HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-25 CC Packet Special Meeting
.
.
'.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
illwater
"~ -- ~
-- ~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA . J
City of Stillwater 1 5' - 3 'J-
City Council
Special Meeting
October 25, 1995
, 7 p.m.
City Council Chambers
216 North Fourth Street
Cb-d
1.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
2.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
.
.
~illw~te~
T" ""'''''''' .IH'ESO~
CITY COUNCil/PLANNING COMMISSION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP - SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25,1995
7 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Review of Comprehensive Plan Update process to date.
2. Plan overview.
3.
Key Plan Elements
Land Use
Natural Resource Protection/Open Space
Parks and Trails
Traffic and Circulation
Public Facilities
Fiscal Impact
4. Plan Adoption Process
5. Plan Implementation
6. Council direction
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
.~
MEMORANDUM
eo:
FR:
Mayor and City Council
Steve Russell, Community Development Director f--'
DA: October 20, 1995
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP
On April 25, 1995, the city council held a public hearing on the planning commission's recommended
comprehensive plan. The minutes from that meeting are attached. Besides the oral comments, written
comments were received from 47 individuals. The written comments are enclosed. Plan comments were
received from Stillwater Township, Washington County, Washington County HRA, Department of Natural
Resources, MinnesotalWisconsin Boundary Area Commission and Met Council.
Results from April 25, 1995, Meeting:
Commented received on the draft comprehensive pian are many but can be summarized into the following
categories:
Growth. Growth is one of the key issues. Comments included concern for growth and its impact on traffic,
natural resources, rural character, schools and small town character. Other comments supported the land use
_ans phased residential and economic growth. All comments stressed the need for managed and controlled
owth to minimize impacts - fiscal, traffic, natural resources.
Traffic. A second major comment area included concern for the traffic situation within the existing city and its
neighborhoods, Deerpath, South Third and Fourth, Greeley/Owens and for new traffic impacts as a result of city
growth into the URTP A.
Annexation. Comments from the township residents opposed annexation because of financial impaCt (taxes
, and assessments) and impact on existing "rural character". Some expressed concern for traffic and school needs
as a result of annexation.
Natural Resources. (Long Lake, Brown's Creek, wetlands, tributaries, woodlands). Concern was expressed
for the impact of development on natural resource areas. Some expressed need to preserve resource if
development occurs.
Fiscal Impact. Concern for the cost of expanding city service to new areas. Concern from Stillwater and
township point of view.
Preservation of Small Town Character. Concern for impact of city growth on existing small town character.
Population will increase from 15,000 to 20 - 22,000. Need was expressed to plan for and make improvement to
exiting neighborhoods as well as newly developing areas, Le., streets, neighborhood parks, housing
l.rehabilitatiOn.
1
Commercial Development. Concern for the lack of available commercial land to support industrial growth... .
development.
GreenbeltslBuffer Plan Policies. Concern for implementation of greenbelt and natural resource policies for
city expansion areas.
.
Additional Information. To respond to comments received at the April 25th comprehensive plan meeting, a
proposed expansion fiscal impact study has been prepared and previously presented to the council October 17,
1995. The study presents a detailed analysis of the costs of financing public improvements to the expansion
area. The study confirms the conclusion of the fiscal impact section of the comprehensive plan that quality
development pays its own way. The study provides direction for phasing public improvement extension to the
city growth areas. The report recommends methods to plan, manage and fmance city utilities extensions.
Since the April 25th meeting, city staff has meet with Met Council representatives to coordinate possible lJrban
Service Area extension plans with treatment plant capacities. As a part of the municipal comprehensive plan
update, the sewer plan will be updated.
The City of Stillwater is participating in a study of Brown's Creek to study its quality and to develop methods of
protecting the designated trout streams (see DNR comments). A memo from the city engineer updates the
council on the Brown's Creek Study.
The school district has designated an elementary school site along County Road 12 east of County Road 15.
The site is consistent with a school designation in the land use plan. This action by the school district
contemplates city service extension to the area (letter from school district enclosed).
Action Before the City Council
.
The purpose of the council/planning commission workshop is to review the draft comprehensive plan
recommended by the planning commission, along with written and oral comments and new information and
provide direction to the planning commission for completion of the plan.
With this direction, the planning commission will hold a public hearing and make final plan recommendation to
the council. The council will then hold a public hearing, approve the final plan and submit it to the metropolitan
council for comprehensive plan and municipal service area expansion as called for.
Tentative dates for planning commission and council hearings will be presented at meeting time.
Attachments:
Summary of Comprehensive Plan
- Minutes from the City Council Meeting of April 25, 1995
- Letter from David Wettergren, School District 834 - 10-13-95
- Resolution from Stillwater Township, April 25, 1995
- Memo from Jane Harper Washington County, May 24, 1995
- Letter from Molley Schodeen, DNR, April 25, 1995
- Letter from Duke Hust, Trout Unlimited, May 2, 1995
- Letter from Sam Griffith, Washington County HRA, May 9, 1995
- Letter from Funnar Isberg, Met Council, June 6, 1995
- 47 written comments on Comprehensive Plan
.
2
.
.
.
CITY 'OF ,'STILLWATER
CO~REHENSIVEPLAN
SUMMARY
Update Process - The existing Comprehensive Plan is old and out of date. In August 1993 the
Stillwater Planning Commission, under the direction of the City Council began the update
process. Originally it was scheduled to take one year and be completed by August 1994.
Because of the community interest and participation the length of time to update the plan has
been extended to June 1995. The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on the Draft
Comprehensive Plan for April 25, 1995 at City Hall. At that time the plan will be presented for
community input.
Plan Contents - The Comprehensive Plan is just that: Comprehensive, addressing all aspects of
the physical development of existing and future City. The Plan is organized in twelve plan
sections and an implementation section. The details of plan implementation will be developed as
the plan proceeds. A summary of each of the twelve sections is provided below. For a complete
description of the plan contents refer to the complete document.
Introduction (1.0)
Stillwater began planning with its fIrst formally adopted plan in 1918. This plan represents a
continuation of the planning tradition. The existing Comprehensive Plan is old, 1980, and out of
date. The revised plan reviews contemporary planning, issues and information and formulates a
plan for the next 15-25 years. Once adopted, the plan will need to be updated and monitored to
keep it fresh and applicable.
The draft Comprehensive Plan was developed in context with the Washington County
Comprehensive Planning effort and the recent Metropolitan Council "Blueprint" plan policies.
In those documents Stillwater is designated a "freestanding growth center" a center for urban
services and development. This plan maintains that designation with a moderate rate of
continued growth to 2010 and beyond.
Community Character (2.0)
Key Goals:
Goal 1 :
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Strengthen Stillwater's unique character
Preserve and strengthen the quality of life in Stillwater.
Preserve and enhance views of dominant features.
The Community Character section defmes Stillwater's strong community character elements and
presents policies and programs to preserve those elements. The river setting, the landscape,
residential neighborhoods, the Downtown, community entryways, and historic buildings all make
up Stillwater's unique community character. The policy section recognizes these strong
community character elements and describes specifIc methods to take them into consideration in
planning for the future. Methods of preservation include design guidelines, design review,
demolition control, landmark designation, area planning a.!ld site inspection. The Community
Character section of the plan is the fIrst section because of its importance in setting the
framework for the remaining sections.
Landuse (3.0)
Key Goals:
Goal 1:
.
Maintain Stillwater as a separate and distinct community distinct from the
surrounding area.
Goal 2:
Create new interesting quality designed neighborhoods that related to their
natural settings and surroundings, developed areas, protect natural
resources, provide central parks and open spaces and are interconnected by
trails to neighborhood and community destinations.
Goal 3:
A greenbelt shall be established around the ultimate Stillwater planning
area to separate suburban and urban development from semi-rural and
Rural Washington County areas.
The land use section provides direction for housing and economic development activities for the
area Stillwater grew from 10,196 in 1970 to 15,000 in 1995, a growth of 5,000 persons. For the
1995 to 2010 period based on the land use plan Stillwater could grow from 15,000 population to
19,000 _ 20,000. About 2/3 of this growth would occur because of City expansion to the west
and 1/3 would occur in the existing city. Refer to the proposed land use plan.
F or the Urban Rural Transition Planning Area (DR TP A) a range of single family housing
densities are provided from one dwelling unit per ~ acre to six dwelling units per acre. The total
number of units that could be accommodated in the URTPA as proposed is 1,200 housing units.
There are currently 5,500 housing units in Stillwater.
.
Besides the residential development, 65 acres of research and development and other industrial
use are designated for the lands between 62nd Street North and CRS and CR 15. Residential
areas would be buffered with greenbelts from the office industrial park.
The land use plan includes an extensive trail and parks element connecting new areas of
development to the existing City trails, proposed County trails and neighborhood trails. Plan
policies also include extensive buffering, greenbelt and natural area setback regulations. Most
policies regarding the Urban Rural Transition Planning Area (URTP A), were developed in
cooperation with Stillwater Township. A consideration in developing those policies was to
minimize the impact on Township residents if the City to grow in designated areas.
A second major theme of the land use section is to retain the semi rural flavor of the area and
cluster development away from natural areas and area of existing development.
Sites in the existing City of Stillwater around Downtown and next to the West Stillwater
Business Park are designated multi-family residential to accommodate higher density housing in
areas where goods and services are available.
.
.
.
.
Policies in the land use section call for continual cooperation between the Township and the City
in implementing the plan once it is adopted.
Transportation (4.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Make it easy and convenient to travel in and around Stillwater, tie
allowable new development to the capacity of roadways; prevent
intrusion of non-residential traffic in neighborhoods when possible
and develop a comprehensive sidewalk, trail and bikeway system.
Goal 2:
Develop a coordinated transportation system that provides for local
as well as areawide traffic.
Goal 3:
Provide efficient and environmentally sound transportation
facilities consisting of roads, bikeways, transit lines and pedestrian
paths.
Goal 4:
Support construction of the new interstate bridge and TH 36
corridor improvements to provide for regional traffic demands and
to relieve cut through traffic from residential areas.
Goal 5:
Develop and locate new roads sensitive to historic structures and
sites and natural features.
Goal 6:
Protect residential areas from non-residential traffic.
The Transportation Section defmes the existing street system and identifies existing traffic
problems. Neighborhood traffic is a major concern. That will be relieved to some extent by a
new river crossing bridge scheduled for completion in 2000 and a better peripheral road system
around Stillwater. Specific traffic studies are underway or recommended for the Deerpath area,
Third and Fourth Street area, and the Greeley/Owen Street area.
Through the neighborhood or special area planning process, these will include the road system
and networks to better plan land use and the road system will be explored. Traffic management,
enforcement, road redesign or alternatives that may be used to improve traffic conditions. Non-
auto travel modes including transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and traffic management are
described in the plan.
Local Economy (5.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Increase the tax base and provide opportunities for economic
growth for Stillwater and Stillwater area residents.
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Goal 4:
Promote and maintain the downtown as a central focus for
community economic and cultural activity.
.
Promote tourism consistent with retaining Stillwater's natural
resources and historic and architectural character.
Provide new locations for job growth in close proximity to housing
and with convenient access.
The Local Economy Section examines existing economic conditions and provides direction to
accommodate future economic growth of the area. A new 65 acre research and development
industrial park is designated for the area between CR5 and CR15,just north ofTH36. Mn/DOT
and Washington County will eventually make improvements to the TH36 - 15 intersection and
construct a frontage road between CR5 and 15. When that occurs the area will probably change
from its current agricultural use to the research and development office park use. Tourism is a
significant part of the local economy particularly for the Downtown. The importance of tourism
is recognized in this section. Maintaining a balance of tourist and community oriented activities
and services and preserving the quality and character of the Downtown while promoting
economic growth is stressed in the policies.
Housing (6.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
.
Provide a quality living environment for the citizens of Stillwater
by maintaining and improving the City's existing housing stock
and by planning for a range of new housing opportunities.
Provide a choice of housing types and densities suitable to the
needs of the young, locally employed and elderly through zoning
and land use planning.
Use the land use map to designate residential sites appropriate
located for a range of housing densities.
The Housing Section describes existing housing conditions in terms of type, tenure and housing
condition. Particular attention is payed to providing a range of housing opportunities from large
lot single family housing to multi-family apartments.
The existing housing stock is critical to Stillwater. The older houses make up the neighborhoods
and maintaining their condition is important to maintaining neighborhood character and the
supply of moderate cost housing.
Infill housing opportunities are identified in the land use plan and policy direction provides for
looking at inml opportunities further in area or neighborhood planning. The special housing
.
.
.
I
.
needs of very low and low income people are identified in the section along with the supply of
affordable units. Existing housing project provides for 200 units of assisted' housing in the City
of Stillwater.
Policies call for the City to work with Washington County Housing and Redevelopment
Agencies to provide additional units and to develop a Housing Rehabilitation Assistance
Program to maintain and upgrade existing neighborhoods.
Natural Resources and Open Space (7.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Create an open space system that preserves open space within and
outside the City of Stillwater.
