw STA = 18+20.00 VPk EL = 904.54 CURVE LEN = 75.00 K : 238.81 E 0.03 11/11.900.31 (J (N) c O1 897 d 0 894 05 ni- oLO Ko 0 0 rn 01 co 1 d N. 0 0 0) Cr)m 't cc:n n N. 0 00 rn I�rs't 0) Go 0 Cr)GI nr 0 Cs 0- Cr) Ca ../: c�lu:' .- on 0 Cr) 0) rn0 0 06 0 m rn cnlr.") 0 co 0- 01 al to 0 0 0 01 0) n 0 CO _ Gvn INV-899.H2) IHVF699.= INV-899.I to I 0 rn to d ci 0 0 0) al Ni 0 $ rn tlg 894 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 IPi Lmu1IES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712.5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY [763) 323--2760 COMCAST [952) 607-4078 DATE REVISION HISTORY l HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED 9Y ME ❑- DER MY DIRECT 5LFIXnsl.. .• I AM A D LY REGI D. NAL ENGINE OF THE .,1_(Ri NESOTA. RFC ENGINEERING I N G . Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION PLAN AND PROFILE DWG: RCPO1001 1/22/202) CITY SEVISI AL DATE: 02/17/21 BCWD SUBMITTAL JOB NUMBER: 1908 I ,2/10/2021 CONNIXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4259 ONE CALL xCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 806-252410 651-454-9002 PLOT DATE: 2/17/2021 17 49 SHEET C8 OF 30 FILE: 35-2-113 DATE REG. NO. DE510N aY: DAR DRAWN BY: GJM CV-ECKFD BY: -Pc. DER BO"P05, PAGE 03 OHE ( ✓ OHE ��UHE / _ OHE OHE I \ � I OHE --GS OHE - r \ r� pS GpS / GASJ o E GE UGE • • •••:• T GA ) /7 T __ - OHEOHE ` r-rU 0 OHE �OHE _ \ IS \ \ i \\ O 1 ,/,/ i i OHE 11 MH 125 • •• •1- • • • • • • •-• Ji 13 II Q CD c 2 120'SETBACK / / ti v. T NOTES: 1. THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN MPCA-NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FEES PERTAINING TO THE PERMIT. THE SWPPP SHALL BE KEPT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. 2. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY EARTH DIKES. SEDIMENT TRAPS OR BASINS, ADDITIONAL SILTATION FENCING AND/OR DISK THE SOIL PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO FURTHER CONTROL EROSION. ALL CHANGES SHALL BE MADE TO THE SWPPP. 3. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE EROSION. 4. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT IN NO CASE MORE THAN 7 DAYS. 5. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTION TO SURFACE WATER. 6. ALL RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A FILTER MATERIAL OR SOIL SEPARATION FABRIC AND COMPLY WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 7. ALL INFILTRATION AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTMTY IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREAS AND THESE AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT NOTICE OF TERMINATION FOR MPCA-NPDES PERMIT WITHIN 30DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION. 9. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND FERTILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. 10. AREAS USING SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS WILL BE PLACED AS THE SECOND LAYER OF PERIMETER CONTROL BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, CLOSEST TO THE PROTECTION AREA. 11. SILT FENCE AND NET -FREE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CANNOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BCWD HAS DETERMINED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE FULLY STABILIZED. 12. FERTILIZER: MNDOT SPECIFICATION 3881, NO FERTILIZER IN WETLAND BUFFER AREAS, WETLAND MITIGATION AREA AND PONDS. 13. SEEDING: USE SEED MIXTURE 25-141 FOR SEEDING ALONG NEAL AVENUE AND NEAL COURT. USE 25-151 FOR SEEDING IN YARDS. SEE ABOVE FOR POND SPECIFICATIONS. MULCH: MNDOT SPECIFICATION 3884 TYPE 5 OR 6 APPLICATION RATE: MNDOT SPECIFICATION 2575.3H DISC ANCHORING III 11 I 0 15 30 60 FEET GOPNE1140 ATM ONE *?r CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4268 XCEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0 4111DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO it AM A REGI T DULY REGI R IO NAL ENGINE +0411 :NESOTA.OF THE 15 DATE REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN DWG: 1908SWPPP2 DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEETC10 OF 30 DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-115 9 6m Typical Maximum lOm Detail 1 Detail 2 Expansion Joints as shovel -?A E 0 1 J. Typical longitudinal bay layout or open two way Pow. GC2 GC1 X K/ X i.<„( Details 1 & 2 Scale 1 : 10 . • .1•• GC3 GC1 -Kes7 GC2 (std) GC2 (opt) GrassConcrete concrete Ltd. Duncan House 142 Thames Lane Thames Wakefield WF2 7RE England Tel: +44 (0) 1924 379443 Fax: +44 (0) 1924 290289 info@grasscrete.com www.grasscrete.com Client Client Address Site Details N/A Site Address Revision History Drawn By Lt Moorhouse Dale 01.12.2010 Checked By REH Scale 1:50 @ A3 Project Reference Project Mlle Typical Grasscrete Parking Details Carp* Layouts Drawing Number GC-CAD-0005 Revision en; OMER STATE ONE •CALL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTLIRYLINK (763) 712-5617 CENTERAG1NT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (852) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4266 %GEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 BATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMETTAL 2/10/2021 BCWO SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED SY ME • I• .DER AlT DIRECT supcFms 41 Am A DULY' Rear oNAL ENGINE • igpS . 2 Of THE MNNESOTA. DATE ROG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION DETAILS DWG: 1908 GRASSI DATE 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEETC1 6 OF 30 DESIGN BY: DAX DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TLC FILE: 35-2-121 GC1: 100m-n Thick GC2 150mn1 Thick A193 Mesh Reinforcement (200 x 200 x 7mm0) A252 Mesh Reinforcement (200 x 200 x 8mm0) A252 Mesh Reinforcement (200 x 200 x 8mm0) A393 Mesh Reinforcement (200 x 200 x 10mm0) Design Philosophy 10.8 Tonnes GVW 13.3 Tonnes GVW 30.0 Tonnes GVW 40.0 Tonnes GVW An emergency situation isn't the time to test the suitability of an emergency access road. "It might never be used' shouldn't feature in the design appraisal and neither should a reliance upon secondary factors such as grass growth and favourably dry ground conditions which may not be evident in an emergency situation. 117: GrassConcrete }r:: • • concrete Ltd. Duncan House 142 Thames Lane Thomes Wakefield WF2 7RE England Tel: +44 (0)1924 379443 Fax: +44 (0) 1924 290289 infoliggrasscrete. com www.grasscrete.com Client NIA C1 enl Address Site Details NIA Site Address Revision History Drawn By ❑ Moorhouse Dale 26.01.2011 Checked By REH Scale 1:5 ©A3 Project Reference Project Tille Typical Grasscrele Fire Access details - Design Philosophy Drawing Number GC-CAD-0011 Revision GOP86R STATE ONE CALL 800.252-1166 651-454-0002 UTILITIES: CENTJRTLINK (763) 712-6017 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (652) 607-4078 CON NEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-4266 )CEL ENERGY (612) 526-4508 BATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SIJ8MrTTAL 2/10/2021 BCWO SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED 8Y ME • •DER MY DIRECT SUP ERNS! A�:+ s I AMA DULY RECI :• ... .. - ONAL ENGINE 'S OF THE 111111NESOTA. DATE RED. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, lAN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION DETAILS DWG: 1908 GRASS+ OATE 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEETC19 OF 30 CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-124 DESIGN BY: DAK DRAWN BY: GJM MH 111 MH 110A CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAIN (2) OAK GLEN TRAIL UTILITY CONNECTION -J r OAK GLEN TRAIL & PRIVATE DRIVE !h1lII I 5 10 20 FEET HoPB® ^gyp' �a1 Y CI , CAW, 804252.11N 051•454.0002 111'ILRIES: CENTURYLINK (763) 712-5017 CEHTERPOINT ENERGY (763) 323-2760 COMCAST (952) 607-4078 CONNEXUS ENERGY (763) 323-426B %CEL ENERGY (812) 526-4508 DATE REVISION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 2/10/2021 BCWD SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY HE 0- DER MY DIRECT SUPERNSi•• - •+ I1 All A EG DULY ENGINE RE✓'1�ESOTA. 5 OF THE AN PATE REG. NO. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION INTERSECTION DETAILS DWG; 1908I NTERSECI10N DATE: 02/17/21 JOB NUMBER: 1908 SHEET:C21 OF 30 DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: GJM CHECKED BY: TPC FILE: 35-2-126 DAY< ISRF To: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director City of Stillwater From: Jeff Bednar, TOPS, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist Zach Toberna, Engineer, EIT Memorandum SRF No. 02114431 Date: February 18, 2021 Subject: Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Introduction A traffic impact study (TIS) has been completed for the proposed Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development in Stillwater, Minnesota (see Figure 1: Project Location). The primary objectives of the study are to review existing operations, estimate proposed site trip generation, complete detailed traffic operations/levels of service analyses for existing and future build scenarios, evaluate access to the site and recommend improvements to ensure safe/efficient operations. This TIS will also address issues such as; a new private road to intersect with Oak Glen Trail, to be built through a developed lot with frontage on Oak Glan Trail, the minimally offset intersection created with Swenson Street causing safety concerns, close proximity to the existing home on the Oak Glen lot (currently owned by the developer but to be resold after development is complete), existing direct access on TH 96, plus proposed/recommended mitigation from any traffic impacts identified. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and study recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline for comparison and to determine potential impacts associated with the future conditions. The evaluation of existing conditions includes peak hour intersection turning movement counts, field observations, corridor/intersection capacity analyses, sight distance observations and a traffic safety assessment. Data Collection Vehicle and truck turning movement counts were collected by SRF during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak periods during the week of February 1st, 2021 at the following study intersections: • TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Oak Glen Trail • Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street • Neal Ave/Oak Glen Trail • TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Direct Access www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 I Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 1763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364 An Equal Opportunity Employer Projects 1 i.ures i.ure 02114431 February 2021 02021 ,ogle Project Location SRF Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study Y City of Stillwater �'-Swenson=5t-" '•'� Me14u5'Ek-,� n 3 �ell�ooa R 2 Figure 1 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 3 Due to impacts in traffic volumes associated with COVID-19, the year 2021 traffic volumes collected at the study intersections were adjusted based on MnDOT available pre-COVID (year 2017) traffic volumes. Note that while February daily traffic volumes may also be seasonally impacted, traffic volumes during the commuter peak hours are not typically impacted significantly by seasonal variation. In addition to the study intersection year 2021 traffic counts, historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes within the study area were also available from MnDOT. The MnDOT year 2017 published study area AADT volumes are; 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd) on TH 96 between Oak Glen Trail and Neal Avenue, 375 vpd on Oak Glen Trail south of TH 96, 690 vpd on Oak Glen Trail east of Neal Avenue, 760 vpd on Neal Avenue south of TH 96 and 1,500 vpd on Neal Avenue south of Oak Glen Trail. MnDOT has not published Year 2019 AADT volumes for the study area, however, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was assumed and applied to estimate year 2019 and other future year background traffic volumes. Roadway Characteristics Field observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic control). TH 96 (Dellwood Road) classified as an A -Minor Arterial (Expander), is a two-lane undivided rural/suburban roadway with right -turn lanes at major intersections and a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph). Neal Avenue classified as a Minor Collector, is a two-lane undivided urban local residential roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Oak Glen Trail and Swenson Street classified as Local Streets are two-lane undivided urban residential roadways within the study area also with posted speed limits of 30 mph. Based on a review of reported crashes in the MnDOT Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT), there is not an existing traffic safety problem associated with the study area roadways. Intersection sight distance at all existing study intersections is generally reasonable. Parking on the existing study area roadways is generally unrestricted on both sides of the roadways. The existing study intersections are all side -street stop -controlled intersections. Existing study area a.m. peak hour traffic volumes (most critical hour), intersection geometrics and traffic control are shown in Figure 2. Intersection Capacity Analysis A detailed traffic operations, capacity and levels of service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the quality of operations at the study intersections under existing commuter peak hour conditions. All intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V.11) and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. Intersection capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A through D are considered acceptable traffic flow conditions. H:\Projects\14431\TS\Figures\Figure2 [kF 02114431 February 2021 Existing A.M. Peak Hour Conditions Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study City of Stillwater Figure 2 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections February 18, 2021 Page 5 LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A <_ 10 <_ 10 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F > 80 > 50 For side -street stop -controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the minor approaches. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side - street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This considers the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, most of the delay is attributed to the minor approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience increased levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side -street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing traffic operations analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate under existing geometrics and traffic control, at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours, respectively. Based on field observations, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in either the field or traffic simulation. The analysis results are based on the HCM methodology to calculate the delay at the existing study intersections which is considered to provide conservative estimates. Table 2. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Study Intersections Level of Service (Delay) A.M. Commuter Peak P.M Commuter Peak TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/0ak Glen Trail (1) A/B (11 sec.) Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street (1) A/A (9 sec.) Neal Ave/0ak Glen Trail (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) WA (9 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Direct Site Access (1) A/B (11 sec.) A/A (0 sec.) (1) Side -street stop -controlled intersection, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst movement LOS (delay). Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 6 Proposed Development The site of the proposed residential infill development (approximately 4.2 acres) is currently occupied by two single-family homes, one with direct access to TH 96 (new Lot 8, approximately 0.6 acres) and one with direct access to Oak Glen Trail (to remain Lot 3, Block 1, Oak Glen 10th Addition, approximately 0.4 acres). The proposed development site plan is illustrated in Figure 3. It was assumed the remaining land (approximately 3.2 acres) would be developed into 10 additional single-family home lots and Outlot A, containing a private road (identified Neal Court), drainage facilities and green space. Access to the proposed development is planned at the following locations: 1. New Lot 7 and Lot 8 (existing home) will share the existing direct access to TH 96. 2. Existing Lot 3, Block 1 (2384 Oak Glen Trail), direct access to remain on Oak Glen Trail. 3. New Lots 1-6 and 9-11 will access Oak Glen Trail via a private road, identified as Neal Court. The private road identified as Neal Court, is proposed to be constructed through the existing Lot 3, Block 1, Oak Glen 10th Addition, north of the existing home, intersecting Oak Glen Trail, forming a close spaced offset intersection, just south of the Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street intersection. Further discussion of the site access/circulation is included in the Site Plan Review section later in this report. Traffic Forecasts Background Growth The proposed development was assumed to be fully occupied by the year 2023. Therefore, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2024 conditions (one year after full occupancy). Based on existing area growth patterns and historical ADT volumes, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to develop year 2024 background traffic forecasts. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the weekday a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hour and daily trips were made for the proposed development based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Il E) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Results of the trip generation estimate shown in Table 3 indicate that the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 10 trips during the a.m. commuter peak hour, 12 trips during the p.m. commuter peak hour, and 112 daily trips (50% in/50% out). Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates Land Use (ITE Code) Size DU A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Trips In Out In Out New Single -Family Detached Housing/Dwelling Units (210) 10 2 6 6 4 94 Existing Single -Family Detached Housing - New Lot 8 (210) 1 0 1 1 0 9 Existing Single -Family Detached Housing- Lot 3, BIk. 1(210) 1 0 1 1 0 9 Totals 12 2 8 8 4 112 02114431 February 2021 H:\Projects\14431 \TS\Figures\Figure3 -- oN+e- o__ —ONE I OHE L-0Hf /` OHEa� 1 ONE ;. GPE 912.54 D a REt NC "au* waxwer os DNL -off a _ _ _ __ _ _ ' `a2 _onE ; GhE.--- aNY: _ oNE RETAININQ. WALL, TOP 9T14.9[HJT ---ROIIOM- .]1 BET/MIND WALL TOP 606.32 BOTTOM, 904.0e k7FC455C RETAINING WALL TOP 910.00 BOTTOM 906,00 120' SETBACK i a0 / • 1 rT1 1- A:'4 ;� ' 1 SWSNOON STREET 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1i NOTES: I. SEE RETAINING WAIL PROFILES FOR DETAILS. 2. RETAINING WALLS BY OTHERS. LEGEND 1 11 1 0 15 30 FEET REAR `JF LOT h oT l — fl0' 1 L r FROM TYPICAL EASEMENT DETAIL LOT WIDTH AT BACK OF LOT LOi LENGTH LOT NUMBER LOT WIOTi AT FRONT or LOT TYPICAL LOT DETAIL /R}6 PIE GILL 800-252-1166 651-454-0002 (BHA., GBITHErtumm (763)GRIT323 276a COMBER;GIM ENERGY (952) 603-4035 CONNEHJE ENERGY (763) 32-426E NG, ENERGY (612) 526-4508 DATE PENSION HISTORY 1/22/2021 CRY SUBMITTAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLW WAS IAMBIpSSuPDDY ENBS63I AND THAT am n DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER ME LAWS OF ME STATE OF MINHESmA DATE REG N0. RFC ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers 13635 Johnson Street Horn Lake, MN 55304 Telephone 763-862-8000 Fax 763-862-8042 HEI FORT HILLS ESTATE 2ND ADDITION STFE PLAN OWL: 1E08 SITE PLAN DATE'. 01/22/21 J08 NUMBER 190E SHEET, C1 OF 27 DESIGN R!: OAK PAWN RT: GIN c4ECKm BY. TPG FILE. 35-2-108 T Proposed Site Plan SRF Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study Y City of Stillwater Figure 3 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 8 Traffic Assignment The proposed Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development site -generated trips were assigned to the study area roadway network based on an assumed directional trip distribution for the proposed development shown in Figure 4. This directional trip distribution was developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, the regional distribution of employment and households and engineering judgment. