Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-17 Joint Board MINStillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board February 17, 2000 Present for Stillwater Township: Supervisor David Johnson and Supervisor Louise Bergeron Present for City of Stillwater. Mayor Jay Kimble and Council Member Terry Zoller Others: Town Planner Meg McMonigal, Community Development Director Steve Russell, Township Attorney Tom Scott and City Attorney David Magnuson Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of a6e? nda: Mr. Johnson noted this is the first meeting of the new year, when election of officers is held, and requested adding that to the agenda. Ms. McMonigal noted approval of minutes should be added to the agenda. Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, approved the agenda as amended. Election of officers: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, nominated Mr. Johnson as chair; motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, nominated Mr. Kimble as vice chair; motion passed unanimously. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval of the minutes of Sept. 1, 1999; all in favor. Case No. ZAT/99-1 - Tree ordinance amerQbiftP-006 Mr. Russell provided a brief overview of the process of amending the ordinance, which was first initiated in 1998. Stillwater Forester Kathy Widin said the City had received a lot of comments during the process. She said she thought the amendment as it now stands works well for the City, is less restrictive than previous proposals, and is limited only to projects that require development permits. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. Don McKenzie, 12620 72"a Street, provided a handout of suggested changes. His primary points of contention were: 3)d the definition of major development as five acres or more, preferring a change to 25 acres; 3)I, defining significant trees as measuring at least 6" in diameter, preferring 7"; 4)d limiting reduction of the tree canopy to 35 percent, preferring 40 percent; 6)a and 6)b, both of which referred to 30 percent canopy removal; and 7)a oak wilt, suggesting a dollar limit be placed on the cost to an individual as oak wilt is a community issue. Ed Otis, 12070 87t1i St. Circle suggested defining major development in terms of units, perhaps 5 units, rather than in terms of acres. Regarding 4)b, he said the language suggests that planting lawns might not be allowed. He also referred to the inconsistency of the 30 percent figure in 6)a and 6)b. He also suggested changes in the standards regarding oak wilt, suggesting the City is passing the problem on to residents. He further suggested that the language in the subdivision regarding vegetation alterations ravines, bluffs and slopes of greater than 24 percent be clarified - would someone be allowed to mow their lawn? 1 Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board February 17, 2000 A letter from Leah Peterson, was included in the packet. Ms. Widin responded to the comments. She noted that the 6" diameter definition of significant trees is in the City's existing ordinance and was used as the standard for the Legends and Liberty developments. Regarding the 35 percent threshold for the removal of the tree canopy, she said the City's current ordinance allows up to 50 percent removal; the task force recommended setting the threshold at 30 percent, and the City Council changed that to 35 percent. She said the original draft was more restrictive and included penalties and fees; she said she thought 35 percent represented a reasonable compromise. She agreed that the language in 4)d should be clarified somewhat. Regarding the comments on oak wilt, Ms. Widin agreed that in some circumstances the proposed measures could be cost prohibitive; she noted that cost sharing funds are available from the DNR. When the discussion was brought back to the Board, Mr. Russell agreed that a number of Mr. McKenzie's suggested wording changes, dealing with semantics issues, would be appropriate. The Board then addressed the major issues raised during the public hearing. • Definition of major development: Mr. Johnson stated he preferred using units rather than acres as depending on topography or the type of development, it does not take many acres to have a major environmental impact. Mr. Russell noted that the suggested five acres would equate to about 10 units, using the lowest development density. Mr. Johnson suggested using 15 units and more as the definition.. MiQQ0,%V09§aid the City would be comfortable with that number, the number which triggers when a professional forester must prepare a tree protection plan. It was the consensus to use the 15 unit definition. • Definition of significant trees: Mr. Zoller said he thought the 6" definition should be kept, as that is the standard across the metropolitan area. Mr. Russell also noted that standard is used in DNR regulations. It was the consensus to leave the 6" definition. • 35 percent canopy removal threshold. Ms. Bergeron stated that figure was acceptable to her. Mr. Zoller noted that is the compromise figure arrived at after numerous discussions/hearings. The consensus was to leave the figure at 35 percent. • Oak wilt: Mr. Johnson noted the Township participates in the DNR grant program which pays up to 50 percent for individual property owners to deal with the disease. He noted that there is significant developable land in the Township and said the Township will be happy to assist if possible. Mr. Magnuson said the first step the City should undertake is having Ms. Widin do a survey of diseased trees. Mr. Zoller noted that the City had a Dutch elm disease fund to assist property owners in dealing with that disease, and historically has been sensitive to such issues; he said any problems should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Kimble suggested adding the word "reasonable" in 7)a. • Clarification of language in 4)d: Ms. Widin suggested language such as "this would not prohibit lawn installation" or "desirable plant material could include lawns." It was agreed such language would be appropriate. Following the board discussion, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Bergeron agreed the City could proceed with adoption of the ordinance amendment with the changes agreed upon by the Joint Board, as 2 Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board February 17, 2000 long as no additional substantive changes are made. If any changes, other than semantics are made, the ordinance would have to be brought back before the Joint Board. Ms. Kimble, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval of the ordinance with the changes recommended by the Joint Board; motion passed unanimously. Cases ZAM19904, SUB/99-51 and SUB/99-52 MsKenzie, Thron rezoning and subdivisions. Mr. Russell noted the properties in question were originally ghost platted by the Township. The request is implementing the Township platting and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. No comments were receiving during the public hearing. Mr. Kimble, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Discussion of Phase IV area annexation requests Mr. Russell briefly reviewed his memo and the memo from City Engineer Klayton Eckles outlining the issues - the lack of water/sewer services, the need for feasibility studies, requirement for Comp Plan amendments, need for planning for the entire Phase IV area, etc. Mr. Russell said the City has a specific request from Bruggeman Homes for annexation for a 14-acre site