Goal 2:
Use the system to connect open spaces, parks, activity centers and
neighborhoods.
Goal 3:
Protect and enhance the St. Croix River as a natural open space
system and recreation resource.
Stillwater is fortunate to have a variety of natural resources and open space areas. The 81. Croix
River, ravine lands, lakes, and Brown's Creek make up major elements of Stillwater's natural
setting. This section describes each of the natural resource elements and provides regulations
for protecting and preserving the natural resources. Wetland buffers are of particular importance
in the URTP A.
Special attention is paid to City ravines that are beginning to experience development pressures.
Plans call for development of a ravine management plan.
Parks, riverfront and trails (8.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Provide a variety of parks and other leisure, recreational and
cultural opportunities that area accessible, affordable, safe,
physically attractive and uncrowded for all Stillwater residents.
Goal 2:
Enhance and expand existing recreational facilities for Stillwater
residents based on the recreational needs of the community and its
neighborhoods.
Goal 3:
Provide both passive and active recreational opportunities for
Stillwater residents.
Goal 4:
Provide safe and accessible parks and recreational facilities.
.
This section describes the existing city neighborhood and community park system and provides a
needs assessment of future park improvement. The Old Athletic Field, Jaycee Ball Field and the
Oak Glen Area, which lacks a neighborhood park, are areas identified as needing attention. The
section provides standards for park development in new areas, and an overall community trail
system that relates to County trails. The parks section was developed by the City Parks Board to
provide a master plan for future park improvement for the years to come. During neighborhood
planning, the specific park needs of each area would be evaluated and considered in developing
the specific neighborhood park plans.
The Stillwater Riverfront park and Open Space System is described. The Lowell Park Plan
provides specific direction for its improvement but additional plans need to be prepared for
Kolliner Park and the City owned Aiple leased property which will become available to the City
in 1998.
Historic Resources (9.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Goal 4:
Goal 5:
Safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving historic properties
which reflect Stillwater's cultural, social, economic, political,
visual, aesthetic or architectural history.
.
Protect and enhance the City's appeal and attraction to residents,
visitors and tourists, using historic properties as a support and
stimulus to business and industry.
Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of
Stillwater.
F oster civic pride in the beauty notable accomplishments of the
past.
Promote the preservation and continued use of historic properties
for the education and general welfare of the people of Stillwater.
Much has been accomplished over the past eight years in the area of Historic Preservation. The
Downtown is designated as National Register Historic District. A City Wide Historic Context
Study has been prepared and historic surveys are being conducted for areas of Stillwater. The
emphasis is to maintain the City efforts toward preserving its past. The City Heritage
Preservation Commission acts as the Design Review Board for any development in the
Downtown and West Stillwater Business Park. The intent of design guidelines are to make sure
the development is compatible with the surroundings and is of quality design.
.
.
.
I.
This section outlines a work plan of future activities to continue the City's historic preservation
efforts. .
Public Facilities and Services (10.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Provide quality city utility services at a reasonable cost.
Goal 2:
Make sure there is adequate supply or capacity of service to
accommodate future development.
Goal 3:
Develop water resource conservation measures to preserve the
Jordan aquifer as the City's only long-term source of water.
City Buildings:
Goal 1 : Construct a new city hall that will meet the city's anticipated
staffmg needs through the year 2020.
Goal 2:
Construct a shared public works/parks garage and maintenance
facility adequate to meet current needs and expandable to meet
potential future needs.
Goal 3:
Provide new facilities that meet Stillwater residents fIrst. Allow
other units of government, school district, Washington County or
joint powers group to serve for broader populations.
This section describes the services and City facility needs based on existing conditions and future
growth. Additions are needed to provide for existing City staff including
ParkslFire/Administration. A new combined Public WorkslParks maintenance yard is needed.
The possibility of a major community center needs to be examined.
The existing City infrastructure is old and in need of repair and maintenance. This section calls
for a complete inventory of public facility needs and programming these improvements through a
capital improvement program.
One area of the City remains without water or sewer service. The plan calls for the extension of
urban services to that north hill area.
Parks facility improvements and other City services will be sized to accommodate future growth.
Fiscal Impact (11.0)
The Fiscal Impact Section examines the cost and revenues.of future development. Based on the
proposed land use plan, the taxes paid by new development would exceed the cost of providing
services. This would mean that existing City residents' t8x bill would not increase to
accommodate new development. In fact, taxes could go down relative to where they would be if
City expansion did not occur. A detailed analysis is provided in the fiscal impact section.
.
Special Area Plans (12.0)
This section is really a plan implementation section. It calls for additional special area planning
in specific geographic areas of the community. Neighborhoods would be planned based on.
Comprehensive Plan policies and guidelines looking at specific existing conditions, surveys,
neighborhood parks, trails, open space opportunities, land use mix, circulation, street scape,
design, and historic preservation. These special area plans would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan but provide more detail to deal with specific neighborhood design issues.
Guidelines to use in looking at new areas and existing neighborhoods are provided in this
section.
Implementation (13.0)
The implementation section is a listing of the policies and programs for the previous 12 plan
sections. Action such as zoning amendments, subdivision regulation changes, capital
improvement programs, park purchase, will be a part of the implementation section. The
implementation section will provide specific year by year direction for plan implementation.
Complete copies of the plan are available for review at City Hall, 216 North 4th Street or the
Public Library.
.
.1
~, 0'/
,- I
"':~~</ I.'
, ..,.' I
c:' /,'
/: J
I.) II,
I
\'\
\
!.;:p/
/t
,I .I
\ "
["l
, / ,
'~\ \ '
CITY
Qtil~a e~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~
Proposed Land Use Map
Pha.. 1 - 2010 . Alternative B - (F-3)
S..... ~~t!.Oty):
Slnlle I'coNIJ s.... Lot
......chc<l S"'S1c PunIIJ
MuJti.r.mDy
Ne~ CaaunadoI
CoaunuNly ~
.._ I'uk c-mcnoaI
.._ I'Uk 0IIIc0
._1OItioo
. __" DowlopoMnll'uk
. ._ I'uk lNIuIlNI
ll&Uway
-
Sccon<Wy SdIooI
_.....,. ScbooI
c.-..,.
101......
Hc~ I'uk
Comm"^,,y .....
CoIf 0>uICt
\OoIoct
ACUIS: .. 01 arY
1DI332 21M..
"'-0 16.16"
"-21 2...
.,'" U,..
1.45 001"
~U2 I.U"
140.91 3&1"
211.91 Cl.6I..
"17 1.2"
2.24 lIll6..
IOU 2""
2L95 o.st..
U." ll35"
"-95 1.21"
U.55 131"
39.11 U""
U4 ll2'''
1.UI UlI..
IllUI 2."
257.52 11.9."
167.21 03"
71641----1fJa
36'''' 100"
'IOTAL:
POSID lAND USI 1_ AIU):
SemI IunlI
:==~~
~~
, _ " DrvdopIncnl _
RaDwcy
-
~-
Coaun....., I'uk
-..
ACIlJS. .. 01 AUA
us 016"
26.1.91 25M"
39U 31.13..
11II2 5.t1..
5.21 llSl'lIo
11.16 1A1..
L52 0&1..
2A 1123 ..
15.ll6 1.4,,,
]AS 034..
134.12 13.1"
TOTAL:
1m""
1lXI..
~u~_ 'IbwNNp):
~~
'IOTAL:
ACItI5: .. 01 AUA
7IU9 13Q"
1.1 o.t1..
lII:1 U1..
I5.IlS 117"
~.2I u..
au ,,,,..
Pl'uk"_"'"
T Tall 5_ ,.....
[J ,.",... 60_ 5'''''' ,...
N...... __
~~Lu\lIU._
N~:\JMIOI
........
~
IWiII: ...,.. .....- - "'*'
.. WI' ..... ... t.-
Wilt" IIJ'"
Ot)' 01 5dIl-' c.u.allJ' ~ ~
rb.e (612) 4.JUW
,-,--~-_.~.~
.
.
i.
CITY OF STILLWATER
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 20, 1995
TO:
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
FROM:
Klayton Eckles, City Engineer t u V
SUBJECT: Storm Water Issues Related to Proposed Annexation Area
DISCUSSION '
One significant issue that has not been addressed regarding the proposed annexation area
concerns management of storm water. The entire area contained in the proposed expansion area
drains into Long Lake or Brown's Creek. Both these public waters are very sensitive to
development. Long Lake has been experiencing periodic high water conditions and has DNR
restrictions on the water level control. Brown's Creek is a designated trout stream and therefore
is sensitive to water quality and water quantity changes. Trout are particularly sensitive to
changes in temperature and therefore the thermo impact of development will be a significant
issue. The Brown's Creek Watershed Management Organization is currently studying the creek
with the ultimate objective of coming up with methods of protecting the trout habitat.
There is much more regulation and greater design constraints on storm water systems today
compared to in the past. The following is a list of some of the issues that must be addressed if
the annexation area develops:
1. The trout habitat in Brown's Creek must be protected.
2. The flooding of Long Lake must be avoided.
3. NURP (National Urban Runoff Program) sedimentation ponds must be incorporated
into all developments to protect water quality.
4. Existing wetland areas must be maintained in there current state (ie no filling or
flooding).
5. Best management practices (BMP) must be followed during construction for the
elimination of harmful erosion.
Page 2
October 20, 1995
6. All development must have storm water detention facilities to insure that no net
increase in storm water discharge.
The greatest challenge for the development of the proposed annexation area most likely will be
protection of Brown's Creek. The Department of Natural Resources and the Brown's Creek
WMO are committed to protecting this resource. The final comprehensive solution has not yet
been determined. It could involve some type of diversion system which would take much of the
Brown's Creek Water to the river in a pipe rather than in the creek. Obviously such a design
would be very expensive and could only be financed with the help of the state and/or the entire
watershed contributing. More information on this will become available as the Brown's Creek
Watershed Management Organization completes its study.
The other issues listed above can generally be addressed through standard engineering principles.
The costs of managing the storm water should be borne by land developers. There should be no
cost to the city for storm water management in this area. Depending on what happens in Brown's
Creek there could be some costs to the city for creek improvements that are not necessary due to
this development but rather other development that has occurred over the years. At this time it'svimpossible to say how much these costs could be.
.
.
.
~,~
tt.J
STILLWATER
AREA SCHOOLS
I!u!I
Effective Learning Through Excellence in Education
1875 SOUTH GREELEY STREET
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
351-8303
October 13, 1995
.
Mr. Jay Kimble, Mayor
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor Kimble:
At its meeting of Thursday, October 12, 1995, the School Board of District 834 passed the
enclosed resolution designating the Kroening property in Stillwater Township as the preferred site
for its new 800 pupil elementary school. The administration has been directed to enter into
negotiations for purchase of the property and communicate with the appropriate governmental and
regulatory agencies its intent.
It's the understanding of our School Board that this decision is compatible with the comprehensive
planning efforts of the City of Stillwater, and we look forward to working with your Council
members and staff as these planning efforts move forward.
The Board has requested that the City identify for us any governmental and regulatory agencies that
should be contacted by the school district to help expedite this process.
~
David . Wettergren
Superintendent of Schools
DL W/dkh
Enclosure
cc: Steve Russell
Nile Kriesel
Dan Parleer
An Equal Opportunity Employer
: . BOMd 0/ Educa'",
I
LYMAN GEARY
Chairperson
ROLAND BUCHMAN
Vice Chairperson
KAREN ROSE
Clerk
SHAWN DRAPER
Treasurer
JOAN FRIANT
Director
MELVA RADTKE
Director
STEVE ZINNEL
Director
DAVID WETfERGREN
Superintendent
.
.
.
r'
RESOLUTION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
Independent School District 834
October 12, 1995
Whereas-- The School Board of School District 834 has been studying the possibility
of locating the new elementary school on one of five sites, and
Whereas--after analyzing and reviewing costs, demographic and related
information and, after considering responses of the Cities of Oak Park Heights and
Stillwater and interests of developers and landowners;
Now therefore be it resolved--that the School Board of District 834 designate the
Kroening property in Stillwater Township as the preferred site and directs
administration to enter into negotiations for purchase of the property and
communicate with the appropriate governmental and regulatory agencies its intent.
RESOLlmON
10/12/95
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cormmmity Development Dir.
FROM: City Coordinator
SUBJECT: Annexation-reimbursement of taxes to Township
DATE: October 20, 1995
In the event the City proceeds with the annexation of any Stillwater Township lands it will probably
reimburse the township for the loss of the tax base associated \\ith the annexed lands. I do not believe
that this is a mandated requirement. However, it has been the policy of the city to do so. It has been
done in order to avoid or ease any fmancial burdens the Township might suffer because of the loss
of the tax base associated with the annexed lands.
In the past the reimbursement has been made over a five year period, on a declining balance basis
with lOOO.!o of the taxes reimbursed in the first year, 80% in the second year, 60% in the third year and
so on. The City can include the reimbUrsable amount in its tax levy for the year in which the
reimbursement is to be made, thereby avoiding any loss of its own tax revenues. The increase in the
City's tax base from the new land should cover the additional tax levy.