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed development for the year 2024 a.m. peak hour (most critical hour) build conditions are shown in Figure 5. Year 2024 (One Year After Full Occupancy) Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis A detailed traffic operations, capacity and levels of service (LOS) analysis was completed using a combination of Synchro/SimTraffic software and the HCM, similar to that of the existing conditions intersection capacity analysis. Results of the year 2024 operations analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate under existing geometrics and traffic control at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours, respectively. Based on observations, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in traffic simulation. Table 4. Year 2024 Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Study Intersections Level of Service (Delay) A.M. Commuter Peak P.M Commuter Peak TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Oak Glen Trail (1) A/B (12 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) Oak Glen Trail/Neal Court (New Private Road) (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) Neal Ave/Oak Glen Trail (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/B (10 sec.) TH 96 (Dellwood Road)/Direct Site Access (1) A/B (11 sec.) WA (0 sec.) (1) Side -street stop -controlled intersection, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst movement LOS (delay). Proposed Site Plan Review A review of the proposed site plan (see Figure 3) was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements in regard to intersection/access spacing, sight distance, traffic control and site circulation. Vehicular access to/from the proposed site is planned at three locations: 1. New Lot 7 and Lot 8 (existing home) will share the existing direct access to TH 96. 2. Existing Lot 3, Block 1 (2384 Oak Glen Trail), direct access to remain on Oak Glen Trail. 3. New Lots 1-6 and 9-11 will access Oak Glen Trail via a private road, identified as Neal Court. Based on field observations, engineering judgement and applicable standards, there appears to be adequate sight distance and reasonable geometrics at the TH 96 and 2384 Oak Glen Trail locations. ojects\ 14431 \TS\Figures\Fig ure4 02114431 February 2021 [IRF Site -Generated Trip Directional Distribution Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study City of Stillwater Figure 4 H:\Projects\14431\TS\Figures\Figure5 [kF 02114431 February 2021 Year 2024 A.M. Peak Hour Build Conditions Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition — Traffic Impact Study City of Stillwater Figure 5 Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 11 However, the proposed site access to be provided by the private road identified as Neal Court, is proposed to be constructed through the existing Lot 3, Block 1 (2384 Oak Glen Trail), immediately north of the existing home (only approximately five foot separation between roadway and dwelling), intersecting Oak Glen Trail, forming a close spaced offset intersection (only approximately 30 foot separation), just south of the Oak Glen Trail/Swenson Street intersection.. Concern has been expressed in regard to the minimally offset intersection created with Swenson Street and the proximity of the proposed private roadway to the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. As can be seen in the staff provided illustration below, the combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway (Neal Court) and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail, creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway. The proximity of the proposed private roadway to the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail may create vehicle related impacts (noise, exhaust, visibility, etc.) as well as maintenance and utility conflicts (snow storage, utility and structure exterior access, etc.) for future residents of this home. An alternative configuration for the proposed private roadway (Neal Court) is recommended where the intersection with Oak Glen Trail is located midway between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane (see illustration above). This alternative would have implications as to the viability of the existing home, but it would address the minimally offset intersection and dwelling proximity issues. The design of the proposed private roadway (Neal Court), particularly the "T" Turn at the west end of the roadway, raises concern for emergency vehicle/fire apparatus as well as larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering. It is recommended that design of this private roadway accommodate emergency vehicle/fire apparatus as well as larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development traffic analysis, the following findings, conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Development TIS February 18, 2021 Page 12 1. The study intersections currently operate under existing geometrics and traffic control at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours. Based on observations, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in the field. 2. The proposed development was assumed to be fully occupied by the year 2023. Therefore, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2024 build conditions (one year after full occupancy). Based on existing study area growth patterns, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to develop year 2024 background traffic forecasts. 3. The proposed residential infill development site is currently occupied by two single-family homes, one with direct access to TH 96 and one with direct access to Oak Glen Trail. The remaining land would be developed into 10 additional single-family homes. 4. The proposed development is expected to generate a total of 10 trips during the a.m. commuter peak hour, 12 trips during the p.m. commuter peak hour, and 112 daily trips (50% in/50% out). 5. Results of the year 2024 traffic operations analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue to operate under existing geometrics and traffic control, at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peak hours, respectively. Based on the traffic simulation, no significant delay or queueing issues were observed in the 2024 build conditions. 6. Vehicular access to/from the proposed site is planned at three locations: • New Lot 7 and Lot 8 (existing home) will share the existing direct access to TH 96. • 2384 Oak Glen Trail, existing direct access to remain on Oak Glen Trail. • New Lots 1-6 and 9-11 will access Oak Glen Trail via a private road (Neal Court). Based on field observations, engineering judgement and applicable standards, there appears to be adequate sight distance and reasonable access geometrics at the TH 96 and 2384 Oak Glen Trail locations. However, the proposed site access provided by the private road (Neal Court), does raise concerns related to the minimally offset intersection created with Swenson Street and the proximity of the proposed private roadway to the existing home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. 7. An alternative configuration for the proposed private roadway (Neal Court) is recommended where the intersection with Oak Glen Trail is located midway between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane. This alternative would have implications as to the viability of the existing home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, but it would address the intersection offset and dwelling proximity issues. 8. The design of the proposed private roadway (Neal Court), particularly the "T" Turn at the west end, raises concern for emergency vehicle/fire apparatus and larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering. It is recommended that design of this private roadway accommodate emergency vehicle/fire apparatus as well as larger service/delivery truck access and maneuvering 9. Based on the findings in this report, it is concluded that the proposed development would generate a very modest level of new traffic, resulting in no perceptible degradation in peak period traffic operations and levels of service. Therefore, the City may consider the proposed Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition development, without concern that it would represent a significant negative traffic impact to the supporting study area roadway system. H.\Projects\ 14000\ 14431 \TraffStudy\Reports\Report\ 14431_ Heifort Hills 2nd TIS_210218.docx MiDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION February 18, 2021 Bill Turnblad Community Development Director 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 SUBJECT: Heifort Hills Second Addition MnDOT Review #P21-006 SW quadrant of MN 96 and Oak Glen Trail Control Section: 8211 Stillwater, Washington County Dear Bill Turnblad, Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the preliminary plat and associated documents for Heifort Hills Second Addition, received 2/1/21, in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following: Site Configuration MnDOT supports the alternative site configuration presented by the City in the February 8th meeting, and attached in the follow-up notes. Removing the single-family home's driveway access to MN 96 and reconnecting to the proposed cul-de-sac would create more predictable and safe conditions for MN 96 drivers and conform to MnDOT access management standards. Removing the driveway to MN 96 may also reduce impervious surface area, helping to reach watershed standards. If home #7 were to use home #8's driveway to access MN 96, an access permit will be needed for home #7. Additionally, the portion of the current driveway that parallels within MnDOT right of way needs to be removed if any changes are made, followed by an access permit submittal. Please contact David Kratz, Metro Planning, at 651-234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions. Drainage No portion of any ponding facilities may be located on MnDOT right of way. It is not clear if the facility in the NE corner meets this requirement since water elevations are not labeled on the plans. The plans appear to show the removal of soil material from MnDOT right of way to accommodate the drainage features on the northern property line. Grading of MnDOT right of way is allowed if all stormwater is routed away from MnDOT right of way, as shown. However, removing any earth, gravel or rock from any highway is unlawful, per Minnesota Statute 160.2715. If MnDOT right of way is graded, a drainage permit will be required. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off -site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not An equal opportunity employer Page 2 of 3 increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions, or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234-7539 or jason.swenson@state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of this letter when applying for any permits. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT's Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.craig@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of documents within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. In order of preference, please submit either: 1. Email documents in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. Upload PDF file(s) to MnDOT's external shared internet workspace site at: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us for access instructions and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. You are welcome to contact me at 651-234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Mike Lynch, Right of Way Kaare Festvog, Traffic Jason Junge, Transit Ryan Coddington, Area Engineer Bill Turnblad From: Jenn Sundberg Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:19 PM To: Bill Turnblad; Beth Wolf Subject: FW: Oak Glen Neighborhood Petition in Opposition to the Heifort Hills Development Attachments: Office Depot Scan.pdf Public Comment below and petition attached for Council meeting 3/16 Thanks! Jenn Original Message From: Beth Harrison [mailto:beth@blueboat.net] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:25 PM To: Larry Odebrecht<LOdebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Planning Dept<planningdept@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Ted Kozlowski<tkozlowski@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Oak Glen Neighborhood Petition in Opposition to the Heifort Hills Development [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 Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmember Odebrecht and Stillwater Planning Department - Please find attached to this email the petition/signatures from the Oak Glen Neighborhood in opposition to the Heifort Hills proposed development and requested variance. Could you please include this petition in the City Council Member's packet and forward the petition to any other party, thank you. Please find on the last page a map indicating which houses signed the petition. Every house that was approached, signed the petition, for a total of 56 signatures from 35 Oak Glen homes. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Beth Harrison 2389 Oak Glen Trail 651-247-9049 1 PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the creation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS EMAIL RP-6e, y Filo() i 1 _1.... ` oLA Lane A„," _ fan g — r4IWu*-41 `1 gaCtil - I4-0 [ r1. . i 40.14 rid -"r2C4A -- w. bq is td„. Erfh Gtit n e1r -`� )tip o Oak 6I6,1-i i Qrlo.h-LQuylere r riL LULLS 1 .�__ --t-f`rr J q --- - . , . L..._ f-;f3LVe- Q-014 n a r0 d,, k 6/e c, r t e.. .r sere.wra n c o►" e 4 si lief 1 PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the ereation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail, This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS EMAIL ri Kroe, ; / 19a 3eso 11 � � 4,. ' �m sa + TE-..rgri-a1) AR rill? 5 La elis s-rpar() Pete V 45.E ..----..-.--1 hY.�a ()I f� f4+3 $LA/ +r.� sr -T„re n r�u a. cp 4j1'l )i'g cUtiOliCtrV yulLefroil4 . * e i to ►� ; z�{'� b {1Ec 4 1 Llic W u r-z r l U3P a s }[ Clde n 1_ 0 n JLkRe/ /14,i-- )4415,6 a&K Or"A�reetvs.a.bw {ail L r�� NAgt:f404-4._ C014444-7-44, 9aU Oa.�l 40 hL A te . 0) 1 ��;11 W1014 c PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the creation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS EMAIL - Ark(, ,ii 1 � �1 -4— 2 L5 O 0 Ai, &WV C 51 ill War-, — A-S x5 5 5 ?5 COI - "r riL s t ►�J ILA-br-ei4keyitiW� e 3s i`tor 0-AI )4Lt-t Ir� 4■ : t &to , zz G 6(et) AI `% 7 tenet i k CyO1 Gr 7 • AfitilAOa 17 do- Z G 6 Pa 7,-iPa ?NCie Z v,-/d_ n6v,e,i4J6v ['Q� 72514 ner 1 PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the creation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS EMAI E_ T ' t "w❑rcl �(1-11 o �-�La� fnw�c,-.- � y44,1 ' LCUA1 V_ d'v,. (4 "-"� "rO» G i k..1 C1 f 1 QurA . Ir . t et`u c Il [ C 1 L 1 '9116k2-40 Q C i IG (pill` « 1-- ` blcilt.k+ �. .l @� 01V 4-3-3D '-. Usk G!-l. �_ , -ifl aITIr in Cr e 001. t, i ; n -,o ere4k` __ Z Z l< girl) { artili,05t -tea,, HAP ;, t'cowl ems, 1 •(a ,, 1 PETITION TO THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATEfITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the current plan which would allow for the creation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhood. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighborhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen 'Frail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS EMAIL \-\aynsosin/ f 2Sq oa., 6ilen Ii h In b1uteiza- euyer ,,rir$f c(V--rr'1 rd-e-f-G-Colqe1)00)-. _06_4/I rAry, I c tJ0 tZ'���rf fl 614 Nci; fr. c -47 - 2c)ei 'grry 4o,oi. a I1 s w f-,,, 4 D.9 ii Ili 0t f (: f 9 3Jns J, � !C]�Q1 �1 Soi, G' 11 # Cl7 • 7 (**- )L311 5;v1J-__V yt, ji j NAME ilI tC0JSC►x.�-� SIGNATURE ADDRESS �C�C C� k.(jle, Lw„ EMAIL n1 Sen -0o� M 1 -L' 0 Is Mu" L 606 W(Aht M i Chk / Qv')D a4 l'i t Ittic- ____-_2i7�0 le i7(L t% ht..& / j,- 4 O I' 2370 &AMC/kir!, Si)* 1Iwar fry cec {-[ 1 v, i FGr 0 l7a- Da,..r.;p Mei NIA iG, G` t'''dckri0. Jukisit Holdetia g4 -1 o° c ,fc Ta / 0)7IlOar-*".,►M #JSSIn c}Ilti: Lid k4(4 t 1.(,),Ilduktia I cud buicisno 2Cat ,Siett +cch/7C._lc1L riite4 b en rr Dine ' /em Tib i a notier. Hati r 0- V� ( Ma I i (041d %d 9 airlw:.tr1 �1/ bi rsilt -toter r A-irw,di_rr►.,,,34 l t�fc .J c ,, gie ti 5 kt. 0et4 6'. t.`""`►v rL�c.a�., re•� -1 - a jn "le �k#I t'-3-?rh �r r ;8... -ru ,,,,,,,,....., itz„--ri.( 14 t4 ‘ tlGtc r rn 0am,_ NA, MC, nove z3ro o��G1�►bFi +it -c" U erVc i - I 1 ci 0 c\ ncA t 1naw L 7002. Sweh t.Nn -CtA , *au t 4n Z. s,/77N° sai ci1 �- AAa/C(1 I iIIo \Ctli\ -5-10TCC aDbS Swciosa� 4;6-fvi ocf_c Ii riir\11 V 4 C4-4 tA•-.YIN D-- li r ' ' '' / V (' et).- I et Pri --) .,! Pi./ �j''� �1 i 1,jj,�.w 1. � PHU CI-B-ar, ta+.v¢..ac./ oo• ( m C 11414.°47-tt Coots► /mix, PG.Cip.- tillike 11 r\ Viri►niim 1tZD Oqk Lien Lik VAN/Orr( MN 041- giOl Mifierh°°-G4K wI 2 PETITION TO THE STIL'lI;NATER PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL The owner of the properties located at 13187 Dellwood Road, Stillwater, MN and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Stillwater MN have submitted a proposal to the City of Stillwater to build nine separate townhomes and one stand-alone home, to join the one existing home on the property. We the undersigned neighbors OPPOSE the agent pin which would allow for the ereation of a private street to be "punched through" onto Oak Glen Trail. This will be the only entrance and exit to the nine homes in the development. This street would significantly and permanently change and impact the existing, established Oak Glen neighborhood, our neighborhoods. This proposal does not adhere to the Stillwater city ordinances, additionally, there would be a significant increase in neighbovhood traffic, safety issues, and function issues with this proposed street. We the undersigned respectfully ask the Stillwater Planning Commission and Stillwater City Council to DENY the easement and the request to insert a new road onto Oak Glen Trail as this street does not harmonize with the existing neighborhood and would forever negatively impact our neighborhood community. NAME r SIGNATURE ADDRESS 3 & at 614,E e.)f- EMAIL KaXcilk pT�4viM I 1 J Oak, Glen et 0 125 250 375 feet N any a}.e6MaN 4 Dellwood Rd N Swenson St V V ✓ ✓ 0'4 Aura* Oak Glen Ln Solace 1' of 1 Bill Turnblad From: Beth Wolf Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:14 PM To: Bill Turnblad Cc: Nancy Manos Subject: FW: Heifort Hills Project Please add to your staff memo packet. Thanks. From: Larry Odebrecht <LOdebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:09 PM To: Beth Wolf <bwolf@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Nancy Manos <nmanos@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Heifort Hills Project Can you include this in the packet for Tuesday? Thanks! Larry Odebrecht I Pronouns: he/his/him I City Council Ward 3 I Stillwater MN M: 651-200-1515 I www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/ I lodebrechtnaa,ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Tom Ash <tomash2429@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:07:50 PM To: Larry Odebrecht <LOdebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Heifort Hills 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. We have spoken by phone prior to the Planning Commission meeting that took place on 2/24/21. I appreciate your vote at that meeting to not approve Mr. Ganz's plan. The plan at this time appears to be no better than the one presented on 2/24/21. I am very concerned about the entrance and egress road planned for the development as it is too close to two residences. I am concerned that the intersection proposed is only 43' from the intersection of Oak Glen Trail and Swenson St. The city requires at least 150' between intersections for safety reasons. I am concerned that Mr. Ganz is proposing to build the houses as close as 45' from the standardized right of way instead of the required 100'. I am concerned that the homes, if built as proposed will have a very noisy backyard due to traffic from Hwy. 96 and that will be undesirable. I also suspect there are safety considerations for the 100' distance requirement. If the City of Stillwater allows these variances requested by Mr. Ganz I believe the City is creating a precedence for similar variances in similar developments in the future. My wife, Linda Ash and I are of the same opinion and we would ask vote to not allow Mr. Ganz to proceed with this project, it just has to many problems with it. Sent from Outlook i Jenn Sundberg From: Steve Carter <yompkee@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 3:26 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: CPC 2021-03 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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. I am against the proposed change to the zoning related to the case number listed above. The addition of 10 new homes in the lot currently used for one house will add congestion and additional traffic. In addition, many of the homeowners near 13187 Dellwood purchased their homes with the understanding that the property would be kept as a single unit and not subdivided. This change will have a negative impact on the value of their property. Specifically, the homes that will be directly on the way out of this new neighborhood will now have many headlights shone into their house and all hours of the evening. In short, this will enrich Integrity Land Development and the Jorgensons, and the expense of everyone else left to live in this neighborhood. As such, it should be rejected. Thanks, Steve Carter 2021 Oak Glen Lane i Bill Turnblad From: Larry Odebrecht Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:59 PM To: Beth Wolf; Bill Turnblad Subject: Fwd: Todd Ganz's Oak Glen Variance Request Another HH estate to add to the packet for Tuesday. Larry Odebrecht I Pronouns: he/his/him I City Council Ward 3 I Stillwater MN M: 651-200-1515 I www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/ I lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Gary Gerds <ggerds@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:50:43 AM To: Larry Odebrecht <lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Todd Ganz's Oak Glen Variance Request [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. We are strongly opposed