Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-18Joint Board MINStillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board April 18, 2000 Present for Stillwater Township: Supervisor David Johnson and Supervisor Louise Bergeron Present for City of Stillwater: Council Member Terry Zoller Others: Town Planner Meg McMonigal, Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies, Community Development Director Steve Russell, Bill Pritchard and Bob Swanik of Orin Thompson Homes, Greg Frank of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, and Kevin Norby of Norby and Associates. Township Attorney Tom Scott and City Attorney David Magnuson. Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval of the minutes of February 17, 2000; all in favor. Discussion of Phase II Development Comprehensive Plan Review Community Development Director Russell provided the Board with an overview of the Phase II Development located north of Boutwell, south of McKusick, Neal Avenue and east of Manning Avenue. He stated that US Homes has purchased most of the property. He stated that the issue before the Joint Board is a Comprehensive Plan Land Use issue and asking for clarification from the Board at this meeting. The issue that needs to be addressed is the configuration of the patterning of the proposed land use by U9EMvQM6 The developer has moved the townhomes residential development sight from just south of McKusick to the corner of Boutwell and Manning Avenue which is one of the changes that is being proposed conceptually and what is actually designated in the Land Use Plan. Other than that change the single family, small lot residential area is what is designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The park area to the north, south of the railroad tracks, is designated single family small lot residential in the Comprehensive Plan and the City is pursuing purchasing of that land for open space so there would be no residential development on that site. Mr. Russell reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs. the proposed development. Mr. Russell requested that the Joint Board make a decision on if these changes represent a change in the Comprehensive Plan and does the City need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate these more specific land use or address these more specific land uses in terms are they appropriate based on the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Johnson stated that there was a consensus at the Town Board level that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be in order. He stated that he felt the process should fault on the side of being more cautious and proceed with an appropriate process because it could be a credibility issue more than anything else. Ms. Bergeron reaffirmed Chairman Johnson's statement on the Town Board's consensus in that it is a matter of moving the townhomes from one location to another. Page 1 of 5 Mr. Zoller asked City Attorney Magnuson his thoughts on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Magnuson stated he felt that politically it is a necessity, legally it is discretionary because it is not a profound change. If the Board felt they didn't need to go through the process of a Comprehensive Amendment he stated that the Rivard property would have to be rezone and rezoning has to be consistent with the plan and it is not shown in this plan as townhomes. Mr. Zoller stated that the extra effort should be taken and walk the steps. Mr. Bill Pritchard, Vice President of Land Development for Orin Thomson Homes introduced colleagues in this proposed development. He provided information on the conceptual drawings before the Board. He stated that he concurred that the process for a Comprehensive Amendment should proceed. He explained the reasoning behind the Rivard property, in that they saw an opportunity to get better exposure to the internal property and felt that the higher density would be better at that location and that it allowed a larger land area for park use. Mr. Johnson stated that he agrees with the consensus of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion by Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the development by USA Homes. All in favor. Mr. Zoller asked about the road off to the north if it crosses the railroad tracks. Mr. Pritchard stated the details of that have not been completed, but it is the desire to work with the Zepher line and collectively with the hd3fi&N2VS16develop a swap for crossings and then bring it to a grade crossing that is already existing. Mr. Pritchard stated that the overall concept of the development is called "coving." Basically this means that the streets are winding and allows the flexibility of variation of home setbacks so that it does not have a"tunnel" effect driving down the street. He also explained the reasoning for moving the townhomes and of the design of the townhomes along Manning Avenue. He stated that USA Homes has a lot more to do regarding the landscape and amenities, but that will be done through the public process. He also stated that the purpose today is to come up with a time schedule that they are able to meet and live with. Mr. Zoller asked how this development compares to the Liberty and Legends development. Mr. Pritchard stated that one of the features that coving allows is that because homes are setback the driveways end up being more ramped. It allows more homes with walkouts. He stated that in order to accomplish this would have architectural challenges because garages can not be behind the home. Their attempt is to offset the garages on the side of the house. That information will be provided when completed. Mr. Russell stated that one of the benefits of working with US Homes is that they are the developer as well as the builder. We are not working with one entity in the subdivision process and another for the design. He stated on the conceptual drawing all the garages are turned or recessed. Page 2 of 5 Mr. Zoller asked if coving is being done in the area. Mr. Pritchard stated that it is becoming popular in that it provides curved streets and not a straight thoroughfare. It determines how the homes are set and with this design the setbacks will be varied and flow with the streetscape and curves of the street. Mr. Russell stated that the development pattern is more informal and trying to emphasize the natural element of Browns Creek and its tributaries using the topography