~P4
F.U 612-139-1i05
STILLWATER TWP
~001
.
0-1/30/95 1i:50
.
..
.
.
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
Box 117
Stillwater, Minne50tll 55082
April 25, 1995
Phone II
Fax #
The stillwater Town Board, repr~sentin9 the citizens of
Stillwater Township, has taken the following position with
respect to the City of stillwater's Draft Comprehensive Plan:
Development Density and the corresponding population growth
included in the plan is unacceptable to .the Township.
The Plan fails to represent the consensus of public opinion,
both within the Township and the City, to maintain the "small
town atmosphere and appeal of th~ City of Stillwater."
'.
The abs~nce of specific assessment policy to protect existing
residents from. assessments fpr unneeded services ignores one
'of the most significant areas of citizen concern.
The Township is opposed to any neighborhoOd commercial or
convenience store type development within the Planning Area.
David John
~~to
)
~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
<!
Oonllkl C. Wisniewski, P.E.
Director PIlblic Works/County Engine..
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PARKS e HIGHWAYS e FAClUTIES
11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH e STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082-9573
612-430-4300 Facsimile Machina 612-430-4350
John P. Perkovich, Deputy Director
Operations Division
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.. Deputy Director
Technical a. Administrative Division
James D. Hillson. P.E.
Transportation Engineer
Edward Kapler.
Facilities Operations Manager
MEMORANDUM
Jane Harper, Planner
Don Theisen, Deputy Directo ' () l.J
Technical and Administrative ~i'ces
May 24, 1995
SUBJECT:
Public Works Comments on Stillwater "Draft" Comprehensive
Plan Dated March 30, 1995
Our comments on the "draft" Stillwater plan are:
.
.
Printed on Rec,ded Paper
1.
In the natural resources portion, Stillwater does a good job of pointing out
the critical components to be maintained in a connected open space for
people and wildlife. They in fact address specific areas and actions. Staff
may want to be even more definitive in their direction of buffer development
along Browns Creek and wetlands. They state a 75 to 150 foot setback for
development, but do not clarify how the buffer will be treated. In that
buffer, will mowing be allowed? Usually, this would also encourage the use
of herbicides and fertilizers close to sensitive areas. Protection of natural
resource areas can not be left to open interpretation.
. 2. The approach to recreation in the Stillwater plan is straight-forward and
comprehensive. There will be ample opportunity for the City to work with
the County in trail development along the corridors noted in the Linear Park
Master Plan.
3. The City has identified several goals, policies and programs in the
transportation area. One policy is relieving/eliminating the through traffic on
City residential roads. The Plan includes the following collector roads as
residential streets with through traffic problems: Greeley, Myrtle, Third, and
Fourth Streets. Each of these streets play an important role in the area's
transportation system by moving traffic through the City. What alternate
routes would be available if restrictions were placed on these streets?
4.
Also mentioned, as having a problem with through traffic is Dearpath. If the
Dearpath connection were to be cut, traffic would be forced to divert to
Myrtle/Owens/Olive Streets. How will this impact be handled? (Cont.d)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
I
, C Page 2
Jane Harper Memo
May 24, 1995
5. The City has done a good job planning the transportation system to support
the proposed development expected to occur as part of the annexation.
Access to CSAH 1 5 is planned to be restricted to a few well spaced
collectors. Internal circulation will also be provided between the
developments.
6. The planned annexation development will consume traffic capacity of
CSAH 15. The need to increase capacity on CSAH 15 and to install traffic
signals at CSAH 12, TH 96, and may be McKusick Road will be accelerated
due to the City's plans.
Please call me if you have any questions.
DJT:slj
cc: Don Wisniewski
Jack Perkovich
Jim Luger
Jim Hanson
....\herper .ati
Pdn... an _ycIotI "-
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
.
.
.!
..
.
~ STATE OF
INJINJ~~@LJ~
DEPARTMENT OF
METRO WATERS, 1200
772-7910
NATURAL RESOURCES
Warner Road, st. Paul, MN 55106
FILE NO.
PHONE NO.
April 25, 1995
Mr. Steve Russell
city Hall
216 North Fourth
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: City of stillwater Comprehensive Plan Revision
Dear Mr. Russell:
.
Metro Region Waters has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Revision dated March 30, 1995. Please convey these comments to the
city council for consideration as part of the official hearing
record. Of particular concern to the DNR is the proposed
annexation area in St~llwater Township. Brown's Creek is a State
Designated Trout Stream with a number of public access easements
for anglers. Brown's Creek is unusual in that the stream is at the
very bottom of its watershed_ Only the lower portion, from
McKusick Lake to the st. Croix, is fed by sufficient groundwater to
maintain the cold temperatures necessary for trout survival. It is
the temperature parameter that is particularly critical to the
maintenance of trout.
-=:J. .
.
The annexation area would drain to Long Lake and then on to Brown's
Creek. Even if the stormwater was managed onsite through the use
of ponding, there would still be an increase in volume of warm
water delivered to the stream from higher density urban
development. If the annexation proceeds, the DNR would like to
work closely with the city and the Water Management Organization
(~~O) to develop stormwater plans ~~at may protect the resource
from degradation. The planning effort would likely involve
complete hydrologic studies of the area. In this case, a watershed
approach to managing the resources seems to make the most sense.
However, the watershed approach, which involves big picture
thinking and analysis, is complicated by the fact that the trout
stream is at the bottom of the watershed. We plan to initia~e
talks with the WHO at its May meeting.
The DNR met with city officials on Thursday, April 20, 1995 to
discuss preliminary observations. It was discussed at that meeting
that it is still early enough into the process to deal with the
stormwater concerns. We all agreed, however, that dealing with the
annexation area in isolation from the bigger picture of the
watershed amounts to a piecemeal approach with increased expense in
the long run. The city was very supportive of participating in
further analysis and discussions_
~ :~II ':1""\1' I' ~ 1"""1,:0',:),1""\ :1""" II'~I"IY" '=:~ ~;I':)I' Ir"'I,V;::I:=1
.
Mr. steve Russell
April 25, 1995
Page 2
The first steps involve assembling all of the known pieces of
information and history. Once we review what is known, we will be
better equipped to determine what needs further study_
Unfortunately, the time period for discussion of alternatives is
very short if the annexation proceeds according to schedule. The
city should be aware that an engineering solution, such as a
C9mplete diversion of stormwater from the creek, may be the only
viable alternative to protect the resource_
We look forward to continuing participation by the city as we work
cooperatively through the issues and concerns. It is hoped that
the Brown's Creek WMO will also be interested in becoming an active
partner in developing a long-term, systems approach to maintaining
the viabi~ity of this very susceptible resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the public
hearing record. If you have any questions, please contact me at
772-7910.
.
Sincerely,
-\\ ~\( ~ Sh.~c~
Molly Shodeen
Area Hydrologist
MCS/cds
c: Mayor Jay Kimble j
Dale E. Homuth
Duane Shodeen
Dave zappetillo
Dav~ Ford
Brian Rongitsch
Sharon Pfeifer
stillwater Township
Brown's Creek Water Management organization
Washington County soil and Water Conservation District
Clayton Eckles
.,
1995
community Development Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
Nile L. Kriesel
216 North Fourth street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Kriesel:
Trout Unlimited takes very seriously the threat of loss or
degradation of any trout stream. This is especially true of those
streams in the Metropolitan area. It has been our experience that
changes in zoning that increase the density of residential housing
have been disastrous to the viability of cold water streams.
.
We are in the midst of a very long and very costly legal
battle to try and save Eagle Creek in the southwest portion of the
Metro area. We may well lose this battle, but we have learned many
lessons. The main th~ng we have learned is to get started eariy,
before development plans have been started and personal positions,
egos, and attitudes have solidified.' We have also learned not to
give up, it may not happen with Eagle Creek, but in many'cases the'
state or federal authorities have come in at the very last minute
to save a valuable piece of real estate from any development.
It is our hope that you give serious thought to
implications of annexation of the land around Browns Creek.
is exactly the type of area we have fought so hard to keep
development around Eagle Creek.
the
This
from
It is our hope that a very low density type of development
could be worked out for this land. The best way to ensure this
might be to leave it under control of the township. No matter what
course of action you decide, we would be more than willing to work
with you, the township, and the landowners.
Ie
sincerely, ,
)}ufif d,~ .
D~e. Hust c", ~. /,' /,>:-.1(')" Co' 7.~/' g~l' IcY
Pres1.dent >} /,.... L/i ~ ,... 17 .;'~ /t., __ ."--_ ? c; .
DH:jlh ~L/ /1 C1 ) Ii !/l /1// iJ ~ ':) :j ~
)
,;'
.'
America's Leading Coldwater Fisheries Con.servation Organization
Washington, D.C. Headquarters: 501 Church Street, Northeast. Vienna, Virginia 22180.703-281-1100
..... . .....,.. ,....
...,...,,-...-.'......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .
.f:1iiiii
;~"""~,,iIlIi!J T eleph~: ~~:~: :~::~~~~
! :1::1 Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
321 Broadway Avenue . Saint Paul Park, Minnesota 55071
May 9, 1995
Mr. steve Russell
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
City Hall
216 North Fourth Street
stillwater, Minnesota 55082
RE:
City Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Steve:
Staff has reviewed the proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan by
the City of stillwater. We have specifically looked at the housing
portion of the Plan and wish to state that we are supportive of the
direction of the Plan and we look forward to working with you in
the future to help the City meet its housing goals.
.
We have a couple of general comments which we feel need to be
addressed as you consider finalizing and implementing this
Comprehensive Plan.
On Page 6-1, where you discuss special housing needs, the Plan
states that the City should support the provision of a supply of
affordable housing for those with special housing needs. One of
the concerns that always comes up is that many times a community's
zoning requirement make it extremely difficult to provide special
needs housing in innovati ve ways. We would hope that the ci ty
would take a look at its Special Use and Conditional Use Permit
sections of your Zoning Ordinance so that the criteria necessary to
develop this kind of housing on a scattered basis, has reasonable
provisions which a project can meet.
On Page 6-5, you discuss infill development and affordable housing
and talk about potential development sites. The issue of
cooperation in meeting parking demands, both from developing new
housing to the demands by shoppers, workers and tourists, needs to
be addressed in someway. As you know, when the BRA looked at
developing some of the downtown parcels, the issue of parking and
"no net loss" of parking spaces proved to be the factor which made
those developments unfeasible to pursue. The issue of parking,
number of stalls per unit, etc. needs to be carefully considered as
part of encouraging infill development.
.
Mr. steve Russell
May 9, 1995
Page -2-
The other general note, steve, relates to how you can implement
some of the goals of this housing plan. Non-profit corporations
can play a key role in providing assistance to owners and renters
and in providing new housing opportunities. with the new
directions that both the Federal and state governments are
proposing for their involvement in housing, non-profits will play
a much larger role in the provision of housing assistance to
individuals, especially those with special housing needs.
We hope that these comments will be of some assistance as you
review and finalize your Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate the
opportunity to make comments and if you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
~f?:::YP
Development Director
/1
."
.
.
.
~'Metropolitan Council
~ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
.
.
.
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth St.
Stillwater, Mn. 55082
June 6, 1995
Dear Steve,
I've read the draft of the proposed new Stillwater Comprehensive Plan that you sent me some
time ago and the following are some of my comments for your consideration. Since I'm not
involved in reviewing local plans and ordinances at the Council and therefore not familiar with all
of the current Council policies, these comments represent my past experience as a local planner
for a number of communities throughout Minnesota..
First of all, I appreciate the amount of effort that must have gone into the preparation of the draft
since it is very thorough. Second, I really like the way the plan is organized and the directness and
clarity of the language. There is a good "flow" and connection between the goals, objectives and
policies throughout the plan. Third, I like the way that the plan acknowledges and relates to the
proposed Washington County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Metropolitan Council's
Regional Blueprint. Forth, the section dealing with Community Character is excellent and
emphasizes the uniqueness of each community.
Having worked for Stillwater Township in the past as a planning consultant and having been
involved in many annexation studies and cases in the past, I'm sure that the discussion of the
Urban Rural Transition Planning Area (URTPA) is the most controversial part of the plan. I'm
impressed with your efforts to do a fiscal impact analysis of the URTPA area as well as the infill
areas of the city, given the complexity of the property tax system in Minnesota. I've attempted
similar fiscal studies in the past for some local communities and found them difficult to, carry out.
I realize that these comments are very general in nature, but this is the best I can do. Please accept
my apologies for being so late with my comments.
Sincerely,
a 11
~
c.C. Chuck Ballentine
230 EastFlfth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TIY 291-0904 Metro Info Une 229-3780
An Equal Opportunity Employer
\
,
.
.
'.
.~
~e..- /D I;) 'S/"J
TO:
Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
FROM:
David T. Magnuson, City Attorney
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Klayton Eckles, City Engineer
RE:
Annexation Concerns Relating to Comprehensive Plan Implementation
DATE:
October 23, 1995
The annexation of Township land to the City is controlled by the Statutes of Minnesota and the
laws relating to annexation change from time to time and the changes are often brought about by lobbying
efforts on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Association of Townships.