to the Oak Glen variance request filed by developer Todd Ganz. We are opposed to this variance request because: IT IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT: In the February 24th Planning Commission Meeting Bill Turnblad stated this type of variance creating a new road to be cut through the center of a residential community has never been allowed previously in Stillwater. Allowing this will set a dangerous precedent for Stillwater going forward. IT IS VERY COMPLEX. We have been told by Planning Department personnel this is the most complex plan for seeking a variance they have seen. This is because to grant this request wholesale changes in existing rules and ordinances will need to be made. IT IS UNREASONABLE AND ALTERS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Allowing this new road to be cut into the center of a block of existing residences will greatly increase traffic, signs advertising the new town homes will also negatively impact property values while altering the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. This proposed town home community will be permanently attached to Oak Glen without respecting any of the existing characteristics of the Oak Glen community. i CREATES A SAFETY HAZARD. This will dramatically increase the amount of traffic on Oak Glen Trail, a street which because there are no sidewalks, is regularly used by pedestrians, bikers, young children, joggers and parents pushing baby strollers. DISREGARDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. The current plan calls for a 24-foot wide permeable surface road to be built 3 feet from an existing residence. It is very difficult to understand how this road which is expected to carry 120+ vehicles per day, meets any type of engineering, emergency or safety requirements. THE DISPENSATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON OAK GLEN TRAIL IS UNCLEAR. What will become of the existing home? Will it remain in place with a new road within 3 feet of it? This no doubt is Todd Ganz' preferred solution. Will it be moved or demolished? SACRIFICES THE WELL BEING OF RESIDENTS TO CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. It appears personnel within the Stillwater Planning Department are very willing to sacrifice the rights of property owners in an effort to conform to the existing Comprehensive Plan regarding housing density. A plan created to support the well-being of the community while apparently sacrificing homeowner/taxpayer rights. Sort of destroying the village in order to save it. Apparently, Mr. Ganz was able to pay an additional $20,000 to avoid leaving recreational space within his planned community. This indicates the Stillwater Planning Department's sole objective is to approve a housing density proposal that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ENABLES TODD GANZ AND THE INTEGRITY COMPANY TO CONTINUE THEIR WILFUL DISREGARD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND EXISTING REGULATIONS. Mr. Ganz has broken the agreement he signed with the Brown's Creek Water Shed which states a 75-foot buffer zone exists around the Heifort Pond. Mr. Ganz willfully disregarded this agreement removing vegetation and trimming existing trees, saying he could remove vegetation to the water's edge if he chose to do so. He later admitted he had not read the agreement preventing this action that he had signed. Now he says that he, or perhaps a yet to be formed HOA will maintain the new road with its permeable surface and surrounding lawn areas. Based on his behavior to date this is doubtful. IT IS TROUBLING THAT TODD GANZ CHOSE TO MAKE FEW CHANGES TO HIS ORIGINAL REQUEST WHICH WAS TURNED DOWN IN A 5-0 VOTE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The fact Mr. Ganz chose to make few changes indicates he believes his request will be approved by the City Council as is. He may think this because he is foolish, which is doubtful, because he is arrogant which is possible, or because he has inside information that tells him this is a "slam dunk", which is very unfortunate if true. THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL IS OUR LAST HOPE! Todd Ganz, Integrity and the Jorgensons have proven by their actions that they care only for the profit this variance will generate. If the Stillwater City 2 Council approves this variance request it will set a dangerous precedent for this type of action in the future. It will also send a loud and very clear message that adherence to the Comprehensive Plan outweighs the needs and wellbeing of Oak Glen families, homeowners, children, taxpayers and voters. Thank you for reading this and for your consideration. Best regards, Gary Gerds and Nancy Martin 2270 Oak Glen Court Stillwater 3 Jenn Sundberg From: Beth Harrison <beth@blueboat.net> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:43 PM To: Jenn Sundberg; Planning Dept Subject: Letter in opposition to the Heifort Hills Development Request [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 Mr. Turnblad and City of Stillwater Planning Department, My name is Beth Harrison, and I live at 2389 Oak Glen Trail, with my husband and two girls. I am writing in regard to the Heifort Hills Estate 2nd Addition Appeal (CPC 2021-10) that will be in front of the City Council on Tuesday, March 16, 2021. I am respectfully requesting that you uphold the unanimous Stillwater Planning Commissions decision to DENY the rezoning of the property located at 13187 Dellwood Road, DENY the requested PUD preliminary Plat, and DENY the setback variance from State Highway 96 with prejudice. Todd Ganz and Gary & June Jorgensen are proposing to develop the property located at 13187 Dellwood Road and 2384 Oak Glen Trail. We live directly across the street from the 2384 Oak Glen Trail property. The plan proposed to the Planning Commission consists of building 9 detached townhomes, building one single family home to join the two existing homes on the property. This proposal is totally unreasonable for a number of reasons. The plan proposes punching through a private street, 3-5 feet from the existing home located on Oak Glen Trail. The new street will be the only access road to the 9 townhomes. I have lived in Stillwater my entire life, and I cannot think of another street (public or private) in Stillwater that would have a street that close to a single family home. Just as a reference point, if you are building a new home, zoning requires a front or exterior lot set back of 30 feet from a street. The developer is proposing 3-5 feet. The Subdivision code for the City of Stillwater reads, 'The arrangement of streets in the new subdivision must plan for the continuation of the existing streets in adjoining areas without promoting cut through or short cuts that impact residential neighborhoods." The proposed street creates a street jog to Swenson Street. The Subdivision Code reads that "Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than 150 feet are prohibited." The new proposed street is approximately 30 feet from Swenson Street, substantially less than the ordinance requirement of 150 feet. The Traffic Impact Study prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer states that this private access road causes concern; "The combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph roadway." The Subdivision Code for the City goes on to say that "Streets may not be arranged in a way that will cause hardship to owners of adjoining property." The hardships that this street will cause are numerous with i increased traffic (at a minimum 112 additional daily car trips a day), increased risk of injury, decreased use of the street by both children and adults for walking, riding bikes, etc., increase in exhaust, car lights, noise, and decrease in our property value. The Subdivision Code for the City states that minor streets are to be 32 feet wide. Initially the proposed plan was for this street to be 20 feet wide. In the updated plan they increase the width to 26 feet by using grasscrete, but this still doesn't meet the requirement of the ordinance of 32 feet. This proposed plan, which includes punching in a street onto Oak Glen Trail, will substantially and permanently change the character, function and the livability of our neighborhood. Again, the Subdivision code states, "The development should minimize adverse effects, and be an asset to the community." That is not what would happen here. In regards to the applicant's request to allow a setback variance from State Highway 96 to 45 feet instead of adhering to the 100 foot ordinance, I respectfully ask you to deny this variance and adhere to the 100 foot ordinance. The legislature has defined a variance as "any modification or variation where it is determined that by reason of exceptional circumstances, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship." There is no hardship here. The landowners can sell their two properties today for $1.1 million, they could subdivide and build another home on the property and sell that, they can build smaller townhomes, they could build fewer townhomes. The landowner has plenty of useful purposes for this land, and not granting the variance does not bar them from that use. An important statutory qualification is that "economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." So long as there is some existing reasonable use for the property, the mere fact that the landowner or developer can imagine more profitable uses for the property if freed from zoning restriction is not enough to grant a variance. The developer argues that because the houses who butt up against Highway 96 on Swenson street do not meet the 100 foot set back, an exception should be made here. I could not find what the requirement was for set back in the 1990s when Oak Glen was built, but I can guess that these houses where built within the setback requirement at the time given how many houses were built to that specification. Since then, I believe wise people agreed that less than a 100 foot set back might not be a good idea and so they codified the 100 foot set back ordinance. The current variance does not allow for building within a 100 feet of not only Highway 96, but there is also a 100 foot set back on McKusick Road, County Road 12, County Road 15, and it appears as though Heifort Hills 1 adhered to the 100 foot set back. Allowing this variance would cause a terrible precedent. Finally, you will receive in your City Council packet the petition that was circulated within our neighborhood. We approached the houses that boarder or are directly impacted by the proposed development. Every house we approached signed the petition. Approximately, 35 houses and 53 signatures. After collecting many of those signatures, I can say without a doubt that we as a neighborhood are not supportive of this plan. I again respectfully request that you uphold the unanimous Stillwater Planning Commissions decision to DENY the rezoning of the property located at 13187 Dellwood Road, DENY the requested PUD preliminary Plat, and DENY the setback variance from State Highway 96 with prejudice. Thank you for reading this and a sincere thank you to you and your families for your service to our city. Sincerely, Beth Harrison 2389 Oak Glen Trail 651-247-9049 2 Jenn Sundberg From: Beth Harrison <beth@blueboat.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:56 PM To: Jenn Sundberg; Planning Dept; Bill Turnblad Subject: Planning Commission Meeting TONIGHT - Comments for the Commission Members (Heifort Hills Development) Attachments: Planning Commission Speech.docx [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 City of Stillwater Planning Commission and Department - I look forward to joining you tonight via zoom. I wanted to pass along my thoughts and concerns to you prior to the meting. It is my hope that I will read this tonight (will work on editing to get my time down to 5 minutes or less). However, I thought a paper copy might be helpful. Ms. Sundberg, can you please email this to the planning commission members, I would greatly appreciate it, I cannot find their emails on the web site. Again, thank you all for your time and thoughtfulness in regards to my many questions and this project. See you tonight! ! ! ! Beth Harrison Thank you, my name is Beth Harrison and I live at 2389 Oak Glen Trail with my husband and two daughters who are 13 and 9. We have lived in our home for 4 years and we love our home and our Oak Glen neighborhood. Our house is directly across from 2384 Oak Glen Trail property which is part of this proposal. Tonight, I am respectfully asking you to vote to recommend DENIAL of the Heifort Hills preliminary Planned Unit Development and to recommend DENIAL for the private street and Highway 96 set back easement that is being requested. I have limited to my comments to three main points: 1. Codes matter 2. Livability of the neighborhood. 3. Public Opposition 1. Ordinances/Codes matter. Ordinances/Codes deal with maintaining public safety, health, morals, and the general welfare of our community By following ordinances, we create precedent that allows development and life to occur in an orderly way. You making these decisions today not only impacts my life, my neighbor's lives, but impacts future decisions regarding our Stillwater community This proposal asks you to set aside several established ordinances. How many? 9 is what I came up with. The Proposed Access Street i This development is proposing punching through a street onto Oak Glen Trail, approximately 3-5 feet from the house on the property. a. I have lived in Stillwater my entire life, and I cannot think of another street (public or private) in Stillwater that would have a street that close to a single family home. I asked others in City Government employees to point me to another property with a street that close to a house, they could not. i. Just for reference, if you are building a home. Zoning requires a front or exterior lot set back of 30 feet from a street. The developer is proposing 3-5 feet. That is not right. ii. Chapter 32; subd. 6 states of the Subdivision Code of the City of Stillwater reads: d. "The arrangement of streets in the new subdivision must plan for the continuation of the existing streets in adjoining areas without promoting cut throughs or short cuts that impact residential neighborhoods." This plan is creating a cut through that absolutely will substantially impact our residential neighborhood. iii. f. "Partial streets will not be permitted". iv. g. "Dead end streets are prohibited." v. h. "Private streets and reserve strips are prohibited." vi. 7. "Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than 150 feet are prohibited." This proposed street is approximately 30 feet from Swenson street. Substantially less than the ordinance requirement of 150 feet. I understand that alternate road designs can be developed as part of a PUD. But to quote Mr. Turnblad's planning report "the alternative design still needs to be safe and acceptable." The Traffic Impact Study prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer, states this private access road causes concern. "The combination of Swenson Street, the proposed private access roadway and residential driveways on Oak Glen Trail creates numerous driver decision/vehicle conflict points in rapid succession on Oak Glen Trail, a 30 mph local roadway." This roadway will create four individual street intersections on Oak Glen Trail within 100 feet of our property. This design was so concerning to the Community Development Director that he proposed and alternative intersection alignment. However, the developer is not proceeding with that plan and continuing to go with his original plan of creating a street that is neither safe nor acceptable. vii. j. "Streets may not be arranged in a way that will cause hardship to owners of adjoining property." I believe you will hear tonight how this street will cause hardship. I can tell you that this street will cause hardship with increased traffic, increased risk of injury, decrease our and our children's use of the street, increase in exhaust, lights, noise and decrease our property value. viii. Minor Street are to be 32 feet wide. Initially the plan was for this street to be 20 wide. In the updated plan they increased the width to 26 feet with grass creek bedding (not sure who will cut that) and still doesn't meet the ordinance of 32 feet. ix. According to the city engineer houses are to be 15 feet apart. This is not the case here. The developer was aware of this violation and choose not to correct it. x. Houses should have a minimum of 10 feet from back of curb to every house foundation to allow sufficient room for utility work and snow storage xi. Variance request for Highway 96 to allow a set back of 45 feet when the ordinance requires 100 feet. The current variance does not allow for building within a 100 feet of Highway 96. Just for reference there is a 100 foot set back on McKusick Road, County Road 12, Country Road 15, and it appears as though Heifort Hills 1 adhered to the 100 set foot set back. The city seems to argue that because the houses who butt up against Highway 96 on Swenson street do not meet the 100 foot set back an exception should be made here, I cannot stress what a terrible precedent this is for our 2 town. I could not find what the requirement was for set back when Oak Glen was built but I can guess they were built within the set back requirement at the time given how many houses were built to that specification. Wise people agreed that less than a 100 foot set back might not be a good idea and enacted an ordinance, a 100 foot set back. Why would you agree to allow a variance here. You are opening up for home owners and developers to argue for variances not just on Highway 96, but on other identified roads as well. I ask you to deny this variance and adhere to the 100 foot set back. 2. Livability of our neighborhood: This proposed street will Permanently change the character, function and livability of our established neighborhood and causes the devaluation of our homes. a. The development should minimize adverse effects, and be an asset to the community. This is the opposite. i. Safety will be significantly impeded. 1. There is only ONE entrance and ONE exit into the nine homes. Fire trucks, ambulances, buses, construction trucks, workers vehicles, minimum 19 residential cars, snowplows, and will all be using this one road. a. The exit out of the street crosses into the driveway of the home. 2. There is a "hammerhead" which will serve as the only turnaround on the street. Although the fire marshall said this may be acceptable it is not ideal and a cul-de-sace is preferred. It is also stated in the traffic impact study that this "T" turn raises concern. 3. No sidewalk coming out of the development, and a street that is narrow. This is a significant safety concern. ii. Traffic increase onto Oak Glen Trial. 1. With only one access road into the development, this appears to be the only construction traffic road. This is unacceptable in a residential neighborhood. All the dirt, tree removal, construction materials, workers cars, etc., will be entering and exiting on our road. The noise, safety concerns, inconvenience, destruction of our road will create severe adverse impacts onto our daily living. 2. With the addition of approximately 18 new cars onto Oak Glen Trail this will significantly change the character and feel of our neighborhood. This is approximately 112 daily trips. The traffic report study stated that the proposed private roadway would create vehicle related impacts (noise, exhaust, visibility, etc.) So, will this change the livability of our neighborhood, this would fundamentally change the characteristic of our neighborhood. 3. Public Opposition You received in your packet the neighborhood petition that we circulated. We approached only the houses that boarder or are directly impacted by the proposed development. EVERYONE, EVERY HOUSE signed the petition. Others down Oak Glen Trail and beyond have reached out wanting to sign and participate. I can tell you without a doubt that we as a neighborhood are not supportive of this PUD. 4. In Conclusion The Director of Planning recommended approval of this PUD if the developer adhered to several conditions, one of those conditions being an alternative access road and to tear down the house across the street and put a road in, I am not supportive of that design either; however, the developer in their updated plan did not change their original design, so what you are deciding on tonight is the plan in front of you from the developer. To punch through a street onto Oak Glen Trail, 3-5 feet from a single family home. I respectfully ask you to recommend denial of this PUD and the preliminary plat. I am asking you to deny the variance to punch through a street onto Oak Glen Trial and to deny the set back variance for Highway 96. I am asking you not to set aside at a minimum of 9 established codes. I am asking you not to change the livability of our neighborhood and to recommend denial of this unreasonable request. Thank you for listening and a sincere thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Beth Harrison 2389 Oak Glen Trail 3 Jenn Sundberg From: Peter Mayer <peter@blueboat.