Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-27 Joint Board MINAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Stillwater Gazette 1931 Curve Crest Blvd. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439 -3130 Fax: (651) 439 -4713 7/22/05 State of Minnesota} ss. County of Washington} The undersigned, being duly sworn, on oath, says that s/he is the Publisher or authorized agent and employee of the Publisher known as the Stillwater Gazette, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota State Statute 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable laws as amended. Printed below is a copy of the lowercase Alphabet, from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind type used in composition and publication of the of notice. h' fisher /Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed to me on this - "'—day of L' / , 2005. Public City of Stillwater 216 4th St N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Inches 8 Description Stillwater Meeting Notice City Council Chambers Published 7/20/05 Maximum rate per column inch under Minnesota Law: $16.90 per 12 -pica column JOHN LUTHER LUND Notary Public Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 2010 Invoice #: 00004615 Terms: Net 30 Price Total $4.05 $32.40 Sub Total Payment Balance Due $32.40 $32.40 $0.00 $32.40 Stillwater Gazette, July 20, 2005 Meeting Notice Stillwater City and Town Joint Board City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 27, 2005 Agenda Review of Phase Three Expansion Area Development. A. Palmer Farm Development t Millbrook. Residential Development (170 Acres, 269 housing units) 2 School Development (17 acres, 100,00 square foot school). St Croix Preparatory Academy, applicant A) Small Lot Single Family Development (NW comer of McKusix s Road and Neal Avenue). Rick Carlson, applicant. B) Other Items A) update traffic impact fee B) Housing:permits issued 2004 C) AUAR Update D) Comp Plan Amendment (7owflhottse Reeideniial Single Family) ` 1E) /Agrivultoral Preseryatkma Study 7/20 Stillwater City and Town Joint Board July 27, 2005 Present: Township representatives David Johnson and Linda Countryman City representatives Jay Kimble and David Junker Others: City Attorney David Magnuson and Community Development Director Steve Russell Chair David Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. There were no changes or additions to the agenda. Review of Phase Three Expansion Area development: Millbrook development — Mr. Russell gave a brief overview of the project. The 170 -acre Millbrook development, the former Palmer property, is in the Phase 3 annexation area and could have been annexed as early as 2002. The six acres at the corner of Highway 96 and County Road 15 are not part of the development. Primary access to the development will be off Highway 96, with a secondary access from Neal Avenue. The site includes two protected natural resources — Brown's Creek and South Twin Lake, which will require DNR approval. He noted that the City' s Planning Commission held four meetings to discuss the proposal and the Park and Recreation Board two meetings. Both bodies have given concept approval with conditions. One of the continuing issues for discussion is the amount of park dedication, he said. If the Joint Board gives its approval, there will be further reviews of the plan specifics. It is the function of the Joint Board to determine whether the proposal i066511/00 E'nt with the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the City /Town Orderly Annexation Agreement, he said. Present representing the developer were Jay Liberacki, US Homes, and Phil Carlson, Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban consultants. Mr. Carlson briefly reviewed the site plan and proposed land uses. The proposal calls for 269 units — 96 single family attached with a density of about 6 units /acre, 71 single family small lot with a density of about 4 units /acre, and 102 single family large lot with a density of about two units /acre. He also reviewed the proposed park dedication and trail connections, which includes a "deer path" trail along the south side of South Twin Lake. He noted that due to the topography, the trail along South Twin Lake could not be an 8' -wide bituminous trail, but would have to be narrower and more natural. Mr. Carlson also showed elevations of several of the housing products. He summed up his comments by saying he thought the plan responds to the natural features of the site and keeps within the basic densities /land uses agreed to by the City and Township. Mr. Johnson opened the discussion by noting that while this was not a public hearing and was intended to be a discussion at the Joint Board level, brief comments would be received from the audience. Ms. Countryman said at a previous Planning Commission meeting, she had heard a concern about the adequacy of parking. Mr. Carlson said that concern had to do with on- street parking by the town house units and the public park. He said he thought the plan provides for more than adequate on- street parking, noting that plan provides for 1.5 spaces per town house unit, while 1 Stillwater City and Town Joint Board July 27, 2005 the City only requires .25 spaces per unit. He also noted the City could add a parking lot at the public park is use justifies that at a later time. Mr. Junker pointed out that the Planning Commission had recommended concept approval with nine conditions. The three major conditions had to do with parking, the size of the public park and the trail along South Twin Lake, and he said those are still items for discussion. Mr. Carlson said the developer will meet the condition regarding park dedication; however, at this point, the exact location of the additional parkland hasn't been determined. Regarding parking, Mr. Carlson said the developer has met all the City's requirements and he questioned whether the developer should be responsible for providing parking for the public park. Regarding the trail along South Twin Lake, Mr. Carlson said those who had walked the site, including the City' s environmental consultant, said the trail should not be a clear -cut trail. Mr. Johnson asked if the trail would only be able to accommodate people walking single -file. Mr. Russell said the trail would be a natural surface and fit in with the natural character of the area. Mr. Johnson agreed with the desire for active use park area. Mr. Russell noted there is a possibility for a neighborhood park in the southeast quadrant of the site, saying it would be difficult to expand the park use at the primary location. Mr. Kimble noted that the City can monitor those requirements; the Joint Board is to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use. 06/01/2006 Mr. Johnson informed the Board that the Township had reacted to a desire to limit use of South Twin Lake to non - motorized use only, had held public hearings and adopted a resolution to that effect. Mr. Russell noted that the City's Planning Commission and Park Board support that position, but the lake is not in the City's jurisdiction at this time. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Liberacki said the developer would support limiting use to non - motorized use only. It was consensus that the Township should move forward with the issue by contacting the DNR; the City will support the Town's position. Mr. Johnson invited public comment. Ruth Bruns, 8790 Neal Ave., asked about hunting on South Twin Lake. Mr. Johnson pointed out the Joint Board has no authority in that matter; that is a question for the DNR. Ed Otis, 12070 N. 87th St. Circle, Stillwater Township, suggested the Board should not be looking at the Millbrook development without considering the cumulative effect of other proposed developments in the immediate area, specifically the possibility of a school at Highway 96 and County Road 15 and development of the property at McKusick Road and Neal Avenue. He expressed concerns about traffic, public safety access and the amount of land that is really accessible to the public in the Millbrook proposal. He said he was opposed to the trail crossing Brown's Creek as proposed and suggested that an environmental study be done for the whole area. 2 Discussion was brought back to the Board. Mr. Junker stated he had been involved in previous discussions with the Millbrook developers as a member of the City Planning Commission. While there are still a lot of details to be worked out, he said he would be in favor of approving the proposal as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Orderly Annexation Agreement. Mr. Johnson said he had been involved with discussions from the initial concept plan to what the plan has evolved into at this point and said he was appreciative of the developer's listening to the concerns of the Township and City. While he said he was initially concerned with moving the location of the town houses, he said he understood the reasoning for the change in location and is comfortable with the concept as proposed. Mr. Johnson noted that it is not the Joint Board's responsibility to address the details of the plan and said he felt the details will be addressed as the plan moves through the remainder of the process. Mr. Johnson said he thought adding perimeter lots was a big improvement along County Road 15, and he also said he liked the proposed traffic round - abouts and would encourage other traffic diversion efforts, especially in the southeast quadrant. Ms. Countryman also said she thought the developer has tried to respond to concerns. She asked whether a parking lot for the public park, if necessary, would cut into the percentage of park dedication. Mr. Junker noted that the Planning Commission has "dug in its heels" about several conditions, including park dedication, and would address that issue. Mr. Kimble moved to find the Millbrook proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Orderly Annexation Agreement. Mr. Junker seconded the motion; motion passed 4 -0. 06/01/2006 Small lot, single family development at McKusick and Neal Avenue, Rich Carlson, applicant. Mr. Russell noted this site is in the Phase 4 annexation area and the owner would need to petition for early annexation. He said the proposal has not gone through the scrutiny that the Millbrook plan has. He said the Planning Commission had reviewed the proposal and recommended that the City consider annexation and look more closely at proposed lot sizes. He said it is likely lot sizes will increase from what is initially proposed. He said utilities need to go through this site to get to the Millbrook development, so it is natural to develop this site in conjunction with the Millbrook project. Mr. Kimble asked if approving this request would have any impact on other Phase 4 requests. Mr. Russell responded that this would not affect the Boutwell South properties, but other areas could petition for annexation. Attorney Magnuson suggested that approval might put the City in a "political bind" and make it more difficult to deny other early annexation requests in the future. However, Mr. Magnuson noted this request could be distinguished from others due to its impact on the Millbrook plan; he agreed this request would not impact the Boutwell South area. Tim Freeman was present representing the applicant. He said the City's desire to bring utilities through the property is what sparked the interest in development. He said it makes sense not to have to go through the condemnation process and noted that 17 lots, as initially proposed, will not have the same impact as the Millbrook development. He also noted there is a proposed trail connection to the Millbrook property, and he said it makes sense to do that trail corridor when the area is dug up for installation of utilities. 3 Stillwater City and Town Joint Board July 27, 2005 Mr. Russell noted the proposal will have to go back to the Planning Commission should the Joint Board approve the concept. Mr. Johnson said he thought the proposal makes sense and said he didn't see any problem with the Orderly Annexation Agreement, pointing out the Orderly Annexation Agreement was respectful of property owners' rights and allows early annexation of Phase 4 properties when appropriate. Mr. Kimble noted that the proposal would have to go back to the City's Planning Commission and Park Board before returning to the Joint Board for final approval. It was consensus of the Board to approve the proposal in concept. Mr. Magnuson said he thought that was adequate direction at this point in the process. Mr. Johnson referred to the earlier discussion with the Millbrook developers and suggested that this applicant consider coordinating park plans with the Millbrook people and noted the preference for active park use. Mr. Kimble left at 8:40 p.m. Other items: 1. Mr. Russell and Mr. Magnuson highlighted the City's newly adopted transportation adequacy fee. 2. An update of expansion area building permits was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Russell said 40 permits had been issued this year as of June. He said there is a buffer of over 200 permits and within the limit of the Orderly Annexation Agreement. 3. Mr. Russell said the City is in the process of updating its AUAR. He said the update will be completed before the preliminary plat faeditagElos rook development is submitted. 4. Mr. Russell said the City is considering a possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the zoning of a parcel of property along McKusick Road from attached single- family to large lot single family. He noted that the City has exceeded its goals for high density housing with recent developments in the downtown area. Board members suggested most people would likely prefer the change in zoning, although Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of keeping at least a portion of the site as attached single - family. The City' s Planning Commission will initiate any change. 5. Mr. Russell said the City Planning Commission currently is studying the Agricultural Preservation zoning designation. He said the issue arose due to several rezoning requests — one on Mid Oaks and another on 62nd Street. He noted the AP designation was intended as a holding pattern following the Orderly Annexation Agreement. Mr. Johnson suggested that if the financial consideration initially given to properties in the annexation area had been phased out, the City could move to changing the zoning to that shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Countryman, seconded by Mr. Junker, moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4