Currently the laws favor the annexation and development of adjacent Township land into a municipality.
A public policy that is favpred by the current law is that development should be concentrated around free-
standing growth centers and this will help prevent urban sprawl.
INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS
A proceeding for the annexation of unincorporated property to an abutting municipality may be
initiated by submitting to the Minnesota Municipal Board a Resolution of the Annexing Municipality.
There are other methods of initiating a proceeding, but a Resolution of the Annexing Municipality seems
most appropriate.
Upon receipt of a Resolution Initiating an Annexation, the Minnesota Municipal Board must set
a hearing within 30 to 60 days from receipt of the petition by the Board. It is then obligated to make an
Order within 1 year of the date of the initial hearing. There is some question as to whether this agency
of the State is bound to make a decision within 60 days because of a new law effective August 1, 1995.
It is possible that this new law could shorten the decision time.
BOARD'S ORDER
After a hearing, the Board may order the Annexation if it finds that the property proposed for
annexation is now, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character, or if it fmds that municipal
government in the area proposed for annexation is required to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, or if it finds that the annexation would be in the best interest of the property proposed for
annexation.
The Board may deny the annexation if it appears that annexation of all or part of the property to
an adjacent municipality would better serve the interest of the residents of the property, or if the
remainder of the Township would suffer undue hardship.
In arriving at its decision, the law provides that the Board must consider the following factors:
, ,
.
.
:.
1. Population projections.
2. The quantity of land and the natural terrain and topography, including watersheds and
natural features such as lakes.
3. The degree of contiguity of the boundaries for the present pattern of physical development
and land use controls of the annexing municipality and the area proposed for annexation,
including the Comprehensive Plans and the Plans and Polices of the Metropolitan Council.
4. The present governmental service that are being provided and will be provided by the
annexing municipality.
5. Existing or potential problems of environmental pollution and the need for additional
services to resolve the problems.
6. Fiscal data of the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation,
including net tax capacity and present bonded indebtedness.
7. The relationship and affect of the proposed annexation on communities adjacent to the
area and on school districts within and adjacent to the area.
8. The adequacy of town government to deliver services to the property proposed for
annexation and analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through
annexation to an adjacent municipality and if only part of the Town is annexed, the ability of the
remainder of the Town to continue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that if one of the growth options to the Comprehensive Plan is chosen by
the Council, that the City immediately initiate the annexation of all of the Township property between
Highway 36, Highway 96 and County Road 15. The following is the justification of this
recommendation:
1. Present Law. The law now permits an annexation such as the one recommended without
an annexation election. Prior to the adoption of laws 1992, Chapter 556, Section 12, an
annexation such as the one proposed would not be possible without a Referendum Election held
at a place designated by the Municipal Board within the area determined by the Board to be
primarily and substantially interested in, or affected by the Board Order. Such a referendum
requirement made well planned annexations impossible and is a direct cause of much of the urban
sprawl that we find adjacent to municipalities. The Minnesota Association of Townships and
other rural interest groups are working hard to change the law to bring back the referendum
requirement. It is essential that this annexation be initiated under the present law.
2. Plan Protections. The annexation of this area is necessary for protection of any City plan
that would involve the extension of Urban Services into this area. The City would then control,
by its own zoning and subdivision regulations, the further development of large tracts.
.
" ,
.
3. Phased Services. If the City controls the entire annexation area, services could be more
easily phased and extended to accommodate planned growth. This would result in the most
rational and economic provision of Urban Services.
4. Consistent with Prior Plans. Such an annexation would be consistent with both the Town
and the City Comprehensive Plans, beginning with the plans submitted in 1980 pursuant to the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act. These plans recognize the intention of the City to extend urban
services into the area bounded by Highway 36, County Road 15, and Highway 96.
5. Economy of Effort. There would be an economy of effort in undertaking one annexation
proceedings. Since 1978 the City has been involved in 22 separate annexation proceedings, has
gone to the District Court 3 times and once to the Supreme Court on annexation related issues.
Eventually, although procedural road blocks were put before the City by contesting these
annexation proceedings, the City has always, in each case, been successful. It would make sense
however, that one proceeding now be undertaken to avoid the expense and frustration of
piecemeal annexation.
.
6. Miti~ation of Impact. There will be impacts on any property within the
Comprehensive Plan area and if islands of property are left within the Town, the City would be
unable to properly mitigate impacts, since it would not be possible for the City to undertake road
repairs, or to plan or design road improvements within areas in the Town that might need
improvements. Further, drainage improvements might be necessary and it would be difficult to
administer drainage improvements when islands of the Town would contribute to the same
watershed. Further, if the property were all within the City, a fair method of allocating both
general taxes and assessments could be made by the City Council that would balance the property
owner's responsibility to pay a fair share of both taxes and assessments against an unfair burden
or impact upon any individual property owner. Finally, if the City's plan for the entire area is
not implemented, the opportunities would be lost for a comprehensive methodology needed for
protecting environmental resources from development impacts.
7. Voice in Government. It would be imperative that the people impacted by development
would be able to come to the City Council to voice concerns and to be heard by representatives
that are elected by their neighborhood.
8. Prevent Urban Sprawl. If the property remains in the Town and can not be developed
within the foreseeable future to an urban level, property owners within the Town and within the
Comprehensive Plan area have suggested that they will develop their large tracks into 2 1/2 acre
lots. If this is done, it will seal off any further City growth, since it is unlikely that Urban
Services will ever be extended into such an area. An adjacent area of 2 1/2 acre parcels, that
remain in the Town and yet consume Stillwater Urban Services without paying for them is not
in the City's best interest.
9. Prominent Physical Barrier. A prominent physical barrier such as a river or a highway
has long been recognized as an effective boundary that can be identified and respected. Highway
36, 15 and 96 make an effective prominent physical barrier.
.
10. Town can Function. Presently, the Town could function nicely by administering the
property north of Highway 96. This would mean that the Town would control approximately half
a Township and be approximately the same size as both Bay town and West Lakeland Townships.
History has proven that a Town can function nicely with this much territory to administer.
, .
.
.
i.
CONCLUSION
If an annexation were undertaken now, under the present law, it would have a good chance to
succeed, since when all of the factors are considered upon which the Board must decide, they drive a
decision that all of the property is now, or is about to become urban or suburban in character. Further,
the annexation would make possible the effectuation of a Comprehensive Plan that is well conceived and
fiscally sound. It would allow the City government to be responsible for mitigating impacts on areas that
are not immediately proposed for development, and it would allow for Urban Services to be extended into
the growth area in a fiscally responsible manner. It would achieve an economy of effort by having one
proceeding rather than piecemeal proceedings and it would be consistent with Comprehensive Plans of
both the City, the Town and the Metropolitan Council. It would also resolve, for this generation, a series
of planning conflicts that have been divisive to the community and draining on public energy and
resources. Lastly, a prominent physical barrier, such as Highways 36, 15 and 96, would allow for an
easily identifiable municipal boundary that can be readily ascertained and observed either by the providers
of emergency services, or people who come shopping in this area for land.
Respectfully submitted,
David T. Magnuson
DTM/jkj
.
".
.
.
Special Meeting
STILL WATER CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
April 25, 1995
7:00 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Absent: None
Also Present: City Coordinator Kriesel
City Attorney Magnuson
Finance Director Deblon
Community Development Director Russell
City Clerk Weldon
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Revised City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan.
Council held a public hearing on the revised City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Director Russell presented background on the development of
the revised Comprehensive Plan and gave a brief overview of the 13 sections of the plan.
Glen Van Wormer, traffic consultant, presented the transportation section of the plan.
Ann Terwedo, City Planner, presented the community character, and trails and parks
section. City Coordinator Nile Kriesel presented the public facilities section.
City Attorney Magnuson discussed the implementation of the plan.
Council recessed the meeting at 8:27 and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
Mayor Kimble opened the meeting to comments from the public:
Mary Schulte, 628 W. Olive Street, stated that the plan preserves the character of the "
City; the streets are pedestrian friendly with distinct neighborhoods and creative design.
She suggested 10+ acre parcels and tax incentives, small farms and community gardens.
Bob Lockyear, 1016 North Third Street, stated that the plan is well thought out with
balanced growth, preparation for business park, studies of parks, traffic, and zoning.
Burt Rivard, 1209 - 80th Street, Stillwater Township, stated that he has requested
annexation of his property and now is not included in the annexation area. He asked to be
reconsidered for inclusion in the annexation area.
Greg Kroening, 12480 72nd Street North, Stillwater Township, supported an equitable
distribution of land, rather than slicing all into 2 ~ acre parcels.
. ' v
.
:,.
'.
Stillwater City Council Minutes
Special meeting
April 25, 1995
Allen Heiffort, 8753 Neal Avenue North, questioned whether his land is in the proposed
annexation area.
Don Peterson, 7130 Mid Oaks Avenue North, Stillwater Township, stated that 64 percent
of City residents who responded to a poll were opposed to annexation. He suggested a
City/Township election be held.
Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, Stillwater Township, stated that 67 percent of City
residents want no growth.
Barbara Medinger, 8802 Stonebridge Trail, Stillwater Township, stated that in the old
Comprehensive Plan, the purpose was to maintain the character of the City. In 1992 the
City tried to annex six properties. She suggested safeguards should be implemented to
prevent long term self interest of City officials.
David Johnson, 1114 Arcola Trail, representing Stillwater Town Board, stated that he
appreciates being part of the process as a member of the ad hoc committee, but is not
endorsing the plan. The density is unacceptable; there is an absence of a specific
assessment policy; and he wants no neighborhood commercial in the area. He submitted a
position statement signed by the Stillwater Town Board.
Joe Neitz, 7865 Manning Avenue, Stillwater Township, stated that he agrees with Dave
Johnson's views. He stated it will only benefit a few and the rest will suffer.
William Spanger, 12811 North 62nd Street, Stillwater Township, stated that he lives in
the Township to avoid City problems. The township is doing a good job and should be
left as it is. The Township has its own Comprehensive Plan and that should come first.
Mike Gair, 15650 23rd Avenue West, Plymouth, spoke on behalf of the Township. He
stated that the estimated 1200 unit increase could escalate to 2456 units because of
market forces. The estimated 5,000 population increase could be an increase of 8,000 to
10,000.
Bob Worthington, 601 2nd Avenue South, Minneapolis, Evensen Dodge Inc. fiscal
consultants for Stillwater Township, questioned the cost-effectiveness of the plan.
Louise Bergeron, 11123 Quirt Avenue North, Stillwater Township, Superintendent of
2
.
'.
.
Stillwater City Council Minutes
Special meeting .
April 25, 1995
Public Works for the Township, presented information on the impact on Township roads
caused by the plan.
Jean Batterton, 1240 N. 42nd Street, Stillwater Township, stated that 2 ~ acre-5 acre lots
will limit opportunities for people her age to find land in her hometown.
Sid White, 6286 Stillwater Blvd. N., asked about future land values and taxes
Mark Stockwell, Evensen Dodge, Inc., asked about the fiscal impact on the Township.
Jerry Hicks, 10680 North Stonebridge, Town Board representative, stated that the
Bergmans on Highway 36 want to keep their farm property, and do not want to be
annexed into the City.
Carl Brooks, 8640 Neal Avenue, stated he opposes any annexation. The majority are
against the plan, and he agrees with a referendum vote.
Richard Kilty, 118 West Oak, stated there will be problems with transportation in the old
part of town and there are not enough parks in the old part of town.
Robert T. Rutscher, 12412 McKusick Road North, stated that he supports the Township
Board position statement and supports Mr. Kilty's statement.
Sheradyn McClain, 911 5th Avenue South, supports the idea of planning for open space
but does not see it in the plan.
Dave Rug, 1124 Nightengale, stated that Stillwater is the right size now and it would be
of no benefit to the City to expand.
Glenn Thompson, 1919 West Oak Street, asked about costs for growth. He stated that
there is no benefit in annexation.
Hod Irvine, 12525 72nd Street, complimented the City on the process, but stated the plan
does not reflect the input. The densities are not wanted by anyone except the developers
and planners.
Pat Tierney, 717 Pine Tree Trail, wants the school district to stay the same quality.
3
.
..
.
Stillwater City Council Minutes
Special meeting
April 25, 1995
Richard Schubert, 8822 Stonebridge Trail, stated that he is against the proposal and it is
not reflective of the wishes shown in the survey.
Mayor Kimble noted that the public hearing record will be open for written comments
until May 5th at 4:30 p.m.
Council recessed at 10: 10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Possible resolution employing temporary laborer.
Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Thole to adopt the
appriopriate resolution employing Mike Asmus as temporary laborer. (Resolution 95-103)
Ayes - Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays - None
2.Possible resolution employing full-time secretary.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings to adopt the
appropriate resolution employing Sue Thorn as secretary. (Resolution 95-104)
Ayes - Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays - None
3. Levee Wall Proiect
City Engineer Eckles updated Council on the levee wall project.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller to direct the City
Engineer to work with the Corp of Engineers and prepare an additional report. All in favor.