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:18 PM To: Jenn Sundberg; Planning Dept; Bill Turnblad Subject: Planning Commission Meeting TONIGHT - Letter for the Commission Members (Heifort Hills Development) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [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 - If possible could you please send this out to the planning commission members? I am planning on reading it at the meeting but thought I would send it along as well. Thank you! Peter Mayer My name is Peter Mayer. I live across the street from the proposed access road for this development. I met June and Gary, the current owners of the property, when they bought the house across the street from me. I went over to introduce myself when I saw them in the driveway one day, and even offered to shovel it for them. They told me they had bought the house for the convenience of having a property they could rent and manage next -door to their current home. It now seems clear to me that the actual reason they bought the house was in order to secure an access point so they could sell their property to a developer. When I heard the news of this proposed road, I felt sick. None of us in my neighborhood want this road. When my wife and I purchased our home, we were buying a house in a settled neighborhood —one that had been here for 25 years. Before we bought the house, I came to the neighborhood several times, trying to get a feel for it. I was concerned about how close it was to highway 96 because of the traffic and the noise. But I was reassured by the feel of the mature trees and the fact that this neighborhood had been here for a long time. There was no open land across the street, only perfectly good homes. We certainly would have thought twice had we known that something like this could happen. Lots of people in our neighborhood, including our family, have kids, go for walks and ride bikes. But Oak Glen has no sidewalks, no parks, no playgrounds or public spaces of any kind. So we use our streets. Connecting this road to an already busy street that wasn't even designed for it, would only ADD to this problem. It would mean even more traffic, and not 3 but 4 traffic intersections within 150 feet of us. It seems to me the only people benefitting from this plan are the ones who don't actually LIVE here. Money will change hands, the sellers will take their profits and move away and the developer will disrupt our neighborhood forever —reduce the quality of our lives and the value of our homes, and then take his money and leave. In the Stillwater ordinance, Chapter 2, Subdivision 6, it says..."the purpose of good subdivision and sight design is to create a functional and attractive development, to minimize adverse impacts....and to insure that a project will be an asset to a community." It also says "streets may not be arranged in a way that will cause hardship to owners of adjoining property." We have shown through our petition that not a single one of us who would have to live with this road want it to be built. Please don't let the profits of the buyer and seller be the only factors here. And please don't practice the idea of development at all cost. I sincerely ask that you take into consideration the well-being of our neighborhood, and say NO to this proposal. Thank you. 1 Bill Turnblad From: Larry Odebrecht Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:59 PM To: Beth Wolf; Bill Turnblad Subject: Fwd: Deny Heifort Hills 2nd Addition Another heifer hills comment to add to the packet on Tuesday. Larry Odebrecht I Pronouns: he/his/him I City Council Ward 3 I Stillwater MN M: 651-200-1515 I www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/ I lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Dan Stoffer <danstoffer@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:51:48 AM To: lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us <lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Deny Heifort Hills 2nd Addition [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 Council Member Lodebrecht, This is regarding the Integrity Land Development named Heifort Hills 2nd Addition which is west of Oak Glen neighborhood at 13187 Dellwood Road and 2384 Oak Glen Trail. My wife and I live at 2003 Swenson Street in Stillwater. We are writing you today to respectfully request that you uphold the Stillwater Planning Commissions decision to: • DENY the rezoning of the property • DENY the requested PUD and the preliminary plat • DENY the setback variance for Highway 96 This proposed plan is unacceptable and will forever change our neighborhood. It will create significant safety issues, substantially increase traffic, change the character of our neighborhood, and decrease the livability and value of our homes. In closing, please deny the requests of Mr. Todd Ganz and Integrity Land Development. Thank you, Dan and Amy Stoffer 2003 Swenson Street Stillwater, MN 55082 612-554-4455 i Jenn Sundberg From: Caitlin Mejia <caitlin.jean012@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:25 PM To: Planning Dept Subject: Proposed Development to 13187 Dellwood Road [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, I am writing in regards to the proposed development at 13187 Dellwood Road in Stillwater. I live in the Oak Glen neighborhood at 2370 Oak Glen Trail and I oppose the proposed plan. I respectfully request that you uphold the Stillwater Planning Commissions decision to DENY the rezoning of the property, DENY the requested PUD and the preliminary plat and DENY the setback variance for Highway 96. While listening to the planning commission meeting, I realized that the root of the problem is the "comprehensive plan". The plan has decided that the 13187 Dellwood Road property should be mid density housing. However, the road system does not support a mid density housing development. And punching a road onto Oak Glen, demolishing/moving a house is, quite honestly, ridiculous. I urge you to make a motion to revise the "comprehensive plan" so that the future housing density on the 13187 Dellwood Rd property will be supported by the current road conditions and MNDOT recommendations. Thank you for your consideration and see you at the meeting on Tuesday. Caitlin and Dario Mejia CAITLIN MEJIA I DARIO MEJIA I GISELLE MEJIA CHOREOGRAPHY 1 CO -DIRECTORS 1 TEACHING ARTISTS Connect with CURIOus! Linkedln I Facebook I Twitter curiodance.com 1 Jenn Sundberg From: Dario Mejia <dario.mejia@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:09 PM Subject: 13187 Dellwood Road [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, I live in the Oak Glen neighborhood at 2370 Oak Glen Trail and I oppose the proposed plan to the 13187 Dellwood Road property. I respectfully request that you uphold the Stillwater Planning Commissions decision to DENY the rezoning of the property, DENY the requested PUD and the preliminary plat and DENY the setback variance for Highway 96. Rules are made for a reason and should be followed. We owe it to our future generations to uphold the reasons we made the rules. With creative thinking we can still follow the city ordinances and find a use for the property that is supported by the road systems currently surrounding it. Please consider changing the comprehensive plan for the Dellwood Rd property. Thank you, Dario Gabriel Melia Co -Director of Curio Dance www.curiodance.com c. 651-274-0946 e. curio.dance(agmail.com Move. Shine. Professionally! Find us on all social media under Curio Dance 1 Jenn Sundberg From: Paul Giordano <giordp01@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:54 PM To: Ted Kozlowski; Ryan Collins; David Junker; Larry Odebrecht; Mike Polehna; Jenn Sundberg; Bill Turnblad Cc: Rose Giordano; Beth Harrison; Paul Giordano Subject: City Council Review of Proposed Development Plan Located at 13187 Dellwood Rd. [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. City Council Review of Proposed Development Plan Located at 13187 Dellwood Rd. Director Turnblad, you posted a request for a variance to the setback from State 96. The Variance requests "roughly 60' setback" from State 96. Please help me, what does "roughly 60' setback" actually mean! After seeing Ganz Development at the Feb. 24 meeting, I am sure this means, to him, between 25' and 60'. This means to me 60' to 90'. Both are roughly 25%. Professional Engineers may not always be accurate but they are required to be precise. I do not want to sound didactic, but allowing a variance for State 96 to "roughly 60' setback" is totally unreasonable. Furthermore, as we have discussed before, and we will again, setting requirements based on a map, a line, and comparisons to other developments without taking into account location is just wrong. The reason MnDot is so restrictive for exit road to 96? This is a high accident and deadly intersection area. The high point of the valley 96 road is very close to Oak Glen. The traffic on 96 is high speed. This results in a very difficult blind left turn on 96. MnDot obviously knows that is a problem. This results in a blind left turn onto 96. This backs up traffic on Oak Glen. The traffic coming from the right is high speed, and nobody slows down. Many times, I have made that left and have had traffic blowing the horn. How dare I get in the way! This also shows the necessary requirement of the setback for this location as you detailed in your Technical Review. This is a safety issue already. The Planning Commission needs to get out of the office and take inspection of travel on State 96 traveling east of Twin Lakes. Timed Pictures of travel — line of sight --from Top of Hill to Oak Glen Trail at 70mph. My Office Calculation is for a stop time of roughly 1.0 second. Director Turnblad, you clearly understand the safety/accident concerns of MNDOT for State96. As stated in your Technical Review: Access is probably the single most complicated aspect of this project. MnDOT will allow the existing driveway onto Highway 96 to remain, but no additional access. And, given that the eastbound right turn lane into Oak Glen Trail begins right where the driveway intersects with the highway, MnDOT would prefer if the existing drive were eliminated. "no additional access is allowed onto Hwy 96" As Director Turnblad States, "no additional access is allowed onto Hwy 96". This is clear to me, any poorly planned workaround to MnDOT that shifts the access to State96 for 20 vehicles roughly 50 feet east of the existing exit road shows clear intent to violate the ruling of MnDOT. Director Turnblad's Planning Memo of February 19, 2021, listed 18 conditions to be completed and approved before plan approval. One example, # 10. The access point for the private road must be shifted southward similar to the alignment shown in Map B (PM) which details a safer intersection alignment is illustrated by the crosshatched roadway in Map B(PM). This represents the midway point between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane to its south. The i disadvantage of the safer alignment is that the house at 2384 Oak Glen Trail would have to be moved or demolished. Map B(PM), Alternate intersection alignment Density. At the Public Hearings Page, I reviewed the "Heifort Hills Plan Set Revised 2.17.2021" all 21 sheets. I could not see any change from the Ganz 90deg threaded narrow driveway exit to the recommended "Turnblad Road". Furthermore, for the "Turnblad Road" you recommend: 9. The private street name will need to be changed on the final plat. 10. The access point for the private road must be shifted southward similar to the alignment shown in Map B. 18. If the Developer desires to have a "neighborhood entrance monument" for the subdivision, plans for it must be included within the final plat application materials. WOW ---- as we both found out at the last meeting the Turnblad neighborhood entrance was met with significant emotional and financial disagreement. As you witnessed, I believe "The Residents are Restless" over the neighborhood entrance road. Civil Engineering: 2. All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. 3. The design of the previous turnaround section of the private street must be found satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Assistant Fire Chief. 4. A minimum of 10 feet must be provided from the back of the curb to every house foundation. 5. Prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County, a private road easement and maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the City and found satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer. This needs to include: The proposed houses are too close to the private road. In order to provide sufficient room for utility work and snow storage, a minimum of 10 feet should be provided from the back of the curb to every house foundation. The private road will need proper easement. A private street maintenance agreement will be needed. Due to potential drainage issues, especially for lookouts and walkouts, 15 feet of separation should be provided between each house Director Turnblad in email communication on Feb.16 states: "City staff agree with your assessment that there is insufficient parking for guests in the developer's plan. City staff is requiring that the road be widened to allow parking on one side of the street. " Again, reviewing "Heifort Hills Plan Set Revised 2.17.2021" I see no meeting relevant plan revisions. This is particularly disturbing after viewing the very incomplete and misleading Gantz Development presentation at the last meeting. The total distance between THouse#1 and THouse#11 registers at 45ft. (Yes, I purchased a wide screen PC to better view the plans.) Wider roads, proper easements, 10 feet to the back of curb, snow storage, drainage, large safety, this plan just does not work. Furthermore, I must respond to Gantz misleading statements on Fire and truck and large truck turnaround. This is very relevant as for example Trash is contracted for Stillwater by Waste Management Trucks. These trucks are huge and they do not respond well to a narrow dead end. How narrow is the dead-end turn -around? The acceptable dead-end turnaround from appendix d is a 90deg square 70ft wide by 70ft from center. Gantz development proposes a dead-end turn -around of 55ft wide by 40ft from center-- roughly half-size, this is unacceptable. The last objection (for now) is the very large use of Grass Concrete, on the east coast this is known as Ghetto Grass. Intended or not this development will be viewed as part of Oak Glen. Ghetto Grass is not acceptable in Oak Glen development. Respectfully, Rose and Paul Giordano 2 Jenn Sundberg From: Paul Giordano <giordp0l @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:09 AM To: Planning Dept; Ted Kozlowski; Larry Odebrecht Subject: Notice to Planning Commission: Jenn Sundberg, Please Confirm Receiving Document, Respectfully Rose and Paul Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed [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. Planning Commission: Rose and Paul Giordano, (30 Years Stillwater), OPPOSE the development plan proposed for Delwood and Oak Glen Trail. Many reasons: One focus is the total lack of response by the developer and landowner to Director Turnblad's many detailed required recommendations. A few examples: "The access point for the private road must be shifted southward. A safer intersection alignment is illustrated by the crosshatched roadway in Map B. This represents the midway point between Swenson Street and Oak Glen Lane to its south. The disadvantage of the safer alignment is that the house at 2384 Oak Glen Trail would have to be moved or demolished." The developer submitted a new revised plan, the new plan does not appear to change the private drive and they are continuing to request that the drive be threaded besides the existing house located at 2384 Oak Glen Trail. - the proposed development exit driveway. This exit driveway starts out as a winding 25ft road making a blind left turn into the 15ft exit ramp!! This is nuts. This car demolition derby would run along the entire side of my property. Civil Engineer: All civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the City Engineer, or revised to his satisfaction, prior to release of the final plat for recording with the County. The design of the pervious turnaround section of the private street must be, found satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Assistant Fire Chief. Review of the Revised Plan does not show any compliance: Some of the proposed houses are too close to the private road. In order to provide sufficient room for utility work and snow storage, a minimum of 10 feet should be provided from back of curb to every house foundation. The private road will need an easement, since it is in the Home Owners' Association. A private street maintenance agreement will be needed. Due to potential drainage issues, especially for lookouts and walkouts, 15 feet of separation should be provided between each house. 1 Fire Safety: A cul-de-sac is preferred to a Y turnaround. But the Y turnaround is acceptable if it complies with Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the Fire Code. Appendix D: as the name implies a 120' Fire Hammerhead requires a 120' T turn at a 28' R corner an alternative 3-point reversal requires a 70' back by 140' L stop. I am not a civil engineer, but I have a digital caliper, what I can estimate from the revised plan is nothing close to a 120' Fire Hammerhead. As Technical Director for the company, I retired from in Vadness Heights, I was also responsible for overall safety. Working with the VH fire department I learned these are serious people. This revised plan is not serious. Yes, backing up a Fire truck is a lot of fun! Director Turnblad recommends: Since the road width for the majority of the project is proposed to be 26' wide, no on -street parking will be possible. Guest parking spaces should be provided elsewhere in the project. And since the amount of impervious surface in the shoreland district area of the project already exceeds 25%, this parking area should be in the east half of the project. The Planning Commission is requested to review and: 1) decide whether to approve or deny the setback variance. Director Turnblad writes. As evident in Map D, none of the homes in the Oak Glen Neighborhood meet the current 100-foot setback. And the home to the immediate east of the PUD has a setback of about 45 feet. This is the setback distance requested for Lot 3. If a patio room is built on this lot, the setback would be measured to the house, which would be about 60 feet from the standardized right-of-way. Depending on the size of the patio room. This is illustrated in the graphic. My understanding of the position is that: If the setback is approved; the PUD setback must be at least 60-75 feet. The townhomes include "A Patio Room" or somehow the city would have to restrict the townhomes to 80% of sale. TRAFFIC/SAFETY: Traffic report needs to focus on intersection of 96 and Oak Glen Tr. The reason MnDot is so restrictive for exit road to 96? This is a high accident and deadly intersection area. The high point of the valley 96 road is very close to Oak Glen. The traffic on 96 is high speed, this results in a very difficult blind left turn on 96. MnDot obviously knows that is a problem. I am reminded of this every spring as on the side of 96, right at the corner, a family places flowers in memorial to the loss of a family member. I have been in my yard and 2 have heard the incredible sound of a high speed crash at that intersection. This results in a blind left turn onto 96. This backs up traffic on Oak Glen. The traffic coming from the right is high speed, and nobody slows down. Many times I have made that left and have had traffic blowing the horn. How dare I get in the way! This also shows the necessary requirement of the setback for this location as you detailed in your technical Review. This is a safety issue already: Respectfully, Rose and Paul Giordano 3 From: Paul Giordano <giordp0l@gmail.com> Date: February 19, 2021 at 10:00:52 AM CST To: Bill Turnblad <bturnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Larry Odebrecht <LOdebrecht@ ci. stillwater. mn.us> Cc: Rose Giordano <fiddlinrose@gmail.com>, Beth Harrison <beth@blueboat.net> Subject: Comment on traffic report [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. Traffic report needs to focus on intersection of 96 and Oak Glen Tr. The reason MnDot is so restrictive for exit road to 96? This is a high accident and deadly intersection area. The high point of the valley 96 road is very close to Oak Glen. The traffic on 96 is high speed, this results in a very difficult blind left turn on 96. MnDot obviously knows that is a problem. I am reminded of this every spring as on the side of 96, right at the corner, a family places flowers in memorial to the loss of a family member. I have been in my yard and have heard the incredible sound of a high speed crash at that intersection. This results in a blind left turn onto 96. This backs up traffic on Oak Glen. The traffic coming from the right is high speed, and nobody slows down. Many times I have made that left and have had traffic blowing the horn. How dare I get in the way! This also shows the necessary requirement of the setback for this location as you detailed in your technical Review. This is a safety issue already: Respectfully, Rose and Paul Giordano Sent from my iPad Beth Wolf From: Larry Odebrecht Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:09 PM To: Beth Wolf; Bill Turnblad Subject: Fwd: Integrity? Land Development. Rejected the first time for good reasons Another. Larry Odebrecht I Pronouns: he/his/him I City Council Ward 3 I Stillwater MN M: 651-200-1515 I