between Boutwell and County Road 12. Ms. McMonigal asked if the City could undertake a Phase IV study at this time; City representatives said not at this time with current staff and funding. Mr. Johnson said one thing clearly identifi@WUM@Urderly Annexation Agreement is allowing township residents the flexibility to choose when to be annexed and the opportunity for early annexation if desired. He said he would have trouble stepping back to look at all of Phase IV and how it would look in 2015 (when annexation is scheduled to occur according to the Agreement). He said he hoped the City would consider early annexation requests in a timely manner and in areas when the demand is greatest. Mr. Kimble said the City does not want to commit staff time to development areas on a wily-nily basis, and he said the City doesn't want to accept all requests because it can't. Also, Mr. Zoller and Mr. Kimble noted the City does not want to become involved in an adversarial position with the Township if it does consider early annexations, as it was with the Bergmann property. Ms. Bergeron suggested the City knows which requests have merit and makes sense for the City. The City should make that decision and then present the information to the Township. Ms. McMonigal suggested using criteria such as contiguity to the City, the ability to easily connect to services, etc. Mr. Scott said the issue of whether property owners come into the City or not is up to the City and individual property owners; the Township's concern is with Comprehensive Plan amendments and densities. Kevin vonRiedel of Bruggeman Homes briefly reviewed a preliminary concept plan for the 14 acres between Boutwell and County Road 12, including a possible street alignment and locations for connection with services. The property is by the City surrounded by three sides. Three property owners are interested in selling, he said in requesting that consideration be given to early annexation. The proposal is for a development of about 30 single-family lots. Bruggeman Homes also has offered to assist the City with the necessary feasibility studies/planning. 3 Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board February 17, 2000 Mr. Otis suggested the previous problem with early annexation was due to use. He said he didn't think this proposal would be objectionable. Mr. Zoller said the City thinks it is best plan to plan for the entire area, not just 14 acres. Mr. Russell said the first step is getting the plan and then implementing the plan through annexation. Ms. Bergeron agreed that is does make sense to look at the larger area. Mr. Johnson concluded that he agrees with the City's position to take a broader look at the area and allow the Township the opportunity to participate in the discussion, but he also said the City should respect the Orderly Annexation Agreement that states property owners are not restricted to a specific timeframe, that "reasonable consideration will be given" to early annexation requests. Mr. Johnson said he would be comfortable with an approach that looks beyond the 14-acre parcel to some other logical, larger area. Mr. Johnson said he and Ms. Bergeron would bring the issue back to the Town Board and would have a more solidified position after that discussion. Phase II expansion area development update Three representatives from U. S. Homes/Orrin Thompson were on hand to communicate the fact that the developers are moving ahead with plans. A preliminary concept was shown. The development of some 350 housing units, will include townhomes on the Rivard property, a change from original plans that had the townhomes on a portion of the Abramowitz property. The development also will include the City's Brown's Creek Nature Reserve. The developer's representatives said topography and soil PAM_Q@Q6rently is being done. The hope is to have plans submitted to allow for construction to begin sometime this summer. Mr. Scott questioned whether the change in location of the townhomes would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment as it does represent a change in the guide map. Mr. Scott said given the developers timeframe, that may be an issue as to when the Township gets involved. Mr. Kimble suggested directing legal staff to look into that issue. Ed Otis expressed a concern about the location of the townhomes, asking if County Road 15 would become "townhome row" in the future. Mr. Kimble addressed Mr. Otis's comments. Update on City search for public works/fire station site Mr. Russell said the City currently is looking at a site on Boutwell Road just east of County Road 15, near land the Township owns for a possible future park location. Mr. Johnson advised that if the City does pursue the acquisition and development for the public works/fire station, it does so before the adjacent neighborhood is established. He said he would relay the information to the Town Board for their input. Update on village commercial development at CR 15/12 A copy of the request for proposals was included in the agenda packet. Paula Kroening of Newman Realty told the Board the RFPs are due March 15. Mr. Russell suggested that Peter Calthorpe, who recently conducted the Smart Growth studies for the Metropolitan Council, would be an excellent resource person for the design of that development. He suggested the 4 Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board February 17, 2000 possibility of working with the Kroenings to get some grant money to allow for Calthorpe's consultation. Update on Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area Mr. Russell said the City had received a greenways grant, as well as a$50,000 grant from the Margaret Rivers Fund and donations from the two local Rotary Clubs for land acquisition and park improvements. 27 acres of the area is owned by U. S. Homes and that company is aware of the City's intent in purchasing the property. Mr. Magnuson asked whether the Township would have any objections to the City's annexing the area, now that it owns all the property. Mr. Johnson suggested sending a letter to the Town Board, and neither Township representative thought there would be any problem. Mr. Russell said the City is sending a letter to Washington County asking that the County either donate or allow the use for park purposes of a 4.6 acre parcel of county-owned property in the Brown's Creek area Mr. Russell asked that the Joint Board consider sending a similar letter. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Joint Board request that the County donate the parcel for park use, rather than just allow its use. Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, made that in the form of a motion. Mr. Johnson will forward a letter indicating the Joint Board's position for Mr. Russell to send to County Commissioner Wally Abrahamson. 06/01 /2006 Report on building permits issued in the annexation area The report was included in the agenda packet for the Board's information. Other items: Mr. Johnson informed the Board that Ms. McMonigal's firms in involved with the developers of the Phase 2 properties. Due to a concern about a potential conflict of interest, Ms. McMonigal has spoken with another planner, Dean Johnson who works with several communities in Washington County, to serve as her replacement at this time. Mr. Johnson said the Town Board has concurred with Ms. McMonigal's recommendation and the Joint Board did likewise. Mr. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to adjourn at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5