4. Property Purchase at 1004 South Holcombe
Motion by Councilmember Zoller, seconded by Councilmember Bealka to adopt the appropriate
resolution authorizing the appropriate City officials to sign the agreement and pay earnest money
for purchase of property at 1004 South Holcombe. (Resolution 95-105)
4
r "
.
.
,e
I
I
~
Stillwater City Council Minutes
Special meeting
April 25, 1995
Ayes - Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays - None
Mayor Kimble extended condolences to the family of Dave Johnson.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Thole to adjourn the meeting at
10:40 p.m. All in favor.
ATTEST:
fr:Mi:.. l.u~ ~ ~
, l CITY CLERK
Resolutions:
No. 95-103 - Employing Mike Asmus as temporary laborer
No. 95-104 - Employing Sue Thorn as Secretary
No. 95-105 - 1004 South Holcombe property purchase
5
"i.
.. ...
.
.
.
.~
"'c
WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PUBLIC RECORD
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CITY OF STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APRIL 25, 1995
1. Carole Anderson, 1312 S. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082
2. Mike Anderson, 1312 S. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082
3. John Baer, 812 6th Ave. South, Stillwater, MN 55082
4. Gary Bagaas, 1225 S. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082
5. Donna Buzicky, 10777 N. Myeron Rd, Stillwater, MN 55082
6. Barbara Chase, Stillwater Township
7. John Chase, 7759 Minar Ave., Stillwater, MN 550.82
8. Cian Chase, 7759 Minar Ave., Stillwater, MN 55082
9. City of Stillwater Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development & Business Mix
Committee
10. Goerge and Nancy Hoff, 7150 Melville Court North, Stillwater, MN 55082
11. Jerry and Barbara Holland, 12720 McKusick Road, Stillwater, MN 55082
12. Richard Huelsmann, 12610 62nd St. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
13. Duke Hust, President, Trout Unlimited, 820 Old Cyrstal Bay Rd, Wayzata, MN 55391
14. Hod and Deb Irvine, 12525 72nd St., Stillwater, MN 55082
15. Eric Jackson, 422 West Pine St., Stillwater, MN 55082
16. Diane Johnson, 9429 Stonebridge Trail, Stillwater, MN 55082
17. Douglas Johnson, 9429 Stonebridge Trail N., Stillwater, MN 55082
18. Rachel Johnson, 9429 Stonebridge, Stillwater, MN 55082
19. Paul and Gwen Johnson, 12510 McKusick Road N., Stillwater, MN 55082
20. Tom and Sandy Kelzenberg, 12550 McKusick Road N., Stillwater, MN 55082
21. Pat Kennedy, Stillwater Township
22. Gary Kriesel, 1451 Lydia Circle, Stillwater, MN 55082
23. Paula Newman Kroening, 12480 N. 72nd Street, Stillwater, MN 55082
24. Christine Larson, 2580 Interlachen Drive, Stillwater, MN 55082
25. Mark A. Larson, (no address listed)
26. Pete and Martha (Bliss) Lindberg, 808 W. Oak St., Stillwater, MN 55082
27. Bob Lohmer, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, 1826 Tower Drive W., Stillwater, MN 55082
28. Laurie Maher, 3018 Marine Circle, Stillwater, MN 55082
29. Barbara Medinger,8802 Stonebridge Trail, Stillwater, MN 55082 (handouts -
addressed Council at hearing)
30. Metropolitan Council, Tom Caswell, Planner, Office of Local Assistance, Mears Park
Centre, 230 W. Fifth St.; St. Paul, MN 55101
31. Lee Miller, 2962 Marine' Circle, Stillwater, MN 55082
32. MN Department of Natural Resources, Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Rd, St. Paul, MN
55106; Molly Shodeen, Area Hydrologist.
33. Corey Mohan, 1112 S. 2nd St., Stillwater, MN 55082
34. Floyd and Judity Munkelwitz, 8270 Neal Ave. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
. f ,r
;..
Written Comments for Public Record
Public Hearing April 25, 1995
Page 2
.
35. Stephen and Kathleen Nelson, 7770 Minar Lane N., Stillwater, MN 55082
36. Ken and Angie Parsons, 2033 Neal Avenue N., Stillwater, MN 55082
37. Leah and Dick Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks Ave. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
38. Mary Piontek, 197 Maryknoll Drive, Stillwater, MN 55082
39. Mark and Karen Reier, 9454 Norell Ave. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
40. SAEDC, Jim Kellison, President, 423 S. Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082
41. Jeffrey Schiff, 14790 119th St., Stillwater, MN 55082
42. Stillwater Township Board, Position Statement; Louise Bergeron, Supt. Public Works;
Evenson Dodge, Inc., Robert Worthington and Mark Stockwell, 601 Second Ave. S.,
Suite 5100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, fiscal consultants for Stillwater Township
43. David Stone, 12850 McKusick Road N., Stillwater, MN 55082
44. Ann Thompson, 11201 Dellwood Road, Grant Township
45. James and Sheila-Marie Untiedt, 14540 119th St. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
46. Water Commissioners, Board of
47. Dan and Susan Whalen, 1180 Nightingale Boulevard, Stillwater, MN 55082
.
.
compplan.lst
.
.
.
. ,
""
May 3, 1995
Dear City of Stillwater:
I attended last Tuesday's public hearing regarding Stillwater's long range Comprehensive
Plan. I listened to the presentation given by the city staff and would like to voice the
following opinions/concerns.
GROWTH ISSUE
I. fundamentally question why growth in Stillwater is necessary and inevitable. In the
beginning of the presentation, it Ylas mentioned that according to Met Council :;tatistics
the city should grow at a rate orii 00 per year- and since there is no land left to grow in the
city we must expand into the township area. Per my communications with the Met
Council, this figure is just an estimate based on th~ past history and that there is no
requirement that the city must grow by this amount. Actually, the Met Council has the
opposite viewpoint. If the city is fully developed no more growth should take place.
Additionally, most residents in the city and the township are not in favor of this growth.
Both in the city's survey and the Ward network process it has been indicated that a
majority of Stillwater residents are against growth of the city.
GROWTH IMPACT ON TRAFFIC
Another key concern with the proposed growth relates to its impact on traffic. Currently,
the city has major traffic problems which seem to be getting increasingly worse and the
city claims the problems are there and there is no way to fix them. What is going to
happen with this increased population, it will get even worse. The residents currently
living here will suffer even greater. If no solution can currently be found, how will we
deal with bigger problems after the growth?
GROWTH IMPACT ON TAXES
Taxes are an increasing/out of control issue in Stillwater- with increased need for schools,
etc. It was stated at the tax hearing that one of the reasons the city's tax rate has
increased is because it costs more to provide services in the areas farther out. Has this
been taken into account in the estimated $1000 cost per taxpayer that was used in the
revenue/cost-projections in the fiscal impact. Currently it is being proven by other cities
that have grown into outlying areas that it often has a negative financial impact and taxes
tend to increase. .'
. "
GROWTH IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT
Finally, my biggest growth concern has to do with the environment. Ifwe keep expanding
further and further out, what will be left? We need to leave open space and woods for the
animals, children, etc. Let's look out 100 years from now- will the people look back at
this era as the era of greed and social unawareness.
Part of Stillwater's charm identified by both the citizens of Stillwater and its tourists is the
fact that it is untouched. It is like it was 100 plus years ago (an old town surrounded by a.
rural area). Let's preserve the sacredness of what we have.
I believe the only benefit that this annexation will have is to a few township landowners
that will increase their land values. Please on this issue listen to the people. Save our
precious city for our future generations.
DOWNTOWN APARTMENT COMPLEX PROPOSAL
Another issue I am concerned with is the multi-family apartment complex proposed for
downtown. It was presented that this would be a good location as there is shopping and
easy access downtown. Does that really fit when the shopping has moved to the new
business district and all that remains downtown are antique shops, restaurants, etc.? With
the horrible traffic problems downtown (which forces traffic onto residential collector
streets), why would we put a structure downtown to add to the problem? With 200 units,
2 cars per u~t, multiple trips'you are looking at 800-1600 trips per day. What kind of
planning is this? Traffic was one of the major concerns expressed in the survey and Ward
Network report. Why would this even be considered? Listen to the people who elected
you!
Thank you for listening.
, ce~~
Carole Anders
1312 South Fourth Street
. (
.
.
.
I':!.
. May4.1995
Dear Stillwater City Council:
I would like to provide input concerning Stillwater's proposed Comprehensive Plan. The
following outlines my support as well as concerns regarding the proposed document.
COMMUNITY IDENTITY/OBJECTIVES
The starting point ror evaluating the proposed Comprehensive Plan must be the proper
identification of this community's unique identities/values/objectives. These goals must be
the dtiving forces and 1111 pl.Hisible attempts must be made to meet these goals. The goals
should be long term in nature and consequently focus on the end result 20 (ur more) years
from now. The barriers, transitions, interim steps, etc. should only be addressed after the
proposed end result (20 years from now) is fully tested against the objectives.
.
The proposed objectives I1ppear to support the desires expressed by the citizens through'
the survey activity, the Ward Network, and other input. It would be hard to argue against
the notion that Stillwater citizens, neighboring communities, and those in the Metropolitan
area identity Stillwater as a hist~~ic town with a rural surrounding and a truly unique
character. As indicated in the Cumprehensive Plan document, most residents commute
from the town into the cities or other areas. I would say that there are likely multiple
reasons why citizens choose to live in Stillwater (as opposed to the typicwl:luburbs
surrounding the metro area). But I would venture to say that the common reason (or
cohesive characteristic) is the small town charm which comes from tlus lustodc) rural
surrounding community. The goals expressed by the citizens stress: Small town
preservatio~ historic preservation, rural character/preservation, etc. I am pleased that the
Planning Commission recognized the citizens goals and objectives in the plan.
The key question now that the Council members must address first is: do the specifics of
the proposed plan meet the objectives? Before barriers, "so caUed realities", etc. are
assessed, this question must be asked and answered. Ifthe answer is no, then additional
effort must be expended and the community/citizens must be solicited to detennine what
appropriate hard decisions must be made to meet these objectives.
My conclusion is that the goals are sound, but that the some of the specifics do not
match the objectives. The following describes this as it relates to the key issues I believe
the citb;ens are cOl'\cerned about.
I.
!iROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
The questions of growth and development and annexation are difficult questions. I believe
these questions should be answered by looking at growth/development in conjunction with
the key community characteristics/issues related to the impact on growth-such as the
impact on the community's small town character, impact on the rural buffer/open space,
traffic, etc.
1
05/05/95
12:36
BENEFITS 224-2E-30
003
J j\lU a strom!. believer in the conccot of "true" cluster development In ordel' to
nr:esCl'Ye open sPllce and tor the other obvjous efficiency benefits, I do not see that
. t..oncept beln~ utilized in the nrooosed plan. I see some "visuar' non-significant buffers
in the proposed plan, but I do not see the "true" clustering concept being applied. If true
clustering were applied it would appear in obvious flishlon on the maps. Jfyou examine
the plan. you have the entire city and the expansion basically developed- except for a few
very small pockets-this does not seem like clustering and preservation to mc. But let me
examine each issue individually.
~MALL,TOWN CHARACTER
I would argue that small town character has a multitude of dimensions that all add up to a
sense of community. This is quickly being lost with continuous growth. How many
citizens showed up at the Ward Network and other public meetings from Wards 3 & 41-
very few. The recenlgfowth) the migration of the retail stores up to the new commercial
area, a11 seem to erode the core sense of community for this town.
So does this phm improve, nol change or dama~e the character of the town? I would
answer it has a sigtUficant negative impact on the character. It not onl)' serves to
potentially take away forever su~li untouched areas as Long lake area, but it selVes to
take away the rural buffer and lead to typical "urban sprawl". I believe many of the
citizens choose to live here. rather than a typical suburb for a multitude of reasons- but
probably the majority of the reason is the sense of uniqueness of small town character we
currently possess.
IMPA~T OF THE.PROPOSED GROWTH ON OPEN SPACE
In order tl;) answer the question oCthe impact of growth on open space in this plan, one
must look at what other communities around the Twin Cities and aU over the country are
examining. Unfortunately, the realization of the loss of open/preserved space often occurs
after the powerful economic forces of development have been implemented. Look at what
communities such as Maplewood have done in their open space policy-this effort came
ulmol:lt too late for that community. Or examine the ~reRt foreslebt In the St. Paul
area years H20 with the 800 plu~ ,ere Battle Creek Dark and nreserve area to see
wha, ! tremendous impact. I do not believe that the 100 foot buffers and other ideas to
create an "optical illusion" for the automobiles truly address the concept of a buffer/open
space surrounding the community.
.. ~ I 1
i
!
.
!
.~
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
~,_,,,, t..;,_" ,.J"':
...,....).-,
t..""....
J..h_ ~_" .. ....1 ,.c.'co' ,_ _I'C../
c 1
...