www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/ ldebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Jenise Howard <Jenise.Howard@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:26:48 PM To: Lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us <Lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; rcollins@ci.stillwater.mn.us <rcollins@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us <mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us <djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Integrity? Land Development. Rejected the first time for good reasons [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 Council Members This is regarding the Integrity Land Development named Heifort Hills 2nd Addition which is west of Oak Glen neighborhood at 13187 Dellwood Road and 2384 Oak Glen Trail. My wife and I live at 2351 Oak Glen Trail in Stillwater. We are writing you today to respectfully request that you uphold the Stillwater Planning Commissions decision to: • DENY the rezoning of the property • DENY the requested PUD and the preliminary plat • DENY the setback variance for Highway 96 This proposed plan is unacceptable and will forever change our neighborhood. It will create significant safety issues, substantially increase traffic, change the character of our neighborhood, and decrease the livability and value of our homes. Our neighborhood already has cars speeding through it with no sidewalks. Adding 9 homes will only increase the chance of a child or adult getting hit by a car. Please don't let them destroy our neighborhood. It was unanimously rejected the first time for good reason. In closing, please deny the requests of Mr. Todd Ganz and Integrity Land Development. Thank you, Gregg and Jenise Howard 2351 Oak Glen Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 i ti11wates ' N E B, R T H PLACE 0- M 1 N N S o r A PLANNING REPORT TO: City Council REPORT DATE: March 12, 2021 MEETING DATE: March 16, 2021 March 2, 2021 CASE NO.: 2020-60 APPLICANT: Joel Hauck, ESG Architecture & Design LAND OWNER: 200 Chestnut Partners LLC REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit, associated Variances, and Design Permit appeal for a four-story, 61-unit apartment building LOCATION: 200 Chestnut Street East ZONING: REVIEWERS: PREPARED BY: 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 At the Council's last regularly -scheduled meeting the Council held a public hearing to consider requests related to the redevelopment of 200 Chestnut Street East. At that time the Council tabled action citing the need for additional information about parking requirements and the Downtown Parking Commission's recommendation. Since that time, the applicant has requested the City extend consideration of the matter to April 7, 2021, allowing for the City and the applicant time to discuss the proposed parking plan. In addition to the March 2 staff report, the Council will find a memo from Community Development Director Turnblad which provides a detailed parking analysis, as requested by the Council. Case no. 2020-60 Page 2 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. In addition to the applicant's request, the City is contemplating Use Permit approval for Short Term Rental on the site. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The City Council has the following options: A. Move to 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 Case no. 2020-60 Page 3 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. 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. Move to deny the 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 Staff findings are included in the attached reports. Staff recommends the Council recommend approval of: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for 61 multi -family residences 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; 4. Mitigation for an 18 space deficit. In exchange for use of the public parking system for the deficit spaces, the property owner would pay the standard parking mitigation fee which is currently $10/space/month. With this option, staff recommends that the following conditions be included: a. The parking mitigation fee will be invoiced quarterly by the City. The fee is to be paid upon receipt of City invoice. Case no. 2020-60 Page 4 b. Failure to pay fees within 30 days of invoice will be certified for collection with real estate taxes. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the parking mitigation fee in -lieu of on -site parking requirements, including but not limited to a claim that the City lacks authority to impose and collect the fees. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this provision. c. Each of the one bedroom plus units must have at least one parking space reserved for it in the building's garage. And, half of the alcove units must have a reserved parking space in the garage. d. If there are no available parking spaces in the building's garage for guests, then guests would pay standard fees to park either in the City parking ramp or purchase a residential permit from the City to park in a public lot in which overnight residential parking is allowed. Staff further recommends the Council take action on the matter and direct staff to prepare appropriate Resolutions memorializing the Council's action and to be brought back at the Council's April 6, 2021 meeting. Attachments: Parking Analysis Report March 2, 2021 Staff Report Site Location Map Narrative Request Applicant Submission Public Comments cc: Joel Hauck THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: March 12, 2021 TO: Mayor & Council Members APPLICANT: 200 Chestnut Street Partners, LLC SUBJECT: On -site parking 60 DAY DEADLINE: 60-day review deadline extended by applicant to April 7tn REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND 200 Chestnut Street Partners, LLC has purchased the 200 East Chestnut block. It is currently the site of a mixed -use commercial building, together with its parking lot and parking structure. The new owners are developing a plan to demolish the block and construct a market rate apartment building with 61 apartments and 73 underground parking spaces. On February 18, 2021 the Downtown Parking Commission recommended on a 5-2 vote that the City Council approve use of the public parking system for the building's on -site parking space deficit. Specifically, the Commission found the building to have a 35 space parking deficit (based on the 73 units proposed originally) and that the standard mitigation fee should be charged for those 35 deficit spaces. In addition, the Commission recommended that each apartment be assigned at least one space in the garage and that off -site parking in public spaces be used only by guests. Guests would pay standard fees to use the parking ramp, or could buy a dashboard residential parking permit to use public lots where overnight residential parking is allowed. Given the size of this Downtown project, Conditional Use Permit approval is required by the City Council. The City Council first considered this case on March 2nd, but tabled it for more information on the parking deficit. CODE REQUIREMENTS The 1960s era parking standards found in the City's Zoning Code require 1.5 stalls per apartment (regardless of number of bedrooms) and 1 stall of guest parking for every three apartments. So, by these standards, 112 parking spaces are required for the 61 unit building (92 for residents and 20 for guests). March 11, 2021 200 E Chestnut pg. 2 Since the property has 73 spaces, the Zoning Code would say a 39 space deficit exists. SPECIFIC REQUEST The developer's traffic engineer calculates that based upon the total number of bedrooms, the parking demand for the building's residents will be 54 spaces. Therefore, the developer believes the 73 planned on -site parking spaces will be more than sufficient for residents and their guests, and is requesting a 39 space' variance from the 112 spaces required by Zoning Code. COMMENTS The developer's engineer calculates that the average peak demand for the property, based upon number of bedrooms, will be 54. The methodology for determining this number comes from the current edition of the International Transportation Engineers' (ITE) book on traffic and parking. Their engineer's analysis is attached. In addition to the ITE analysis, the developer has submitted a letter explaining the actual demand their apartment buildings generate in locations similar to Stillwater. The letter, attached, shows how the 73 provided spaces will meet the demand for the specific mix of units proposed for Downtown Stillwater. About half of the alcove units are projected not to need a parking space; each one -bedroom unit will need one parking space; the two bedrooms will need an average of 1.75 spaces and the two -bedroom penthouse units will each need two spaces. This totals 73 spaces. The City's traffic engineering consultant (SRF) has not written a review of the developer's analysis for 61 units yet. But, he agrees that on average, the 54 space peak demand for the 61 units was accurate. None the less, he suggests that the average peak demand is not the appropriate standard to use for this situation, nor that basing the parking demand on bedrooms2 instead of number of units fits the situation best. He believes that based upon alternate ITE standards it would be more appropriate if the peak parking demand were identified as a range of 54 — 91 spaces. If the most conservative ITE method is used, and 91 spaces is considered to be the minimum requirement for this building, then the project's 73 on -site spaces would represent a deficit of 18 spaces. It is worthy of mention that though the parking standards found in the Zoning Code are specifically for public parking facilities, the proposed private parking dimensions are somewhat tight in comparison. The proposed spaces are all 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long. In public lots we like to see 9 feet wide by 18 feet. And the drive aisle is 22 feet wide, whereas 'If a variance is granted, parking mitigation is not required. 2 The apartment mix now includes 13 alcove units (down from 22), 19 one -bedroom (down from 23), 6 one -bedroom plus den (down from 10), and 23 two -bedroom units (up from 14). March 11, 2021 200 E Chestnut pg. 3 in public lots we like to see 24 feet of width. Finally, of 73 spaces, 24 are compact (same width as the other spaces but only 15 feet deep). Impact upon public parking system The Parking Commission finds that the deficit can be accommodated in the public parking system. The size of that deficit based on the previous 73-unit building was considered by the Commission to be 35 spaces. The Parking Commission keeps record of the total number of mitigation spaces already approved for various business expansions and new projects in the Downtown system since 1999. This is a measure of the percentage of the public system that has already been committed to mitigation approvals. The table below shows the current number of mitigation spaces in use. Mitigation spaces currently invoiced Spaces % of total public system* Currently invoiced: off-season months 183 9.4% Currently invoiced: warm season months 238 12.2% *1,946 spaces, including the 38 new spaces in Lot 14, but excluding the 51 spaces in Lot 8a ("River Market" Lot Parking capacity has improved somewhat Downtown in the last few years. The City has added quasi -public spaces in the Crosby Hotel ramp. It also expanded Municipal Lot 14 by 38 spaces. And the actual size of events in the JX Event Center has normalized at far fewer than originally projected, which means pressure on the municipal parking ramp is not as great as expected. Also, several businesses have down -sized or changed to uses that have less impact upon the parking system. If the 73-unit's 35 space deficit were mitigated by using the public parking system, then the off-season committed spaces would increase to 218 (11.2%) and warm season would increase to 273 (14.0%). The policy has been to consider mitigation requests until mitigation projects hit the 20% threshold. The Parking Commission also gives careful attention to the available capacity in the immediate vicinity of a proposed project. And, given the municipal parking ramp less than a block away, as well as increased capacity in City Lot 14 kitty-corner across Chestnut Street, such capacity currently exists. Only on weekends when the JX Event Center has a large gathering would there be capacity issues in the ramp. But, during those times, the event center could use the current excess capacity in the upper level of the Crosby Hotel's ramp. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. The Downtown Parking Commission finds that the 73-unit project would have had a 35 space deficit. March 11, 2021 200 E Chestnut pg. 4 2. The Downtown Parking Commission finds that the 35 space deficit would not have increased the cumulative impact of all mitigated projects Downtown beyond the 20% public parking system threshold. 3. The Downtown Parking Commission finds that there is sufficient capacity in the immediate vicinity of the project to accommodate a 35 space deficit. 4. City staff estimates that based upon the ITE methodology recommended by the City's traffic/parking engineer, the re -designed 61-unit building will have a parking demand of between 54 and 91 spaces. If 91 is accepted as the minimum parking requirement for the building, then the 73 spaces proposed would represent a deficit of 18 spaces. OPTIONS The City Council could take any of the following actions: 1. Grant a variance to the Zoning Code's parking requirements. This option would have the effect of eliminating any future mitigation fee obligations. 2. Approve mitigation for an 18 space deficit. In exchange for use of the public parking system for the deficit spaces, the property owner would pay the standard parking mitigation fee which is currently $10/space/month. With this option, staff recommends that the following conditions be included: • The parking mitigation fee will be invoiced quarterly by the City. The fee is to be paid upon receipt of City invoice. • Failure to pay fees within 30 days of invoice will be certified for collection with real estate taxes. The applicant waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the parking mitigation fee in -lieu of on -site parking requirements, including but not limited to a claim that the City lacks authority to impose and collect the fees. The applicant agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this provision. • Each of the one bedroom plus units must have at least one parking space reserved for it in the building's garage. And, half of the alcove units must have a reserved parking space in the garage. • If there are no available parking spaces in the building's garage for guests, then guests would pay standard fees to park either in the City parking ramp or purchase a residential permit from the City to park in a public lot in which overnight residential parking is allowed. 3. Deny both the variance and mitigation. 4. Table the request for additional information. March 11, 2021 200 E Chestnut pg. 5 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the Planning Commission's finding and recommendations, staff would recommend Option 2. Attachments: STS Traffic Analysis Parking Supply Letter Parking map IM- IA STS Swing Traffic Solutions March 10, 2021 To: Robert Loken, AIA, Principal, ESG From: Vernon Swing, PE Re: Parking Analysis Update for 200 Chestnut Street East —Residential Development, Stillwater, MN Per your request, Swing Traffic Solutions, LLC has conducted an updated parking demand analysis for the proposed development of a 61-unit Multi -Family residential development in Stillwater, MN. The site is located on the northeast quadrant of Chestnut Street E and 2nd Street S. It is bordered by Myrtle Street E to the north, 2' Street S to the west, Chestnut Street E to the south and Union Alley to the east. The proposed plan will include a mix of alcove, one bedroom, and two -bedroom units and an internal parking garage with 73 underground parking spaces and 26 surface street parking spaces. The parking garage will provide one space per housing unit and 26 spaces for guest and public use (see the attached site plan). The purpose of this study is to estimate peak parking demands for the proposed use and determine if sufficient parking capacity will be provided with the development. Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed 200 Chestnut Street E residential development utilized Parking Generation, 4th Edition, published by ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The ITE information for Land Use Code 221 associated with Mid -rise multi -family residential buildings indicates the number of parking spaces needed address the demand associated with this land use can be estimated based on the number of dwelling units, the number of occupied dwelling units, or the number of bedrooms included with the project. The number of dwelling units is the most generic category since it includes units with one, two three or four bedrooms. The occupied dwelling units category can be useful if the number is known and the number of occupants is known, however, this information is unknown with the proposed project at this time. The last category, if the number of bedrooms is known, is the most accurate for estimating demand with new developments. In this case, there are 13 alcove units which are included as one -bedroom units for this analysis, 19 units identified as one -bedroom units, 6 one - bedroom plus den units which are included as two -bedroom units for this analysis, and 23 units identified as two bedroom units for a total of 90 bedrooms. Also, parking demand statistics are available for different area types, whether suburban, dense urban or City Center. In this case suburban was chosen because the statistics are more conservative suggesting more residents will drive, and because the characteristics for the other two categories include robust transit options which reduce parking demand, which is not present in this case. liPage 200 Chestnut Street E, Stillwater, MN VT- FAI STS Swing Traffic Solutions Once it has been determined whether to use dwelling units versus bedrooms, and it has been decided whether the site is suburban, dense urban or City Center the parking demand can be calculated. The parking demand calculation includes are two methods. The first method is based on a rate of parking demand per "unit" determined from a weighted average of collected data. The second method is based on a fitted curve equation generated to fit the collected data. ITE recommendations as to the appropriate method are as follows: From ITE: "When the data plot includes at least 20 points and when a fitted curve is provided the fitted curve equation should be used if the R square value is 0.75 or greater. Coefficient of Determination (R squared )— the percent of the variance in the number of parked vehicles associated with the variance in the independent variable value. This value is presented for every fitted curve equation. If the R squared value is 0.75, then 75 percent of the variance in the number of parked vehicles is accounted for by the variance in the size of the independent variable. As the R squared value approaches 1.0 the better the fit; as the R squared value approaches zero, the worse the fit." In this case the fitted curve equation was chosen as the regression analysis indicates the R squared is 0.94 indicating this is the most accurate method for estimating demand (see attached sheet from ITE). The Parking Demand is calculated as follows, with P representing Parking Demand, and X representing the number of bedrooms: P = 0.82 (X) — 20.37 P = 0.82 (102)— 20.37 P = 54 Spaces As mentioned earlier the proposed development is planning to provide 99 space of which 73 spaces are for residents, exceeding the anticipated demand calculated at 54 spaces. Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed 200 Chestnut Street E residential development along has sufficient parking for the anticipated demand. The parking supplied as part of the overall development exceeds the anticipated needs. Please contact Vernon Swing at vswingtraffic@gmail.com or 612-968-4142 with any questions. Attachment: ESG Site Plan ITE Parking Demand Sheet 2IPage 200 Chestnut Street E, Stillwater, MN 3IPage \\- a STS Swing Traffic Solutions 200 Chestnut Street E, Stillwater, MN 4, STS Swing Traffic Solutions Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (221) Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Bedrooms On a: Weekday (Monday = Friday) Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban (no nearby rail transit) Peak Period of Parking Demand: 10:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m. Number of Studies: 35 Avg. Num. of Bedrooms! 