to meander the road through the site. It is different than the Legends and Liberty project, but the site is different and dictates another type of development to use the land and water features in order to create the neighborhood. He stated it is appropriate for the site. Chairman Johnson stated that one of the sensitivities in regard to townhomes on County Road 15 further south was how the land original was before development and feeling that inclusion of townhomes in the area would be obvious. The berming in that area has been positive. He is interested in seeing how the berming in this development disguises these townhomes. He explained that the County Road 15 corridor has been a rural corridor and the township wishes to preserve that. He encouraged US Homes to look very hard in the berming and buffering of the townhomes along County Road 15 and design so that the building that are seen have some variety to their architectural interest so that it looks more individual home like than looking like one of twelve units that are all the same. Chairman Johnson also asked that US Homes be sensitive to the township homes along this subdivision to be respectful to the homes @?iMVQf the area. He also mentioned the need for active recreational opportunities and would like to see a creation of playing fields rather than just open space. Schedule for Phase II Development Review Ms. McMonigal stated that she would not be reviewing the project because her firm, McCombs Frank Roos Associates is working with Orin Thompson to complete the civil engineering on this development. Mr. Dean Johnson, of Resource Strategies Corporation will be acting in her place. She stated that she prepared a process of review and that Community Development Director Russell added the specific dates. Mr. Russell reviewed the proposed scheduled with the Board. Mr. Scott expressed concern separating the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process from the rest of the process. He stated that it does not work well because to many people the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be based on what the development will look like and it will be confusing to the public. You end up doing things twice and it is confusing to people. Mr. Zoller agreed that the issue could confuse issues and the process should not be separated. Page 3 of 5 Mr. Johnson stated he felt the path of least resistance is the way to proceed and if it gets confusing to people it may alienate them more. He felt that this project's level of detail should be shown and deals with both issues at the same hearing. Mr. Pritchard stated that the information that will be available for the May gtl' meeting will be similar to what has been presented with some addition information but that for the June 12 meeting they will be providing information with significant detail as it relates to landscaping, architectural, grading and infrastructure, etc. After board discussion, motion by Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, to adopt the following schedule: April 18 Joint Board determination of necessary project review elements and schedule May 8 City Planning Commission and Stillwater Township Planning Commission initial review of project. June 12 City Planning Commission review necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning and subdivision review (public hearings). June 15 Stillwater Township Planning Commission meeting June 22 Stillwater Township Board meeting July 6 Joint Board holds necessary public hearing(s) and reviews project July 18 City Council hold public hearings for project approval (Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, preliminary plat, concept PUD). Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Li@@ik2@B6 Size of Garage in the TR, Traditional Residential and LR, Lakeshore Residential District. Mr. Russell explained that when the Lakeshore Residential Traditional Residential District zoning regulations were adopted, they did not have a maximum garage size. The ordinance for Single Family Residential, RA, has a limit size of 1,000. This text amendment would provide consistency in that it would be the same as other areas of the City. Chairman Johnson stated that the Town Board did not have any problems with this issue. Motion by Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron to approve the zoning amendment. All in favor. Update Tree Ordinance Mr. Russell informed the Joint Board that the Tree Ordinance has been adopted. Letter to County Re.° a rding Use of Brown's Creek Park Chairman Johnson asked if a response has been received from Washington County regarding the Brown's Creek area. Page 4 of 5 Mr. Magnuson stated that the County needs a commitment from the City that we would abide by the wetland mitigation rules in effect for the parcel because that was part of the mitigation for the County Road project. It is just a matter of formalizing an agreement to be bound by those restrictions and they would transfer it to us. Mr. Russell stated that on Boutwell the County Historical Society has the property of Boutwell Cemetery and they have indicated they are willing to sell that to the City and the township park is next that with the Newman property abutting that and that the City is interested in all of that area. If the City could work with respective parties would that be enough for a soccer/ballfield, function for the neighborhood. Instead of having a few acres throughout the development this would provide approximately 10 acres for this facility. Chairperson Johnson appreciates the idea of a public works facility next to a recreation area to keep an eye on the investment. He also stated he endorses the concept, but would like to see what could be developed within the development itself. There are needs for a place to practice that is big and flat enough to hold these practices. He also stated that when Mr. Russell works to obtain these parcels to get the township involved. He believes the township would be supportive and use this as a way to promote public support. Ms. Bergeron stated that the township considered putting playing fields in their park, but they felt it would be better to communicate with the City. Mr. Scott wanted clarification regarding the setback along County Road 15. 06/01 /2006 Mr. Russell stated that this development is approximately 100 feet from County Road 15. Motion by Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane Ward Page 5 of 5