I think it's obvious that preserving open space does not come without some sort ofa price
tag. I believe the city recognized this issue with the attempt on the 1 % sales tax.
However) it appears that since that particular funding idea failed, the city has given up on
other alternatives to preserve open space. There are a multitude of ways to make this
happen: the city of Maple wood came up with an approximate $20/yearlhousehold
increase that citizens were willing to pay to preserve open space, there are also various
other zoning, easements concepts that could be explored. I think an oRen snace bond
Issue or other conccpt that specifically addrcsses the open spnce Question should b~
attempted 119fore tull scale develgJ)mcnt is BI'proved. I personally believe that if
citizens were fully educated on that specific issue and if the bond issue was targeted at that
one issue that citizens would be willing tu pay ..some" costs to preserve some of the
town's rural character.
Soedficallv. J :would like to see ~ lan~e sce.ment (at: least 100 Qlus Acres) set aside in
the expansion area (Blon~ with exvlofation of other smallt.- a'-eftS in the existin:
~ Perhaps near the Long Lake area (in an area accessible to the walking trails).
Something similar the Battle Creek park/preserve area, obviously on a smaller scale. This
could probably be done at a l'easonl1bll: cust Hnd would allow preservation as well as
accessibility fOf the community. '.
Unfol1unately, I believe the city has given up on the idea the citizens have expressed of
preserving open space because the one broad proposal (1% tax) failed. Letts try to be a
little creative nnd fullY exulore this befor~ we 2ive UJ). Unfortunately, I believe citizens
will be disappointed after the fact when fuU development comes that this was not fully
explored.
IMPACT ml,TRAFFIC;
Regarding the issue of traffic, I am very pleased with the Planning Commission's
identification and recognition of the traffic problems in Stillwater. Several of the goals
and specific comments on the residential traffic issues demonstrate that the Commission
was listeningl :rhftnk voul
I do, however, have a couple of speciflc comments on this issue that I would like to raise
as recommended changes to the traffic plan. !!irstt J believe we bave avoided the k~
,Bretv Issues Identified by MNDOT with the current (lInn to leave the 1if!l1ted
exchan;es on Hi2hwJLY 36. Traffic lights on a busy and growing highway (after the new
bridge) such as Highway 36 will only result in major traffic accidents. In addition, with all
of me stops, it will likely continue to encourage people to cut through the residential areas
during peak times when downtown will still likely get bottled up..such as on the weekends
during tourist season (I believe that tourism in Stillwater will grow significantly over the
next 20 years). For those of us with children, it will still mean that our children cannot
safely cross our residential streets at these times.
3
05/05/95
12:37
BENEFITS 224-2E-30
005
J would like to see the plan identify that (alon~ with the bride:e solution) there will
J>e specific $tudi~~ldror(s taken to ensure that the do~ntown bound tram~ ~,
~ntOUl'aee4 to travel on 36 tq 95~ rather thon throue:h the residential area~. Plans
are being made to improve the exits at streets such as Osgood which will improve the
ability to exit there. Therefore) I wonder whether (even after the bridge is up) cut through
traffic will still occur on the busy tourist weekends because the design of 95/Main Street is
not being addressed. It appears that if we improve the Osgood exchange and make
improvements to 4th' street, it will only serve to encourage cut~through traffic unless
means are studied to continue to improve the flow into downtown from 95/36.
.
fiROWTH IMPACT ON TAXES
I believe tbat there has not been full exploration of the long term impact on taxes of this
growth proposal. It has been said by many that continued growth and growth in the rural
areas produce a multitude of direct Rnd indirect costs that we are not seeing today that will
likely result in increased taxes and other costs for the community. I would ask Jbal. s,ome
"what if" scenarios and comparison's tQ. other community's' that hl\V~ e:rown like
this be dont.b~fore the "tvpical &rowth" approach to financial impact is acceRtcs!.
SUMMARY (:-PMMENT~
In sununary, I would ask the council to go back to the basic objectives expressed by the
citizens and portrayed in the plan'to see if the plan 1mb! addresses the issues ofsman town
character preservation, open space preservation, traffic problem resolution, and that it
makes logicaVsound financial sense for this community at this time.
.
Please don't merely succumb to today's society which is often driven by short term
thinking and short term financial gains. Rather, please try to put a plan together that
generations 30, 40, 100 years from now can say they were pleased that some true
preservation of this historic community w~s accomplished.
Thank 'You for Ustenim!!
Sincerely,
r;u;t~
Mike Anderson
1312 South Fourth Street
City of Stillwater
I
i.
!
~,
,~ I.J .
.... '..' ,1.1'._' ,.~.. L .....,~<~" ~I
..<~"';,./,:,i"" ,~,' uj: I ~U..." "
~ .. L. ::\.,;'lo'.. :.-;... ... ,,~, 4... '..
· I
" "J
~dJ~ YY1~ ~.
.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, :MN 55082
APRIL 25,1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: -1 ol-\N ~~~
ADDRESS: BIZ. u-n-\ A\JE, $.
0h~~
WRiTTEN COMMENTS:
1?URINU -r~E: "PA.'5T YEAr<.. ':'SE\}E.~~\L 'R~",,"fbt~~: l-'\'t'~E.U':; \N('LLl"b€.b) \-\,&..\JE: INV€~T~ . .
iHI $ ~,..:e.~~.
"
O\\-\E~ -roo\( II4'€ liME. "\0 C.QMfLeiE I>-N)) 'R'ETUltN ,rlt:: INFAMOU.S "~~~VE-'(
r\ Wl-\E::.,J "TA8LlLP.,O -Sr\oWO \t-\A-r '2..13 OF 111'( Re.S'PONb'E.\JTS \;\\S~\t.'b \"0 sE.e ,HE
)&)' Gr\'( "BoU ~"bAR\e~ \-1E\...b W\"tErz.E: 'THe.'( p..v..rt.. (M~\ \-\P-.r^\-'N OF- Tl-\t: ,?L.~N'"
I CoKl-'\ I'SSIO~ 'Re:.(..!.1JiL"1 u.\..\"~ 1Mi' ~ VS2..\J ~ ~ -'I:>\~~Te;:rL'. :t.,' \0$ ~o 'Sf;L.It~
~ "THE' G.oy\~,,?SION t-\,o.s IT~ OWN \J\S\ON pr=' ~AT l~ 'PJC:S'"T Fofl. -rr\r:. 'REST
~S) bu'(t. Wt).,R'b N'E.T\r\oR\'. HELl:> ~UY"\E.'\1-Ov.S MEEiINbS C:::U,-yY\lIJ~\ 1 1\)6-
IN ~ ,E)(("E:LLE.N"f' WofLlLS14 of' p;r 11\~ 'SP-\4~. ..,-~-e: t<-"E.SI)..L"'-S ol==- ALL
'''rh.s Crrrz.E:~ ,tJ PUT IAA~ ?R"!'SC:tS1"~t> 10 -n-\t:: ?~N N 1 tJ,s COt'YlTV\IS~lON
'At.Jb V1:..f2.'1 LlT\l..E:) IF ANY I \=OI..A~~ \"T~ ,Ap.~ ltJ1D It"\~ \)~T ?f..ta..N.
-n..\\ S M,...'{ 'Be: A -::'EL-F\S\--\ ~'fP~O~c..\-\.. ~IM vh.\e~ -:x: "-S't.
'.~ELF IF '""~ ~p..r-\\L'1' \A\l.L 'Bc.N~F\"f FROM l\1'~ T'L,o.lJ }Ti1E p..N~v::idl.
, ,S l' NOll., "PJ.~NN \ tJ ~ ';:iTAfF i-\~s 'PRESt:~ "R'E.\Jt:t--\u,'e: Fl6.U.jte:~ \A~\c.~
:::It:
0- t~-'du ;.~ U: L:bA&
IIA:SjLl\lJ,U.~ lU_!.~,: t-i
6124330456:# 3/ 3
,c
,I
P-rz'2.. t-\\6l~ L '\' ~>U~~6\. l<,ESrt>E.r-rnAL t-\Oll~l t-\ 6 'bo"E:~ NOT '?,b.'1 fen..
\\c;.a~, l..l~ I-\~\I~ "KEIN urJ~'BU:. TO ~~T ~lASI~'(.SSE~ \b 6U~
c,^r~~-r GOMyY\t:::l1."IAt..) l~bUSTRIAL. ~t<a\" e~ OF p. NEW S,<::'H;OOL
I
I~ ,\-\E '?L-~N~\~b. A~ \~ Nt.\JE.1L ME.~-r,o""E'D. 'W-e:" ISO' FeaT IAlbae
~ 'BuFFE:(t 'ti<o'?oSEp A~wrJ'1::> ,Me: v..1EST {tJoTd~ S fbB or ~
'Pl...}\.t-J~) tJ~ p..~ J\t-J\l)uNT~ 10 ~(J\t\\N6t t-'\oR~ Tr\AN A ~6\N6. .p..R~
\I "
~ %.p..b~\u.... ~ T\-\\S 100 /-'oGRe!.. of OPEN sf'A(.E ~lJLh 'B,t:m;)t '&'
U~SD SOKE.IA~(te: ~LSt: .
I
-n-\.~ Gl\'1 of 'Sl \LL.\"\P.TEr'l- ,oS '\?l6. e~O\..\.u,H. LET~ HAve:
,T-\'t; CoI.AR~~~ 0F"""\4 E, f~o?U~. of l"I~~\ Jo.J 'Eo o~ '5"1'. GlaOl)<. ~tJb
~~~ \-H..cq'" WoLl6\4 \ ~ iN 0\A6H- P-.Nb 'S t'\ow, ':b 'E.\Jt.~o?~r;,. i\'tA-T
IdE: LxT'r2..e:~S ,JILL Kp..\l.( II-\-~. bE.l.-\SlON'S ON How ~'fL Cl'T'(
\J\LL LooK,. '.:e~\~6 A 612Dc..e:ra.i S.TO~ ~IL t:>owJ-.JrowtJ
~Lb "Bf. A 6c::ob <''''~'2.T i T\~EN c..O~"~N~"Te oN T\-\e:
F~\ '-HJq \t-..) FErt.S rV-U.G-nARE: .. "Tr\AN\L 'I au .
.
.
.1
I
~
.
.
.
.. ,
I
Gary Bagaas
1225 South Fourth St
Stillwater; MN 55082
May 5, 1995
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear City of Stillwater:
I had the opportunity to review Stillwater's proposed Comprehensive Plan (1995 -
2020). I agreed with the majority of its content, particularly about keeping our city
a separate and distinct community and deterring urban sprawl. I would like to
express the following concern.
GROWTH: I do not understand why the city has to continue to grow. All city
residents I have talked with think Stillwater is big enough. This concept was also
communicated at the 3 Ward meetings I attended.
In the early 60's, my family moved to a small town in Southern California, namely
Huntington Beach. In a way it could be likened to Stillwater, as the town was
nestled up against the Pacific Ocean, much the same as we are along the St.
Croix. The city of then 12,000, maintained an old town charm, with a nice little
mainstreet surrounded by kept residential areas. It was bordered by open
spaces and farm fields which kept it II separate and distinct" from the Los Angeles
and Orange County Metropolitan areas.
Today it is a cement jungle of 120,000 plus residents, consisting of condo's, strip
malls and 4 lane roads. Sure, maybe the California climate and style of living
promoted large population growths, and maybe the topography and different
politics was conducive to such development. But I also think it was because the
city let it get out of hand.
I think the plan for Stillwater won't let it get out of hand, providinq growth is
controlled and not considered to be inevitable and a necessary element.
I appreciate your hard work in developing the plan and for listening to my letter.
Sincerely,
)1"1 V ~
Gary Bagaas
.-
<" I" I
" .
'Pea.,,,a .1.. 8(Jzi,~~
~7~~~
10777 N. Myeron Road
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(612) 430 -1254
..
G~ I~I
P ~ - Yo0 ~ J,'t.. d.L. ~~-\:
~ ~ Sf\\J'C.D. ~t-L ~ _O()t.lt\)E0[LOP/llf~'
~ ~ jQ.. ~~ o:th<-c .A.-~:JS ~ ~L... ..Q~~ ...
3x ~f ~~~ ~~ '-/~~ ~ '-'~'\.;~~ ~
. J::W ~ ~ X" ~ -1~ M /h-M-C
4 a. ~~ ~,
cct ~~ C~ 2~ ~ ~ I -~ ~~
~~~n~~~~.~~
-Jv~ ~~ dU ~ o..O..Q JL~ ~ CL ~~
;~_. eLL. C-UAA..;:h ~QL~ ~.... ?L 0~)
~ ~ ~U-4<\ _.Jck .:t~...:, ~ ~:)j ~ ~ .
~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 0aIL\'~,O"
~ -*:L.; ~ c~. (~~ ~W .JL{.~~ -^-u~Q
~~.~~~~~c~~
!~ ~J: ~ \rJe{)D(!,01l-J CYL. GI'\\LMLc .~
"~h~~~~I' ~L~
CL'f-"'-'J
29 t99S-
I
.