294 Peak Period Parking Demand per Bedroom Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd } 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval Standard Deviation (Coeff. of Variation) 0.75 0.41 - 1.00 0.65 i 0.87 0.70 - 0.80 0.15 ( 203 ) Data Plot and Equation t a. 2000 1000 Study Site -000 X = Number of Bee rooms Fitted Curve x Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: P = - 20.37 R'= 0.94 2CO] Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 97 4IPage 200 Chestnut Street E, Stillwater, MN REUTERWALTON March 11, 2021 Bill Turnblad Community Development Director, City of Stillwater 216 Fourth St, Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 200 Chestnut — Parking Supply and Demand Mr. Turnblad, As we have discussed, Reuter Walton Development has prepared the table below to illustrate from where we believe demand will originate for our proposed project at 200 Chestnut. This table comes from dozens of similar projects and thousands of similar units yet is appropriately adjusted to account for the infrastructure and neighborhood features unique to downtown Stillwater. These figures are also supported and influenced by the third party traffic and parking engineers we commission on each of our projects. Developer's Proiected Parking Demand by Unit Type Alcove 1 BR 1 BR+Den 2 BR 2 BR Penthouse Total Units Parkin 5 aces 1 Unit Total Parkins 5 aces 13 19 6 20 3 61F 0.45 1.0 1.1 1.75 2.00 1.20 6 19 7 35 6 73 Our experience tells us that roughly half of our alcoves are likely to be "no car" individuals or couples. All our 1- bedroom units have at least 1 space allocated. And the vast majority of our 2-bedroom units have a full 2 parking spaces allocated to there (23 units, 41 spaces). We carefully manage this allocation during the initial lease up and throughout the life of the building. To further enhance our parking management capabilities in Stillwater we plan to provide all prospective new residents with information on the ease and benefits of leasing parking spaces within our building as well as the limitations (or outright inability) to lease dedicated parking spaces within Stillwater's ramp, lot, and street infrastructure. If a prospective resident does not feel our parking facilities meet their needs, they likely will not lease a unit with us. We do not believe our residents will be interested in searching for a rotating parking solution around the downtown area each day. And to strengthen our commitment to ensuring that our residents —and only our residents —lease our onsite spaces we offer a condition that reflects that. See Exhibit A for proposed language to this effect. We look forward to delivering a successful project to downtown Stillwater and to enjoying its varied contributions to the city for many years to come. Sincerely, Nick Walton President Reuter Walton Development 4450 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 400, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 823-3489 REUTERWALTON Exhibit A — Condition For Council Consideration ❑nly residents of the building may lease the parking spaces located in the garage of 200 E Chestnut. If there are available parking spaces that are not leased by residents, the unleased spaces may be used on a non -dedicated basis by building staff or guests of residents; provided, however, that no parking space will be "reserved" for non-resident use and unleased spaces will always be available to residents for lease. 4450 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 400, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 823-3489 - iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA w Public Parking Lots Downtown Stillwater 2021 Legend City Parking Lot City Parking Ramp Permit parking ONLY Trailhead Parking Crosby Ramp - 2nd St level public Private parking until 6 PM Bus, RV, Trailers Bus loading/unloading Bus parking Lots where Monthly Permits are Valid * Business Permit Valid* - DT Resident Permit Valid** " Allows vehicle in lot longer than the posted limit (but not overnight) ** Allows Downtown Resident to park overnight, but move car every 24 hours • Free parking lot (year round) • Pay parking lot (Free Nov 1 - Apr 30) O Available to public after 6pm+ weekends arl Public restroom ® Numbers in circles = hour limits for free parking lots On -street parking is free, but limited to three hours unless posted for less Downtown Parking Commission January 2021 ti11wates ' N E B, R T H PLACE 0- M 1 N N S o r A 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 i Nva ter The Birthplace of Minnesota tJ1war Planning Department 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 65 1-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.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 i 1 x l7 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 I0-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 N►r►rmbet) Complete Property Legal Description See attached legal description. Zoning District CBD Description of Project See attached project description. "I hereby stale 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 cerl/f 1 will comply with the permit if if is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC Mailing Address City - State — Zip St, Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone No. 612-919-2272 4450 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 400 Email Signature nick@reuterwalton.com (Signature is required) Representative Joel Hauck Mailing Address 500 South Washington Avenue City - State — Zip Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone No. 763-670-4799 Email joel.hauck esgarch.com 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. a sga rch itects.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. a sga rch itects.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 2"d 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 2"d 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 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 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN STILLWATER DESIGN CONTEXT 5 esc R EUTERWA LTON 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' 0? ZONING MAP (DETAIL) 4-I 903 92 918 e 015—ia 217 �520 -014 010 121 Ilf 440 L� 422 4k2 SITE CBD: Central Business District esG REUTERWALTON 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' +30 2ND STREET S 708' +8 UNION ALLEY 700' +5 ST CROIX TRAIL N 695' +4 WATER STREET S 691' +14 SAM BLOOMER 677' RIVER esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE SECTION 9 10'-0" SETBACK) 2ND STREET S 0 ELEVATOR OVERRUN LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 10 2ND STREET S AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY ELEVATOR OVERRUN CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 11 2ND STREET S 10'-0" SETBACK LAND USE APPLICATION HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EW SECTION - HEIGHT 12 0 2ND STREET S AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY CURRENT DESIGN AND UPDATED HEIGHT ANALYSIS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 11-0" esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION - HEIGHT 13 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 eSG R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING MASS ANALYSIS 14 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC HEIGHT 1. - 1 OVERLAY 2 STORY BUILDING 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS 15 esc 1 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET BIRDS EYE VIEW - SOUTHEAST Stillwater, MN 16 esG REUTE R WA LTON 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 R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CHANGE SUMMARY 18 e REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER VIEW 19 eSG REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET ELEVATION ON CHESTNUT Stillwater, MN 20 eSG REUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER VIEW 21 es G 1 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW ON 2ND ST 22 eSG REUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NW CORNER VIEW 23 eSG 1 REUTE R WA LT6N DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST 24 esc 1 REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NE CORNER VIEW 25 esG I REUTE R WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN UNION ALLEY VIEW 26 esG I REUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY 27 esc 1 R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 28 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 29 eSG 1 R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PEDESTRIAN VIEW ON 2ND ST 30 esG REUTERWALTON 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 UNION ALLEY 4 2,938 SF ■ k_ r �J_ 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 19 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 986 SF i8 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 1 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 eSG R EUTERWALTON 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 2,403 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 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 I A2 33 O 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 eSG 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 r TRASH =0111 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 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL MINUS 1 I A4 35 EXTERIOR MATERIALS METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ALUMINUM WITH METAL PANEL GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL — FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS METAL PANEL AND BALCONY RECESS METAL INFILL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY 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 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION I A5 ( CHESTNUT ST) 36 METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING ■ 11. ■m■ ■iuii ■um ■1■ 1111 ■1■ 1IU ■ �� ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL It IM MO I 411 I II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ FIBERGLASS WINDOW 1111 in II aimintim Mem • IN I 4,1 ; 11 �1 ROOF PLANTERS EXTERIOR MATERIALS IS inn Mk MINIM MI= 1# ME MIME IS IV- P mi_ BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER 11 11 � 11 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ 111111 MN MI IN e0 METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ■ 11 ■ 11� 1R err — METAL PANEL NM MIN MIN ■�■ ■1■ MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT BALCONY RECESS FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOOR MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL AT BALCONY MASONRY VENEER BASE MASONRY VENEER CAST STONE WINDOW SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION I A6 (2ND ST) 37 METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBERGLASS WINDOWS MASONRY VENEER El ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING EXTERIOR MATERIALS . MOM Mk IMP MIMI Mho ME INN IS IV- 1I., �._ BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING • • II MI air I I I I I I METAL PANEL INFILL CAST STONE SILL Q 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 ■ ■ ■ ■ El sal ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL EXTERIOR MATERIALS in MOM Mk IMP MIMI am 1 MI MUM II I i I., Ph l_ BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL M ECHANICAL LOUVER METAL PARAPET COPING MASONRY VENEER P I ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■_ � i Ii i ■ ■ ■ ■ a—■ i ■u ■a i■ ■ II ■■ ■■ 11111 ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �� ■ ■ ■1�� I. 11 1 --- -- - -- ■ ■ ■ ■ Mir Ill ■ ■ ME NM LI I 1 1 1 • ■ !I ■■ 11111 ' 11111 PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN �11 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS SCREENED TRANSFORM ER AREA OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS f METAL 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 REUTERVvA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT VIEW KEY 40 ram_ •.... �^ e SG REUTERWR L.TaN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - EXISTING 41 eSG 1 R EUTERWA LToN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - PROPOSED 42 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - EXISTING 43 esG 1 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - PROPOSED 44 _ rww+.� •••••a� it A ....: M ma* i.` __ �. 1..116 Wald a. rwr rNEW esG REUTERWRLTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET VIEW #3 - EXISTING Stillwater, MN 45 eSG 1 REUTERWRLTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - PROPOSED 46 ` Y, 111 ..... iL *1111 - ;., .. e5G REUTERWRL.ToN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 47 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 48 eSG REUTERWR LToN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET VIEW #4 - PROPOSED Stillwater, MN 49 esc 1 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 50 eSG REUTERWA LTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 51 _,. • _1•:' Illt.... r.-. _ —AO ,,_ .—=...= - . • -- _ ...,,. • • -• ' _ - ImmilliIIIIIIIM _ .l.•."' _ 1 .. __. - ' .•:,••• . a. .. _ .. -2• 1 ..1.' LI:y , • '''. - .44',■••4 - .14104?-_. fill Cr.. 04.,...‘4.,,,_, ,:-_._, . • ic.,,,....... _ . . _ __ _ .....z... . — - -Z.-- -- - - ___. • 14- ar • ,7. .. :ilk 1 -. -'' .- reL._,,11M ' - ' . / . 71 . -1.•.: . .7. . ....,... ... ... . . 7: , . . : . . . An• II ... k • • gra, . ...... .) ' . . 1 - - 1 Itirkilj ligl ' 4. _ _.• . ,. -,, . _. -iptie.,..__ nr- v ,,:_ ' .., • .r. - .4011! _ • -...-_. te. - , . '-e", .-- . _ -..._, .r • • ::--•.- • 4 _ , a . 04.. ' • * • 1 - . ' .;.—:". I. • _ — _ % ' -• :— -4--- .-- ' '7(..,-4' at.; , :. ....,..!:0,/,............oia, J., -1.:'''''AIL0' ; t — ......... 111-7 , , III iiiit*'3- -.4-'11,r 4 "A-4 ' f 1 • 4: irVa.... -....„ . s- % *--....N • 0 - e.,,Ik_. .4s. • - IN ''‘i-7 4 L'- ',,!; ] MIN. ) 7 , • , . . i ; . - • -. r , 1. •••• . • M 714: 4 .704,1. - • ,,.• ,-,•-,_ ,-.., ' • •,.._...... •., . 1,:-. . `.1... L 47 a t . Ull '1," V- . - •-,.. ',I, . . . t . • • . . • 1 - 's .• • t t '0' .• - *--; . ..44. - • r- ...,c7.- . ...T.,,,i, ....,,,.. _ ., • .1.,. • ,. ., • . ...4t / .7 .....- ' -.1.,......." 4, . a• , .. ANSI- Nill te-' - - • ....•-••• ' --..4. 11.-• :'•6....; ..',,r , 1114 , • 1.... ... . I% . .. . • ' '''' t1/4 _ ..1•41 l• . k ... ii....r.:-. % ,....,.'..; .... esG R EUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - PROPOSED 52 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 53 eSG REUTERWALTDN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 54 esc 1 R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - PROPOSED 55 GREEN ROOF TRAYS 1,616 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS 1,561 SF 1,629 SF HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12/16/2020 1 BED 887 SF 1,774 SF 1,322 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS TERRACE 854 SF ill AMENITY 576 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS 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 R EUTE RWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 56 PRINT REM (5,450 SF REMOVED 5,450 SF TERRACE 854 SF AMENITY 576 SF PLAN NORTH esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 57 66' - O" HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1/20/2021 115'-O" 66' - 0" 35'-5" P AT 1n '4t m NA I0 GREEN ROOF TRAYS DI T GREEN ROOF TRAYS N • CIRCULATION 1,688 SF O • • TERRACE 2,041 SF AMENITY 4,176 SF 14'-O" GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 / Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esG REUTERWALTON da■ •IFORI EN 200 CHESTNUT STREET ctiIIwatar IVIN LEVEL 4 I A3 1 IDnATIn esc R EUTE RWA LTON 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 esG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 59 O 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 eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 EVOLUTION 60 2019 DOUGHERTY BLOCK TOWER ADDITION ST.CROIX PRESER,/A; CPN CO AR.ChfTECT: MIIC#1AEL F DIEM ARCI1NFT INC_, 57ILL'WITER CONTRACTOR: 13 f N 5ON -ORTH eSG R EUTERWA 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" EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT = 41-0" esc REUTERWALTON 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 REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT COMPARISION 63 0 1r L WATER STREET INN 200 CHESTNUT 0 2ND STREET S WATER STREET INN 200 CHESTNUT 1 ISM me 11 111111111 IN II u .I.uu III III III I ■! !■ op NM , MI ® ® ME Mg ME IN iit AVERAGE GRADE PLANE BETWEEN 2ND AND UNION ALLEY UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON 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_112618.jpg; 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 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 700 Olive Street • Saint Paul, MN 55130 December 18, 2020 0 46LEGIONAL to11N 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 WE aRE an '.OEP'.OEr,T nf.IBER 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 St' llwa ter Administration DATE: March 12, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom McCarty, City Administrator Sharon Provos, Finance Director SUBJECT: Approval of Financing Bid for Energy Efficient Improvement Project for City Facilities Pursuant to Energy Services Agreement with Ameresco, Inc. BACKGROUND Ameresco, Inc. completed an energy assessment and detailed energy audit of City facilities in 2020. The detailed energy audit identified lighting improvements at the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center, Lily Lake Ice Arena and the City Fire Station that will result in reduced energy costs for the City. Pursuant to Section 471.345 of the Minnesota State Statutes, the City entered into an Energy Services Agreement with Ameresco, Inc. in December 2020 to manage the energy efficient lighting improvement project for city facilities on behalf of the City. Ameresco's energy audit of City facilities indicates that energy saving lighting improvements estimated to cost $219,480 will be paid for through energy savings in the current operating budget over a period not to exceed 20 years, and the energy savings are guaranteed by Ameresco, Inc. Ameresco conducted a Financing RFP on behalf of the City in February 2021 for the energy efficiency projects in the amount of $219,480. The Financial RFP was distributed to thirteen local banking institutions. Three responses to the RFP were received as summarized on the attached letter. Based on the responses received, First State Bank & Trust has submitted the lowest responsible bid for funding of the energy efficiency project. CONCLUSION Based upon the responses received to the Financing RFP, staff recommends City Council approval of the attached Resolution which: 1) Approves the financing bid of First State Bank and Trust in the amount of $219,480 for the energy efficiency project for City facilities, 2) Authorizes the City Administrator and City Finance Director to execute all necessary financial documents, and 3) Authorizes the City to issue a Notice to Proceed to complete the energy efficiency project pursuant to the Energy Services Agreement with Ameresco Inc. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021 - xxx APPROVING FINANCING BID FROM FIRST STATE BANK AND TRUST IN THE AMOUNT OF $219,480 FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR CITY FACILITIES PURSUANT TO THE ENERGY SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND AMERESCO, INC. WHEREAS, Ameresco, Inc. is an international energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions company with local offices in Eden Prairie, MN; and WHEREAS, based on an energy assessment and detailed energy audit of City facilities conducted by Ameresco which identified lighting improvements that will result in reduced energy costs for the City, the City entered into an Energy Services Agreement with Ameresco, Inc. pursuant to Section 471.345 of the Minnesota State Statutes in December 2020 to manage installation of energy efficient lighting improvements for city facilities based on energy cost reductions; and WHEREAS, Ameresco's energy assessment of City facilities indicates that energy saving facility lighting infrastructure improvements estimated to cost $219,480 will be paid through energy savings in the City's current operating budget over a period not to exceed 20 years, and the energy savings are guaranteed by Ameresco; and WHEREAS, Ameresco conducted a financing RFP on behalf of the City of Stillwater for the energy efficiency projects in the amount of $219,480, distributing the RFP to thirteen local banking institutions and receiving three responses to the RFP as shown on the attached letter; and WHEREAS, based on responses to the RFP, First State Bank and Trust has submitted the lowest responsible bid for the loan amount of $219,480 for financing of the energy efficiency project. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Stillwater City Council approves the financing bid of First State Bank and Trust in the amount of $219,480 for the energy efficiency project for City facilities (St. Croix Valley Recreation Center, Lily Lake Ice Arena & City Fire Station), authorizes the City Administrator and City Finance Director to execute all necessary financial documents and authorizes the City to issue a Notice to Proceed to complete the energy efficiency project pursuant to the Energy Services Agreement with Ameresco Inc. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 16th day of March, 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk AMERESCO Green - Clean - Sustainable March 11 th, 2021 Tom McCarty 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Tom McCarty, Ameresco conducted a Financing RFP on behalf of the City of Stillwater for the energy efficiency project. The RFP was distributed to thirteen banking institutions on February 16tn with final proposals due to Ameresco on February 26tn Three banks responded with bids and the results are as follows: First State Bank and Trust — Contact Scott Faust, Senior VP — Chief Lending Officer o Loan Amount - $219,480 o Term of Loan — 20 years o Rate — Fixed at 1.95% o Prepayment penalty — None o Collateral — 1st Secured Interest in ECM o Legal Fees - $2,000 o Additional Fees — None Lake Area Bank — Contact Sheryl Campbell, VP — Business Banking o Loan Amount - $219,480 o Term of Loan — 20 years o Rate — Fixed at 2.25% o Prepayment penalty — 2°/o prepayment penalty if paid prior to 10 years o Collateral — 1st Secured Interest in ECM o Legal Fees - None o Additional Fees - None MidWest One Bank — Contact Scott Bromelkamp, Market President o Loan Amount - $219,480 o Term of Loan — 7 years o Rate — Fixed at 3.50% o Prepayment penalty — None o Collateral — General Obligation o Legal Fees - None o Additional Fees — $50 Documentation Fee Respectfully, Eric Laumeyer, Sr. Account Executive 651-442-2659 elaumeyer@ameresco.com Ulwater THE B I R T H PLACE CT MINNESOTA DATE: March 10, 2021 TO: Mayor & Council Members SUBJECT: Outside Seating/Sales Areas - 2021 MEMO FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Tom McCarty, City Administrator Shawn Sanders, Public Works Director Stu Glaser, Fire Chief Brian Mueller, Police Chief Kori Land, City Attorney INTRODUCTION With COVID-19 impacting us into a second summer season, Downtown business owners are asking if the City would have its outside seating/sales area (OSA) program again. Consequently, the City Council directed staff to renew the temporary OSA policies from last summer as much as possible. REQUEST Staff requests the Council to consider: 1) adopting the attached resolution renewing the temporary OSA program; and 2) voting to extend the open bottle policy in Lowell Park through this summer season. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1) OSA Program The attached resolution reproduces as much of the 2020 OSA program as possible. It is different in four ways, though. The first is that parklets are explicitly permissible in on -street parking spaces (other than Main Street and Myrtle Street). For some reason, these on -street parking spaces were not actually included in the 2020 OSA Resolution. The second, neither Main Street nor Myrtle Street are included this year. MnDOT has no authority in 2021 to lift the rules that ban on -street commerce. And City staff recommends removing Myrtle Street from the program. Police, Fire and Public Works all are concerned that traffic volume and speed resulting from steep grades on this street create potentially unsafe conditions for parklets. Third and fourth, this year's resolution includes the permitting policy for curb -side pick-up and the use of Union Alley between Myrtle Street and Commercial Street. Last year both of these items were stand-alone programs. The Public Works Director also recommends that Nelson Alley be converted to a one-way westbound (uphill) street during the time temporary OSAs area allowed. Last year made it clear that there simply is not enough room for the Nacho Mamma's OSA parklet and two-way traffic on this stretch of roadway. 2) Lowell Park open bottle The City Council has expressed interest in continuing to allow the open bottle policy in Lowell Park. To implement that policy this summer requires nothing more than a simple majority vote. To permanently allow open bottle in the park would require adoption of an ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends: 1) adopting the attached resolution renewing the temporary OSA program; 2) approving temporary conversion of Nelson Alley to a westbound one-way street; 3) voting to extend the open bottle policy in Lowell Park through October 31, 2021. Attachments: OSA Resolution 2021 Application Forms bt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING TEMPORARY WAIVER OF CITY CODE PERMIT & ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THE COVID-19 HEALTH PANDEMIC WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020 Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 20-01 declaring a Peace Time Emergency and Coordinating Minnesota's Strategy to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19, and WHEREAS, in response, on March 16, 2020 Mayor Kozlowski declared a Local Emergency in recognition of the community risk posed by COVID-19, and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City of Stillwater City Council adopted the Local Emergency declaration and invoked the city emergency plan and authorized appropriate response strategies to the pandemic, and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-051 authorizing additional customer service areas located in commercial or industrial zones to facilitate safe commercial activity as approved by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater City Council recognizes the negative impact the pandemic has had on local business and further recognizes the potential negative impact that may continue absent the ability of businesses to operate with the flexibility provided in Resolution 2020-051, and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the federal, state and local government response, there is a need to provide multiple, additional, or alternative customer service areas on commercial sites within the City in order to limit forward -facing exchanges between customers and employees and to promote physical and social distancing between patrons of a business and persons engaged in business activities and to assist with and promote the economic viability of commercial businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Stillwater does hereby authorize the following: 1. A business located in a commercial or industrial zone may establish drive -up or curb- side pick-up areas, customer ordering areas, customer seating areas or sales areas on its property to facilitate safe commercial activity conducted consistent with federal and state orders or health and safety guidelines, in accordance with the following: a. The Community Development Department shall have the authority to establish performance standards to implement the terms of this Resolution. b. A permit valid for 2021 must be issued by the Community Development Department for the uses allowed by this Resolution. The request for such a permit is to be made by completing and submitting the applicable application form. c. Other than an amendment to a liquor license and the 2021 permit mentioned above, no zoning, conditional use, or other Stillwater permit as otherwise required under City Code or Zoning Code shall be required for any temporary structure or operation related to customer pick-up, service, waiting, sales or seating areas proposed to occur outside of the business establishment provided the Community Development Department's performance standards are met. d. Any temporary structure or operation related to customer pick-up, service, waiting, sales or seating areas proposed to occur outside of the business establishment that are otherwise prohibited by City Code or Zoning Code may be permitted subject to approval of the Community Development Department or Council as set forth herein. e. All operations allowed hereunder must comply with the Community Development Department's established performance standards. 2. A business located in a commercial or industrial zone may establish drive -up or curb- side pick-up areas, customer ordering areas, customer seating areas or sales areas in on - street public parking spaces directly abutting the business to facilitate safe commercial activity conducted consistent with federal and state orders or health and safety guidelines, in accordance with the following: a. All streets in the Downtown Parking District are eligible to request permits for the temporary uses described in this resolution except Main Street and Myrtle Street. b. Union Alley between Myrtle Street and Commercial Street is available to abutting businesses for customer seating/sales. c. The Community Development Department shall have the authority to establish performance standards to implement the terms of this Resolution. d. A permit valid for 2021 must be issued by the Community Development Department for the uses allowed by this Resolution. i. The request for business owners wishing to have a permit for curb -side pick- up service need only submit an email or letter to the Community Development Department. The email or letter should include a location map for the parking spaces wished to be reserved, and the hours for which the parking spaces are desired. ii. The request for all other types of outside seating/sales area are to be made by completing and submitting the applicable application form. e. Other than an amendment to a liquor license and the permit mentioned above, no zoning, conditional use, or other Stillwater permit as otherwise required under City Code or Zoning Code shall be required for the customer waiting or seating areas proposed to occur outside of the business establishment provided the Community Development Department's performance standards are met. f. Any temporary structure or operation related to customer waiting or seating areas g. may be permitted subject to approval of the Community Development Department or Council as set forth herein. The Community Development Director or his designee shall have the authority to review and approve or deny any proposed temporary structure or operation related to customer waiting or seating areas in accordance with the established performance standards. h. All operations allowed hereunder must comply with the Community Development Department's established performance standards. 3. Any on -sale liquor establishment shall be required to obtain City Council approval to amend its service area, which approval shall not be denied as long as it complies with the Community Development Department's performance standards. 4. The authority granted to the Community Development Director hereunder shall not otherwise allow any use or operation that is not in compliance with any federal laws or regulations (e.g. ADA regulations), Minnesota statutes and regulations, including State Building and Fire Codes, and the Minnesota and Stillwater liquor licensing regulations. 5. The City reserves the right to revoke and terminate permission of uses allowed in this Resolution if it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, as determined by the Police Chief or City Administrator. 6. This Resolution is effective immediately subject to federal and state laws or orders relative to the permissibility of business operations and unless terminated earlier by the Council, shall be in effect through October 31, 2021. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this day of , 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Stillwater The 6irlhplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 2021 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO TEMPORARILY CONDUCT OUTDOOR BUSINESS SALES DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES WITH PARKLETS [USE OF ON -STREET PARKING SPACES] PART I - General Information City Code requires a Special Use Permit or Amended Special Use Permit for outdoor sales areas (OSA) and expansions of outdoor sales areas. The approval process typically requires a 60-day public review. In response to the business disruption precipitated by COVID-19, the Stillwater City Council has approved an interim policy that authorizes administrative approval of temporary permits for outdoor sales areas and expansions of existing outdoor sales areas. If alcohol service is proposed in the outdoor sales area, that will need to be approved by the City Council. Applicant: Name: Position/Title: Email: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: Business Name: Business Location Address: Stillwater, MN 55082 Type of business to be conducted in outdoor sales area: n General retail n Food and/or beverage sales; no alcohol ❑ Food and/or beverage sales; including alcohol sales Date you wish to begin outdoor sales: Days of Operation: Hours of Operation: Permit application submission - Please complete and submit the application form to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 1 of 4 PART II - Requirements for Downtown properties Applicant initial City initial Requirements Temporary outdoor sales areas will only be located on private property or in "parklets". A parklet is defined for this temporary permit as an on -street parking space that is approved by the City for conversion to an outdoor sales area. Parklets are only allowed on City streets, not on roadways under State of Minnesota jurisdiction. Temporary outdoor sales areas will have no live entertainment or sound amplification system. No portion of outdoor sales areas will obstruct public or private sidewalks. Nor will it impede ADA accessibility to the subject business or to any surrounding properties. Outdoor sales area will be kept in a clean and orderly manner. If outdoor sales include food or beverages, then outdoor storage of food, beverages, flatware, dishes, etc. will not occur without the appropriate permission from the Washington County Health Department. No food or beverages will be served outside of approved outdoor sales areas, nor will merchandise be displayed nor sold outside of approved outdoor sales areas. Any approved temporary lighting shall only illuminate outdoor sales areas. Outdoor sales area will conform to all fire and building codes related to the number and types of exits that are required. The business owner understands that all temporary outdoor sales areas must be removed and no longer operate after October 31, 2021. If proposed outdoor sales areas are within a parklet, then each of the following items will be satisfied: 1. The parklet will be located in one of the areas indicated as "allowed" in the attached map. 2. Overall length of outdoor sales areas will not exceed the street frontage length of the business it is associated with, but no more than two spaces. Furthermore, it will be located directly in front of business. 3. It will be located at least one parking space from an intersection street corner. 4. It will only be located along the curbline of streets where on -street parking is allowed. 5. It will not be located where existing handicap parking, or loading zones exist. 6. It will only be located where the street grade is less than five percent. 7. It will not be located in front of fire hydrants, or over any utility or manhole cover or catch basin. 8. It will have vertical elements that make them visible to traffic, such as flexible posts or bollards with reflective materials. 9. If the parklet is replacing a parallel parking stall, it will have a width of no more than six feet from curb face and a four -foot buffer on each end. If in a perpendicular parking stall, the parklet shall have a depth of no S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/O u td o o rsSa l es Page 2 of 4 more than 16 feet from the edge of curb and have two -foot buffer on each side. 10. If parklet is a structure, it will have a flush transition at the sidewalk and curb to permit easy access and avoid tripping hazards. 11. If parklet is a structure, its floor load -bearing weight will be a minimum of 100 pounds per square foot. 12. The parklet will have a continuous edge along the travel lane and is between 30-36 inches tall measured from the street. 13. The design of a parklet will not inhibit drainage of stormwater runoff. 14. If parklet is a structure, its frame will not be permanently attached to the street. 15. If parklet is a structure, its frame will be ADA accessible. 16. If parklet is a structure, it will be constructed of high quality durable and non -reflective material, with a non -slip and weather resistant surface. 17. The parklet will be well maintained and in good repair under the conditions of approval of this permit. A maintenance plan will be developed for keeping the parklet free of debris, and grime. And, the owner will sweep the area surrounding the parklet and keep it litter -free and clear for storm runoff 18. Business owner will be responsible for all damages to public property (including street and curb) and will be responsible for restoring it to as good or better condition than prior to use as parklet. 19. No tent or tent like structure will be installed in parklet. PART III - If applicable: requirements for alcohol service Applicant initial City staff initial Requirements The City Council has approved the amended liquor license for the temporary outdoor sales area. Temporary outdoor sales areas will be completely enclosed by a fence or similar barrier approved by the City Clerk. The applicant certifies that all federal, state and City alcohol regulations will apply to the temporary outdoor sales areas and compliance shall be met Alcohol license holders must submit: 1) A certificate of liquor liability insurance indicating coverage is extended to temporary outdoor sales areas 2) A site plan indicating where the fencing for temporary outdoor sales areas will be located and how ingress/egress will be provided Signage will be posted that prohibits the consumption of alcohol outside of outdoor sales areas. S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 3 of 4 PART IV - Required documents Please attach the following documents to this application form: 1. Site plan/floor plan showing dimensions and indicating number of persons intended to occupy the outdoor sales area. If the outdoor sales area is intended for service of food and/or alcoholic beverages, then the site plan must be scaled and show the exact number of chairs and tables as well as details about the required liquor license fencing or appropriate barriers. 2. If the outdoor sales area is to be a parklet, then the site plan should also include: a. Location of existing street fixtures (hydrants, lights, signs, storm drains, etc) b. North Arrow c. Parklet Dimensions d. Width of adjacent sidewalk e. Location of business associated with the parklet f. Width of business's storefront g. Distance from intersection. h. Construction materials, if any PART VI - Signatures Applicant signature: By signing below, I hereby certify the following: 1. I will comply with all building code and fire code regulations and understand that violations of such codes may be grounds for revocation of my ability to install temporary outdoor sales areas. 2. I have read and will abide by the City standards (outlined in Parts II -III) regarding temporary outdoor sales areas. 3. I will remove outside sales area no later than October 31, 2021. 4. I understand the City may inspect the outdoor sales areas any time to enforce compliance with the above provisions. Additionally, the City may require the temporary outdoor sales areas to be closed if there it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 5. (For alcohol license holders) I understand that prior to serving any alcoholic beverages in the outdoor sales areas I must receive approval of an amended liquor license from the City Council and State of Minnesota. Any violations of Federal, State or City regulations in the temporary outdoors sales area may result in civil or criminal penalties against me or my license. I further understand that liquor liability insurance must be in -effect for the temporary outdoor sales area. Signature of Applicant: Date: City signature: When signed below by an authorized City official, this form becomes the permit to operate outdoor sales areas according to the details identified above. Signature of City Official: Date: Title of City Official: S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 4 of 4 Stillwater The 6irlhplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 2021 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO TEMPORARILY CONDUCT OUTDOOR BUSINESS SALES DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES (WITH NO USE OF ON -STREET PARKING SPACES) PART I - General Information City Code requires a Special Use Permit or Amended Special Use Permit for outdoor sales areas (OSA) and expansions of outdoor sales areas. The approval process typically requires a 60-day public review. In response to the business disruption precipitated by COVID-19, the Stillwater City Council has approved an interim policy that authorizes administrative approval of temporary permits for outdoor sales areas and expansions of existing outdoor sales areas. If alcohol service is proposed in the outdoor sales area, that will need to be approved by the City Council. Applicant: Name: Position/Title: Email: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: Business Name: Business Location Address: Stillwater, MN 55082 Type of business to be conducted in outdoor sales area: n General retail n Food and/or beverage sales; no alcohol ❑ Food and/or beverage sales; including alcohol Date you wish to begin outdoor sales: Days of Operation: Hours of Operation: Permit application submission - Please complete and submit the application form to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 1 of 3 PART II - Requirements Applicant initial City initial Requirements Temporary outdoor sales areas will only be located on private property. Temporary outdoor sales areas will have no live entertainment or sound amplification system. No portion of outdoor sales areas will obstruct public or private sidewalks. Outdoor sales area will be kept in a clean and orderly manner. If outdoor sales include food or beverages, then outdoor storage of food, beverages, flatware, dishes, etc. will not occur without the appropriate permission from the Washington County Health Department. No food or beverages will be served outside of approved outdoor sales areas, nor will merchandise be displayed nor sold outside of approved outdoor sales areas. Any approved temporary lighting shall only illuminate outdoor sales areas. Outdoor sales area will conform to all fire and building codes related to the number and types of exits that are required. The business owner understands that all temporary outdoor sales areas must be removed and no longer operate after October 31, 2021. PART III - If applicable: requirements for alcohol service in OSA Applicant initial City staff initial Requirements The City Council has approved the amended liquor license for the temporary outdoor sales area. Temporary outdoor sales areas will be completely enclosed by a fence or similar barrier approved by the Public Works Director. The applicant certifies that all federal, state and City alcohol regulations will apply to the temporary outdoor sales areas and compliance shall be met Alcohol license holders must submit: 1) A certificate of liquor liability insurance indicating coverage is extended to temporary outdoor sales areas 2) A site plan indicating where the fencing for temporary outdoor sales areas will be located and how ingress/egress will be provided Signage will be posted that prohibits the consumption of alcohol outside of outdoor sales areas. PART IV - Required documents Please attach the following document to this application form: Site plan/floor plan showing dimensions and indicating number of persons intended to occupy the outdoor sales area. If the outdoor sales area is intended for service of food and/or alcoholic beverages, then the site plan must be scaled and show the exact number of chairs and tables as well as details about the required liquor license fencing or appropriate barriers. S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/O u td o o rsSa l es Page 2 of 3 PART V — Signatures Applicant signature: By signing below, I hereby certify the following: 1. I will comply with all building code and fire code regulations and understand that violations of such codes may be grounds for revocation of my permit to install temporary outdoor sales areas. 