Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Stillwater multi-tenant building after requiring larger shared trash enclosure
Summary
The Eagle Design Review Board recommended approval of DR-2026-30 for a roughly 9,000-square-foot multi-tenant building in Stillwater but added a site-specific condition requiring the applicant to investigate and increase the shared trash enclosure by roughly 25% or provide an acceptable alternative.
The Eagle Design Review Board recommended approval on DR-2026-30, a roughly 9,000-square-foot multi-tenant office/retail/restaurant building in the Stillwater subdivision, after pressing the applicant to address trash handling and landscaping concerns.
Applicant Corey Altharp, representing Stillwater Development Partners, described the proposal as a six-user-capable building with an interior breezeway, industrial-modern materials and screened mechanicals. “This will be the 3rd time I brought this building through this process,” Altharp said, adding that finishes include raw concrete, exposed steel, brick and reclaimed wood. Planning staff confirmed the landscape plan — not the site plan — controls tree planting in the breezeway.
Board members focused on whether one shared enclosure — previously approved with an adjacent building — can reliably serve C1, C2 and a future C3, especially if multiple restaurant tenants occupy the site. One board member pressed for a measurable change: “So, I think that at least needs to be 25% larger,” arguing the enclosure as shown is about the same size as the small Dutch Bros enclosure and would be inadequate for grease interceptors and multiple dumpsters.
Staff planner Emily Falco noted the enclosure had been approved with the C2 building but said the board could require additional documentation or an alternate solution when C3 is reviewed. The board added site-specific conditions requiring confirmation of the landscape plan’s tree plantings and a requirement (condition 13) for the applicant to review and revise the trash enclosure — either enlarging it by approximately 25% or demonstrating an acceptable alternative — and delegated final review on that detail to staff and one board member.
The motion to recommend approval passed by voice vote. The board’s action preserves the design as proposed with the added requirement that applicants return with technical sizing or an alternative plan for trash and grease management.
What happens next: the applicant must provide revised drawings or an alternate trash strategy for staff review and one board member’s sign-off before final sign-off on the site.