.
:.
April 27, 1995
Mr.May~,r and members of the Stillwater City Council;
I grew up in the 81. Croix Valley - Bayport to be specific - then moved
away after college to Hawaii and Canada. While living in Calgary, Alberta,
my husband and I had our first child. We knew at that time where we
wanted to raise him and any siblings that may come along. So we moved
back home to ''the valley" and a small but lovely two bedroom home' on
three acres of land in Stillwater Township.
We have since had a daughter and recently added a third bedroom to
our home for that reason. Our family is distinctly middle class - both
parents working to keep afloat - we love our life, our home, our
neighborhood and school. Our complaints aren't many. But now, for no
other reason than the distinct greediness of a few landowners, our lives risk
being adversely changed forever.
We stand in oppo~ition to your Comprehensive Plan for Annexation
and see it as serving the avarice wishes of a few when the greater majority is
against this overblown, threatening and debilitating type of excessive growth
and development of rural lands. We support growth - but at a natural and
varied pace as the township has so thoughtfully mapped for the area. A plan
that the Stillwater City Council would be wise to revisit and support., lest
Stillwater lose forever the charm, character and "small town" feel it is so
cherished for.
The citizens of this area do not deserve to be driven from their homes
due to exorbitant assessments. The people will not support bond issue after
bond issue for the 3-4 new schools that would need to be built. The people
cannot afford the property tax increases for adding more fire, police and
maintenance personnel, vehicles and buildings. No, Mr. Mayor and council
members; excessive, large scale new development DOES NOT pay for its
self. We don't need another strip mall!!
In closing, we ask that you reconsider the Comprehensive Plan
proposal that you have set before the public...think long and hard about it's
negative impact on our beautiful lands and then with courage and
forethought - reject this plan. Say "NO" to annexation and be remembered
as the city council that saved Stillwater!
Barbara Chase
Stillwater Township
~.e.: 100000000k\ P ~ro. \ ~n. ~. &n(~
"
~
. .
" ....
~
i
.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Deparanent
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRil.. 25, 1995
STILLWATER cOtvfPREHENSIVE PLAi'f
PUBLIC HEARING
NALYfE: . -.-Y; t. fi 1/ (' J;q ~ ~
ADDRESS: 7/)1 JJJiJi'i'r ~(,'e S-6//tt,d..r 'by!
WRJ1TEN CONfMENTS:
Si:;j/u -;1.",. di-4/!(/ /,,
.
....
./ ~-?,;r {. .#.-'--""'-", .h. ~~ l;6 A~~ /k /'~/P~
./~4M-'< ../ ~,;~ ,h---- r' //k17 , M/.e r ~
J~ (//?~.'J- ~// (~~.-d ~// c-d'~:.d.&1.. ;z:;:sI/ ~~
d
II II ..6....,d~ Ik ~
A~r ~rl.-t-(?--- ~~'_F
( ,t1 //,y"""...I!.,;G C~ ,/~.z4. ?(, p A-u. .4<.2'.4.<..,.:-1
t7 . (7
~ ,.d?' A> '--'fr.A<l. U'<..J? AfYJ .A' r -? c-;;;;l.-LA^
, / '
_ d'"~""" A .b/~ ",A ,('T.#~: ~yr /If ~
d A'"~<'4J' J ;!/~</~ #. / ~/, /' /~-f
~ ~ -<' "O'y'l (.Pj-./~~ - ~4 r-"~a.. " /-""CA',;h ..
d~ (~..6. /_<>,,?./~AT -'" b!)~'~'
cJ'-J-~~/~Y~ ~ T~(/?-Y#
.-6 ~_~/.. ",-,,, 9~-U':J ~r ~ b,# ~ .;;G.4? J
o '
~-ir~ A p",~"jJl Air -"~- -r./ ~.? . <.#..-/~ ~
- /. /'
.
~.
\, ~~" 0
~l R ~ '& ~ f-.'t; ~ \
' 'I-~, ~~ ,_ ,,~ ~
"'" "i.. " ~ '" , '
t '-\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ .' ~
, 11ll~ ~ . ~ ~ 0 . ,~
~1~\' ~ ~~1 !1~ ~
~\ 0 ~ ~ ~. 0 ~ '1 I,
~. '~u '~'>.' ~ \
\", '~o f ~ ~1' ~ ~ ~
K ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
} 't~ t~~l~~
~ \ .~ :0' ~ {i t
~ ~'. t t ~ ~
{ t ~ . f ~~ l} ..
~ ~ ti ~ .
~ ~~ ~o ~ \ . '\ ~
fi~L ! tl it
'}. 'If' \ '" 1 'f
~'\~ o~ ... ~t
on ~. , ~ o~ ~ i
., 1-
.
',.
. .
.'
.
" .
.
"'"
~ "
"
i
-
.1
.'
APRIL 25, 1995
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 Nortl1 Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
STILLWATER COIvIPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: C i an 11/ ChaSe. 09- e 8 ~~
ADDRESS: 7 71; q Mi()/l l' A. \!, St i L [. 'vVo,ter
fLE::/.L - f/.lJse--
\//') /./ f1 /L-- t/ ~ t :/}
I " I.
\;l/ e L [ Y r5 ~ PT/} () V't/
11./ ,~-r --I- 0 h Vt~::../ t 1,1 ·
\ ,.,,/ :: I L
. ,
I /1 '~/ ,.,/,
/''t ,.'! ,.-
;,.
)VRI1TEN coMMEfIS:
ilty:
..
De (lJr-
.
1-1 P r"/ r~C. '. 1- ,>i ,f.'
- .', ,
t 1''/) 0 - ...1-', ,-' I
" I r . -l ~ '. t v- '{-JL /
C u+ ,r//) 0/r).
)
we n-P .(.J .",-/
-- -...........
o h c: ( j r()../"
. r /'))
~,1 "<:::::.
M J" .., v' ,~;
( J ,! i. .J
.., I
I. ,-,
I' "'\ -..
, ,
,. .. ,.....
.. 4' ~i.._~.
-'-
,
,
I
-I- J .-,;
.... "
~ j I' ,:'
f y,p p,(
. -".
./ /~. J' ,
, '
,
-- . ..
f" :
~:-." (~'
I ~ 0 (& {, /'I
f J, , " .- / .
.j'
(7
~ ...
I .' 1'" 1"-
j .r :-.' . f.. .
I'. ... ( / ~.~ :..:J
.' . -. ..
.
! /:,-
i..,
UL -'~ /
' I .-,
'..' _l"" i~ i" . .
i
Y'
, .
I:, !.-
j
.+-
("",~ /:..,.J-
~'.. .
. ;
0".
I' ........1.. ,'. .',
;! ,:,:;!--f
. .
r~p
',""'" i
1.....
'.i~.~
7" ...
.J ,.'
-I )--,55 e
i.
h .p " I . ,..:~.:t.
I_;b~/ C;(/y..
I j) f-:-{ \/ -f' 1/
.
tt'CI.f
f -
.' , . /
r r) !.
../
-
, "-'" "
,
a .l') i
I '7-
/; J .::/
. ,,::}
(l
~ dr;cr)"
}) (ILI/t
I
L., (l
,/'" I , .' 1'-
c., r \, ',:-'.''A l
//~! . /el
./
\' 1/ )- j /,,;1-
.
..
-1., I.,. ' ;.i..
t, . " (
, ,
;:.~ "'7
. ,
it
....L .~l"',
,. :./
/ ({ I/~ ~,I
,
~.: \. //""/1 I
~ ~~ '/. '.
l '~. n Vt:':)
'-' -.
Jl .l- ....,'
, In'" -- I '
vi.... .: /' 1 t..rlr ,,' ._,-,!~
.,/
~/- < /;)!. J.-.,
I,. /,. 1//
f..J'
j
-I ;11 r~p ,,;
~ /-'n V"
, ,-
1 / ' ~ -. .........
l~ I 1/ ,:" .,
. '..../
() yi /"./
. '
J. ~\ '
;/ i . \....:..
, '" t
T I(~I -/(
,I
-r'" ,
; '>',
0- ~. I
" . ':l\ ' , ..
~.l }
/' !
...' r,
'-
. :- J
f I
..j. .
Y.~!L
'f . ?
. .....\ '. ,-".
f 1." /'l ~.-'
. I -"
..
( -0 /ll-
() ~
. (' ~/) (t:~.!J /
.'
I I . .
~I'
"~"I ~ ....
pnrnrx . .
ec J 1 1 ~__..~l_~~___~__I~____..:._-~J_--______1
- --------- ---- - .
-~-i~riFS~WATER CHAMBER OF .COMMERCE
City of Stillwater
216 4th Street North
Stillwater MN 55082
May 2, 1995
Attn: City Council
Subject: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1995-2020)
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject plan and file our
conclusions and recommendations with the city. You are all to be
commended for the effort, as often... "\~e never plan to fail, we just
fail to plan!"
.
However, we do have concerns and we would like to share those concerns
with you. It begins in Chapter 3., with the identification of land uses,
"Commercial-Community" and "Business &/or Commercial Parks." Both of
these land uses have a commop end - eco~omic development - however, the
means or track they follow-may be different and distinct. We request
that the city provide for greater differentiation or separation of these
land uses and particularly as to how they are carried forward into
Chapters 5. and 11.
Economic development, good sound economic development with a plan, will
probably determine the success or failure of this plan. Stated another
way;
"Quality of development opposed to Quantity of development!"
Some of us live in Stillwater, some of us work in Stillwater, some of us
are property owners in Stillwater, some of us are all of the foregoing;
but, we all have a common goal - that Stillwate~ be the best it can be, and
we will be supportive of anything that enhances that outcome.
In Chapter 5. and 11. you have co-mingled "Community-Commercial" with
"Business &/or Commercial Parks." As stated earlier, they must have
greater separation. We think that the community must "set-the-table" for
these uses, such that we are assured that the desired outcomes of "Quality
Development" are ultimately realized.
.
Therefore, we recommend that the City of Stillwater form/create an economic
authority/commission/corporation - with both a public/private component
that will look at the desired outcomes and provide the mechanisms for these
desired events to occur - rather than getting all tangled-up in the codes,
rules and regulations. There may have to be concessions or agreements reached
that heretofore have never been considered. We must move beyond the "Tax
Increment Financing" mentality and investigate other alternatives that depend.
upon the outcome that is desired, such as'- Tax Exempt Municipal' Bonds,
.
2.
.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(1995-2020)
cont'd.
General Obligation Bonding, Revenue Bonds, perhaps low interest rate loans-
in partnership with local lending institutions and possibly grants or even
foregi veness programs, etc. \~e will have to provide a "menu" from which
our customers can select the proper mechanism(s) for achieving an optimum
outcome for their particular application(s). We must have greater
flexibility, be more adaptive and responsive, a more proactive posture, if
we are to be competitive and successful in this mission.
With the recent curtailment of the Stillwater Area Economic Development
Corporation's activities, this request has even greater significance.
In addition, if the A-2 scenariowere to be adopted, the need would loom
even larger on the horizon. Therefore, we would propose joining the
council and staff in the development and preparation of this innovative
plan, providing for the future needs of economic development in the City
of Stillwater.
We thank you in advance for taking the time to consider this proposal and
we look forward to your affirmative response to this request. We are
peprared to take the initi~l steps in the development of this very
formidable task. .
.
Respectfully,
cc: Committee members
.
< .
.
.
.
May 1, 1995
To:
Mayor Jay Kimble
City Council Members:
Gene Bealka
Rich Cummings
Eric Thole
Terry Zoller
George and Nancy Hof
7150 Melville Court North
Stillwater, MN
Proposed Annexation
~?
From:
Re:
We are writing in support of the Stillwater Town Board's position in the
matter of annexation of Stillwater Township by the City of Stillwater.
We have been township residents for sixteen years and are loathe to see
the character, beauty and open spaces of the area turn into high density
housing developments, industrial parks, sixty foot wide roads and strip
malls. After attending the public hearing on Tuesday, April 23 we would
like to add our concerns about annexation to the record.
They include:
a. At the meeting on April 23, City Attorney, Dick Magnuson, said
the city looked for natural boundaries in the annexation process. Looking
at the attached map you may agree with us that Long Lake and the wetland
preserve owned by the State of Minnesota are the logical western
boundaries of the City of Stillwater. Those features run north and south
from County 12 to Highway 36 and the natural terrain denotes the change
from urban to rural setting. The road narrows, curves to follow the
shoreline and little could ever be done to accommodate city traffic
without damaging the environment, the lake, and the historic John R.
Goff/Archibald Jackson House which sets at the top of curve. The western
boundary, County 15, set by the city's plan seems to be an arbitrary and
capricious decision, designed only to increase the tax base. One of the
speakers at the public hearing used the term, "land grab."
b. The County 15 buffer zone with 100 feet of greenway on either
side of the roadway is not an acceptable buffer - particularly to those of
us living in an already rural area. A buffer set one half mile west of
current Long Lake residents (all of whom live on five or more acres) and
which sandwiches larger properties between two high density housing
developments is neither orderly planning nor fair to current township
landowners.
c. While the planners and the plan. summary itself discuss
preservation of the character of Stillwater and its historic areas, never
once was preservation of the historic Rutherford Neighborhood mentioned.