2. I have read and will abide by the City standards (outlined in Parts II -III) regarding temporary outdoor sales areas. 3. I will remove the temporary outdoor sales areas no later than October 31, 2021. 4. I understand the City may inspect the outdoor sales areas any time to enforce compliance with the above provisions. Additionally, the City may require the temporary outdoor sales areas to be closed if there it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 5. (For alcohol license holders) I understand that prior to serving any alcoholic beverages in the outdoor sales areas I must receive approval of an amended liquor license from the City Council and State of Minnesota. Any violations of Federal, State or City regulations in the temporary outdoors sales area may result in civil or criminal penalties against me or my license. I further understand that liquor liability insurance must be in -effect for the temporary outdoor sales area. Signature of Applicant: Date: City signature: When signed below by an authorized City official, this form becomes the permit to operate outdoor sales areas according to the details identified above. Signature of City Official: Date: Title of City Official: S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 3 of 3 Stillwater The 6irlhplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 2021 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO TEMPORARILY CONDUCT OUTDOOR BUSINESS SALES UPTOWN BUSINESSES (WITH NO USE OF ON -STREET PARKING SPACES) PART I - General Information City Code requires a Special Use Permit or Amended Special Use Permit for outdoor sales areas and expansions of outdoor sales areas. The approval process typically requires a 60-day public review. In response to the business disruption precipitated by COVID-19, the Stillwater City Council has approved an interim policy that authorizes administrative approval of temporary permits for outdoor sales areas and expansions of existing outdoor sales areas. If alcohol service is proposed in the outdoor sales area, that will need to be approved by the City Council Applicant: Name: Position/Title: Email: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: Business Name: Business Location Address: Stillwater, MN 55082 Type of business to be conducted in outdoor sales area: ❑ General retail ❑ Food and/or beverage sales; no alcohol n Food and/or beverage sales; including alcohol sales Date you wish to begin outdoor sales: Days of Operation: Hours of Operation: Permit application submission - Please complete and submit the application form to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 1 of 3 PART II - Requirements Applicant initial City initial Requirements Temporary outdoor sales areas will only be located on private property. Temporary outdoor sales areas will have no live entertainment or sound amplification system. No portion of outdoor sales areas will obstruct public or private sidewalks. Outdoor sales area will be kept in a clean and orderly manner. If outdoor sales include food or beverages, then outdoor storage of food, beverages, flatware, dishes, etc. will not occur without the appropriate permission from the Washington County Health Department. No food or beverages will be served outside of approved outdoor sales areas, nor will merchandise be displayed nor sold outside of approved outdoor sales areas. Any approved temporary lighting shall only illuminate outdoor sales areas. Outdoor sales area will conform to all fire and building codes related to the number and types of exits that are required. If a restaurant, total dining capacity including expanded outdoor dining area will not exceed previous restaurant dining capacity including indoor and outdoor dining. No portion of outdoor sales areas will be located within any public right-of- way (sidewalks/trails, boulevard or streets). Outdoor sales areas setbacks will be a minimum of 20 feet from a public right- of-way, and five -feet from side and rear lot lines. The business owner understands that all temporary outdoor sales areas must be removed and no longer operate after October 31, 2021. PART III - If applicable: requirements for alcohol service Applicant initial City staff initial Requirements The City Council has approved the amended liquor license for the temporary outdoor sales area. Temporary outdoor sales areas will be completely enclosed by a fence or similar barrier approved by the City Clerk. The applicant certifies that all federal, state and City alcohol regulations will apply to the temporary outdoor sales areas and compliance shall be met Alcohol license holders must submit: 1) A certificate of liquor liability insurance indicating coverage is extended to temporary outdoor sales areas 2) A site plan indicating where the fencing for temporary outdoor sales areas will be located and how ingress/egress will be provided Signage will be posted that prohibits the consumption of alcohol outside of outdoor sales areas. S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 2 of 3 PART IV - Required documents Please attach the following document to this application form: Site plan/floor plan showing dimensions and indicating number of persons intended to occupy the outdoor sales area. If the outdoor sales area is intended for service of food and/or alcoholic beverages, then the site plan must be scaled and show the exact number of chairs and tables as well as details about the required liquor license fencing or appropriate barriers. PART VI - Signatures Applicant signature: By signing below, I hereby certify the following: 1. I will comply with all building code and fire code regulations and understand that violations of such codes may be grounds for revocation of my ability to install temporary outdoor sales areas. 2. I have read and will abide by the City standards (outlined in Parts II -III) regarding temporary outdoor sales areas. 3. I will remove the temporary outdoor sales areas no later than October 31, 2021. 4. I understand the City may inspect the outdoor sales areas any time to enforce compliance with the above provisions. Additionally, the City may require the temporary outdoor sales areas to be closed if there it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 5. (For alcohol license holders) I understand that prior to serving any alcoholic beverages in the outdoor sales areas I must receive approval of an amended liquor license from the City Council and State of Minnesota. Any violations of Federal, State or City regulations in the temporary outdoors sales area may result in civil or criminal penalties against me or my license. I further understand that liquor liability insurance must be in -effect for the temporary outdoor sales area. Signature of Applicant: Date: City signature: When signed below by an authorized City official, this form becomes the permit to operate outdoor sales areas according to the details identified above. Signature of City Official: Date: Title of City Official: S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 3 of 3 Stillwater The 6irlhplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 2021 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO TEMPORARILY CONDUCT OUTDOOR BUSINESS SALES UPTOWN BUSINESSES WITH PARKLETS [USE OF ON -STREET PARKING SPACES] PART I - General Information City Code requires a Special Use Permit or Amended Special Use Permit for outdoor sales areas and expansions of outdoor sales areas. The approval process typically requires a 60 day public review. In response to the business disruption precipitated by COVID-19, the Stillwater City Council has approved an interim policy that authorizes administrative approval of temporary permits for outdoor sales areas and expansions of existing outdoor sales areas. If alcohol service is proposed in the outdoor sales area, that will need to be approved by the City Council Applicant: Name: Position/Title: Email: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: Business Name: Business Location Address: Stillwater, MN 55082 Type of business to be conducted in outdoor sales area: n General retail n Food and/or beverage sales; no alcohol n Food and/or beverage sales; including alcohol sales Date you wish to begin outdoor sales: Days of Operation: Hours of Operation: Permit application submission - Please complete and submit the application form to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 1 of 4 PART II - Requirements Applicant initial City initial Requirements Temporary outdoor sales areas will only be located on private property or in "parklets". A parklet is defined for this temporary permit as an on -street parking space that is approved by the City for conversion to an outdoor sales area. Parklets are only allowed on City streets, not on roadways under State of Minnesota jurisdiction. Temporary outdoor sales areas will have no live entertainment or sound amplification system. No portion of outdoor sales areas will obstruct public or private sidewalks. Outdoor sales area will be kept in a clean and orderly manner. If outdoor sales include food or beverages, then outdoor storage of food, beverages, flatware, dishes, etc. will not occur without the appropriate permission from the Washington County Health Department. No food or beverages will be served outside of approved outdoor sales areas, nor will merchandise be displayed nor sold outside of approved outdoor sales areas. Any approved temporary lighting shall only illuminate outdoor sales areas. Outdoor sales area will conform to all fire and building codes related to the number and types of exits that are required. The business owner understands that all temporary outdoor sales areas must be removed and no longer operate after October 31, 2021. Parklets will meet all of the following items: 1. Overall length of outdoor sales areas will not exceed the street frontage length of the business it is associated with. Furthermore, it will be located directly in front of business. 2. It will be located at least one parking space from an intersection street corner. 3. It will only be located along the curbline of streets where on -street parking is allowed. 4. It will not be located where existing handicap parking, or loading zones exist. 5. It will only be located where the street grade is less than five percent. 6. It will not be located in front of fire hydrants, or over any utility or manhole cover or catch basin. 7. It will have vertical elements that make them visible to traffic, such as flexible posts or bollards with reflective materials. 8. If the parklet is replacing a parallel parking stall, it will have a width of no more than six feet from curb face and a four foot buffer on each end. If in a perpendicular parking stall, the parklet shall have a depth of no more than 16 feet from the edge of curb and have two -foot buffer on each side. 9. If parklet is a structure, it will have a flush transition at the sidewalk and curb to permit easy access and avoid tripping hazards. 10. If parklet is a structure, its floor load -bearing weight will be a minimum of 100 pounds per square foot. S:/Sh a red/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 2 of 4 11. The parklet will have a continuous edge along the travel lane and is between 30-36 inches tall measured from the street. 12. The design of a parklet will not inhibit drainage of stormwater runoff. 13. If parklet is a structure, its frame will not be permanently attached to the street. 14. If parklet is a structure, it will be ADA accessible. 15. If parklet is a structure, it will be constructed of high quality durable and non -reflective material, with a non -slip and weather resistant surface. 16. The parklet will be well maintained and in good repair under the conditions of approval of this permit. A maintenance plan will be developed for keeping the parklet free of debris, and grime. And, the owner will sweep the area surrounding the parklet and keep it litter -free and clear for storm runoff. 17. Business owner will be responsible for all damages to public property (including street and curb) and will be responsible for restoring it to as good or better condition than prior to use as parklet. 18. No tent or tent like structure will be installed in parklet. PART III - If applicable, requirements for alcohol service Applicant initial City staff initial Requirements The City Council has approved the amended liquor license for the temporary outdoor sales area. Temporary outdoor sales areas will be completely enclosed by a fence or similar barrier approved by the City Clerk. The applicant certifies that all federal, state and City alcohol regulations will apply to the temporary outdoor sales areas and compliance shall be met Alcohol license holders must submit: 1) A certificate of liquor liability insurance indicating coverage is extended to temporary outdoor sales areas 2) A site plan indicating where the fencing for temporary outdoor sales areas will be located and how ingress/egress will be provided Signage will be posted that prohibits the consumption of alcohol outside of outdoor sales areas. PART IV - Required documents Please attach the following documents to this application form: 1. Site plan/floor plan showing dimensions and indicating number of persons intended to occupy the outdoor sales area. If the outdoor sales area is intended for service of food and/or alcoholic beverages, then the site plan must be scaled and show the exact number of chairs and tables as well as details about the required liquor license fencing or appropriate barriers. 2. If the outdoor sales area is to be a parklet, then the site plan should also include: a. Location of existing street fixtures (hydrants, lights, signs, storm drains, etc) b. North Arrow S:/Sh a red/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 3 of 4 c. Parklet Dimensions d. Width of adjacent sidewalk e. Location of business associated with the parklet f. Width of business's storefront g. Distance from intersection. h. Construction materials, if any PART V - Signatures Applicant signature: By signing below, I hereby certify the following: 1. I will comply with all building code and fire code regulations and understand that violations of such codes may be grounds for revocation of my ability to install temporary outdoor sales areas. 2. I have read and will abide by the City standards (outlined in Parts II -III) regarding temporary outdoor sales areas. 3. I will remove the temporary outdoor sales areas no later than October 31, 2021. 4. I understand the City may inspect the outdoor sales areas any time to enforce compliance with the above provisions. Additionally, the City may require the temporary outdoor sales areas to be closed if there it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 5. (For alcohol license holders) I understand that prior to serving any alcoholic beverages in the outdoor sales areas I must receive approval of an amended liquor license from the City Council and State of Minnesota. Any violations of Federal, State or City regulations in the temporary outdoors sales area may result in civil or criminal penalties against me or my license. I further understand that liquor liability insurance must be in -effect for the temporary outdoor sales area. Signature of Applicant: Date: City signature: When signed below by an authorized City official, this form becomes the permit to operate outdoor sales areas according to the details identified above. Signature of City Official: Date: Title of City Official: S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 4 of 4 i1Iwater -i,,, The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us EXAMPLES OF PARKLETS Originally a parklet was a public park placed in an on -street parking spot. The concept has evolved to include commercial uses as well. Over the next few pages are examples of parklets. Figure 1 Philadelphia parklet by ShilSpace Design Figure 2 Dallas Parking Day parklet by Alexandra Hay Figure 3 Charlotte SC S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 1 of 3 Figure 4 Charlotte SC Details of a Two -Space Parklet Figure 5 From Urban Street Design Guide by NACTO S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 2 of 3 40' Figure 6 From Urban Street Design Guide by NACTO Figure 7 From Urban Street Design Guide by NACTO S:/Shared/Forms/Administration/OutdoorsSales Page 3 of 3 FYI City of Stillwater Assessment Notice Important Information Regarding Property Assessments This may affect your 2022 property taxes. Notice is hereby given that the Open Book Meetings for City of Stillwater shall meet at Washington County Government Center on the following dates and times: Wednesday, April 21, 2020 10 am - 6 pm Thursday, April 22, 2020 10 am - 6 pm Property owners may attend any one of the Regional Open Book meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to determine whether property in the jurisdiction has been properly valued and classified by the assessor. If you believe the value or classification of your property is incorrect, please contact your assessor's office to discuss your concerns. By order of the Stillwater City Council given under my hand this 24th day of February 2021. Beth Wolf, City Clerk of City of Stillwater Washington -- County Fi BOARD AGENDA March 9, 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 a 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 16, 2021, County Board meeting minutes. B. Approval of an application for renewal of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Keystone Weddings and Events LLC, located in May Township. C. Approval of an application for renewal of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Stoneridge Golf Club Inc., located in West Lakeland Township. D. Direct the Planning Advisory Commission to review and consider amendments to the Washington County Development Code to enable coordination of membership between the Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BAA). E. Adopt a resolution and approve Agreement No. 1045378 with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and appoint the Commissioner of Transportation as Agent of Washington County to accept as its agent, federal aid funds. 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 F. Award bid and authorize execution of Contract No. 13967 in the amount of $214,926.00 with A-1 Excavating, Inc. for replacement of Bridge 90743 (box culvert) on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 21 (St. Croix Trail). G. Award bid and authorize execution of Contract No. 13968 in the amount of $168,886.00 with Fahrner Asphalt Sealers, LLC for replacement of 2021 Crack Seal work on various County roads. 4. 9:10 Public Works - Don Theisen, Director A. Approval to appoint Commissioner Gary Kriesel, District 3, to the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission as the County Representative, and Don Theisen, Public Works Director, as Alternate. 5. 9:20 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator A. Legislative update and consider resolutions of support for projects to submit to the Federal delegation for funding through the Community Project Funding initiative. 6. 9:45 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. 10:00 Adjourn 9. 10:05 Board Workshop with Public Works A. Review restoration efforts, upcoming projects, and mission statement for the Washington County Historic Courthouse. 10. 10:35 Board Workshop with Administration A. Discuss 2022 budget development, guidelines and principles. 11. 11:10 Personnel Committee 12. 11:40 Finance Committee 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