The neighborhood, which has an old and rich history, included twenty six
historic houses, fifteen of which were or are located east of County Road
15. The neighborhood also includes the historic Rutherford Cemetery. Was
any consideration given the impact of the proposed annexation on those
properties? Were any architectural studies undertaken to assess
annexation impact on the integrity of this neighborhood and its remaining
houses?
d. Although the Comprehensive Plan discusses the necessity of
preserving the character of Stillwater, new, tract, high density housing
will not add to the charm and unique character of Stillwater as stated in
the plan. Certainly new housing developments and convenience stores will
not contribute to 'maintain (ing) Stillwater as a distinct community
district from surrounding areas' as stated in the Plan. The township, as
it is now, is a far greater asset to the Stillwater area than the addition of
high density housing areas will be. Stillwater residents will only
experience more traffic, higher costs, and increasing urbanization under
annexation. When residents and tourists alike think of Stillwater they do
so in terms of historic houses and historic areas. When driving guests
through Stillwater, how many of us head toward housing developments to
share the charm of our area?
As township residents we mourn the direction Stillwater is
currently heading, and not only on a personal impact level. Strip malls
along highway 36 are unsightly and add nothing to the charm of the city.
With annexation, we fear the continuation of such haphazard building
patterns which could eventually leave the area looking much like the North
St. Paul Highway 36 strip. We are also concerned about a scheduled
convenience store now planned for the corner of County 15 and Myrtle
Street. The township has chosen to restrict retail establishments within
it's boundaries. It hardly seems fair for officials who do not represent
township residents, and who have no responsibility to us, to make
decisions affecting our environment, lives and property. We are,
literally, victims of annexation and increased taxation with no
representation.
Recent planning and zoning efforts by Stillwater have not been
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
particularly successful from either an esthetic or traffic control poin~ of
view. A drive on highway 36 is not a recommendation for extending the
same kind of land development in the township.
. e. Much as we would like to see the township remain the same, we
know growth will take place. We recognize, too, that large landowners
have the right to develop their properties. Four landowners favoring
annexation stand to make very large amounts of money - but at great
expense to the majority of township residents. (It should be noted,
incidentally, that two of the five people speaking in favor of annexation at
the April 23 hearing are children of one of the large landowners. Neither
disclosed the relationship, nor the fact they have a direct financial
interest in the proceedings.) Under current township laws these same
large landowners may still develop their property. The Stillwater area
can be the richer with private development, using the current township
two and one half acre restrictions. Houses need not be one of five or six
look alike designs offered by one contractor. Good examples of private
development to review are Lake MacDonald in Lake Elmo and the village of
Sunfish Lake.
f. For township residents there is little justification and no benefit
resulting from annexation. It was mentioned at the hearing township
residents would receive police, fire and library services as a result of
annexation. These services are currently provided at an adequate level
through the township.. If library use by township residents is a problem
for the city, township residents can be asked to pay an annual fee, a book
by book free, or use other Washington County Libraries. A third
alternative is to assess the township for library use. As a frequent
library user I would support any of these alternatives. . If the city believes
the township is not paying a fair share for other services currently under
contract, they may either refuse to provide the service in the future or
increase fees when agreements are renegotiated.
The downside for township residents, along with the loss of a rural
setting, is a substantial increase in property tax, a forced hook-up to
unnecessary and costly city water and sewer services, and increased
traffic. Of direct impact to us personally, we find a proposed park and
bike trail cutting directly through our property as well as through the
properties of all residents on the west side of Long Lake. Is it the
intention of the City of Stillwater to condemn and purchase our land and
houses for park use? If so, along with others, one of the oldest and most
historic properties in Minnesota will be lost. It seems inconceivable that
Stillwater residents would support such a purchase when existing city
parks and roads continue to need attention. .
The Stillwater Town Board has taken a strong stand against the plan,
and it is only reasonable that those most affected by the annexation have
a voice in their own destiny. As much as we love Stillwater, those of us
who live in the township do so by choice. We have chosen to live in an
area where houses are not crammed in, where curtains need not be drawn,
where horses may be stabled, and where a dirt road, enjoyed equally by
Stillwater and township residents, is completely tree covered in summer.
An English visitor who was recently with us called the drive on the north
end of Long Lake 'magical'. It is this atmosphere we do not want to lose.
It is difficult imagine why anyone would choose to destroy it.
In testimony given at the hearing it was mentioned a survey of
Stillwater residents also opposed annexation by a 67% margin. Since the
validity of the survey was questioned by one of the council, perhaps the
City of Stillwater should add the annexation issue to the next general
election ballot. (The action can be compared to the recent city vote on the
one percent sales tax increase.) We recommend the town board also hold
an election on the question of annexation. If the majority of both city and
township residents continue to oppose annexation, proceedings can be .
stopped - to everyone's satisfaction.
We live in a beautiful area. Please, let us work together to keep it
that way. We need to remember what Carl Sandburg wrote in The Mending
w.au. "...good fences make good neighbors."
Thank you.
pc: David Johnson, Town Board Chair
.
.~
4 Li ~_._._. .L..-- ",-r . 'lb' '\~ -- -- ----
.~ ~~~/77/.:-"1 \i~o"d- ~~r\L..-2.J' ,V~
".;.,.,~" .~..'"./'J 'I!:";i;"," ..,." ... , V - .
,~~~~t~:'";;h'!~o~~.i~4~'~~,J: ~O .,> r ~~~~ t~
. :!>~ F'~' '">" >:lo<<;.,~;;,,;' ;)il;::"''',~~'' vA. ' '" · .,J
'I!! ~~ -; .:::i:.~':.:~:::&.,' ~O..r~? ........ ~ "..'I \~"h;" Q(, ~n (;1 ~~~~
, <. ......."... ......", ....... .. ~ "_ O' .
I~~" 'l: . :::::.%O\;-::::::::::::~:::::::::: Q ~ iii... .~::. 0 . ~ ~
'5<3 '. ";~o"FiS;:~,,,Hboa'!'<' , ' t ~ .~. "
:........ ; \~~f";~~~ffO"N~: _ ~ ~ \}Jr?4k\, ~,,_ '" .~. ~V:.
"....... j,~ ~..;;.,.;;.;;;;...;; , ." g~ I~J"G'! :i""~ <- / ~. .- V
H~~~: L~;'<~2 ~~~. ~~) ",I. ~~'.'",~.\~;:" ~.~~;~. ~_ \\.". /..~~ <t:.:...~~~~-:?
~~~; 1';;>\. ~~ tilt . ~. ~ 'f'C,'j;;!''): i " ',:)' ,Xf:'-: /~ .J1-;:1"':';' r
~~~~~~; ~r.:::::: :J./OZ:;O;;J.. M -.I ~ ~ 101 :t~~>li.'.&' - , ~..~ ~~~/~ 1~'~d ~ ~
........ ",mw- ._==M'.... .,""",., . _~..,...,........... " , . ~...... ". l' I~'~ -.... .~.. . .,' , ''Or "")., .... ..... 0
.................................,.MII.,..,.,.:....:.,.,.:.:.:.:.,.:.....:.. ~ '!N~"'" ,,~: .... ~ . ~ .,' ... 0
"" l: ~ ~ 0, 0 ~ t ~ b' ,n ~ - ~ ~ ffi':,'",',' ,:,.,. ..'.. i"",, I , 5l
<l . 1 . ~ . . .. ~"' 'i ~. ,'..r>' . ""i""", ' · "'..." ." ~.t '.. ~;..J
~'<)" -SO I)", ,~..,.t't'l;)"'~ ~I.t' lO.,. ~ cu.? ..;;;::;r.:tJ~ '. I -- -.. ~1\0)~r. "i'!:: .:
" .. t ~ ;)" tI s:;-" \1_:) " 'J"'. , IV:::'~ .... : A"""~ ~ ' '-,.: '" . f--
,,~ ,-t:1 t,)o_~ "I,. lI)~~ :s-- Q'o_'" ---'~ ...~'\l..... ....... /,,"," If') .~':'.-1 ~.
~'" [') ,~"" . ," _ . " _ ~"'"' ~ 'H' 'A' ,"''''' 'V _,' ",...;!'. " '\.1. . "."" ""',.. ,. · '" == =
'k '" ~') "" . ~ .,u ~, =' Q ,'''M~O/' '....,. r T , ,_,.',. """ ,.,,, d,':"": "':. ., ,. c
q J. \..: ~ <.... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.) II) "13 ~.l ~ 1I\~\l ~ ,~ll~~ .6j"g 1 ~V~ .~:::;: ~~ .\n i.}-:\ .:..;;:: ;. ~ ~ .T:-::\)~ :::-, ::.U · .iT ..1 C\I .:>
,. . _ .;" '. .'''' .." 0,'" "-" IN..... ,.::'I~'::': H,!f~ ~S~,c ~L",:,,;':' .'"
.. . ~ <_. o~;;-,... 'A . ,,,,,,.,,,,. .. "'A. ..." ,,,, ., :" '1..." ",""'..'.,.'" , ...... .....,.'< . " . ,,"."""'.
..~ ' ~'t.; ~ ~ I ;C; ~ ~ J~l ~:: ::~ '1i ~ ~. ~, /:;:'::::':' ':,.t':~,::"::.':i;i ,"'::';;:;".::::;':,,;,:,: ':'::':::';,,,!:'
o \ij" Q i it ~ ....~1 ~ ().. :..:::".::...1... 11. ~~ ...... ~;0f: .".;';':. ';!;'g",!::,,!':':''"' ':. ..::. ;'-:.;": .," ;,:..,:" .,... Ii: ':..::;:! i"i,:~:ii: ~ ......
~ ~.. ~ "r;r t~~ ': ~ ">,,~ ~~~ G <;;>HH/~ ~ ~r~' ]li..... .:: ~ ~~( I.~;: """;:!':~.: ~.. ",? . ~~~::;~ .. -', . .,. :;;;. n" ~~ ~.~~~:
u , \)- Ii, '. . > ~ .~. . ................. a" ;'! ..." '; vn/" h~ /a~.> ~.. .. II ';,", ""'''';''''; , .' .. , '" ... .. .
t .. ..... 7' . . . .,',' ....... "."" ;.7/n,,/<,/.< ~ //' ,'" .j i '~, -T......
~~~~ \~~ ~!llll '" .1-I$:~~'l~~:I~I-.I.. J~!. ,177~~t,i::ll~~:II;!tl:~,'!:f9J II ,.., \~ .OA.l,!}v(iiJS(lf}NJ
Q ...1/1(' "'rl.\' }__V. L.::t~ "l :l"IJ. "rn:1I~ .Jc;r:/.oi .'" .,..... ;..;. ".:.:."...'.
. ...., " < '" ' '" _' " l- ..", ""'N _" < < " '" , - U " -J ...."'...."..'".".",."
';;;'.' " .. '..." -' ';;;' 51>"' ,~" '....~~" "" 1 ~ W, ' . ,';...~ .0. ' . " ", ,.,.' ".' ",'.".,;....
~ ~~ f!:~: ~0ft /~'I~f>Jf>:~' ~, ~ ,:i~!l'" .;~~' '!fJ~ ;-~" .j .'T.;"':' ~;: 'IA",. ~
r-.~ ~ nfpO' ~ ... ',hQ 1m '11'1'1 t' q; * :> ~ ci~~cO.: rt3J1i s::l [...,,~ __ . ~ ~ ~ ft.M;.J.t1'MR.mR
.loI1:~ y,j< _ ..~i'l.'I" .,.l~.' ~ ~..~~ r~~J:.~, ~ ~ Q ,,~.l:i. ...:_~~~~_." <..J -_\~ . ~~~....., ~
.~H' . .~. ,. .., "'AX' ",='. ....... ~",' ,,"";~ ~/'" -'" --~ I ~ - vi' ''l
'~_H~,~~ .... ~1')l.jjjV ~~' "\ij~' :~:t~~:..i:::rvt:~:t,7-~'~~o ~III'~ -"",Q ""/f-&- . --I i!\!!,\"i~ r ,. ~ ~
'," '" . ~... , ~JU \ . . " '';".';'~ ..... & ' /" J~~m,71$ " .." .. ;t;:.:/.\..
Il ~'!.,J.~. fu.I ,,~~ SS.~ ':> ~ 21:::: w :':~i1~: 3~ ~ :: '>.':':: ;.~ , <:' .' :" "_"'I?;",~t -' ". 'f.. ",'j,;,:; ltJ \i
~\:, .~.l/."" . <llll'/j ~ ~ II SL. LE~ u....H ~ .";"""",.."';" . A ". ';;I~.~tl' __7_ _. ::;:\:.. :.:.. :.~......>'/ L ~q
~::~1i~b #1,' ~ ~O~, ~~ UOS-Ul{~';t ~":;.Jr';~Q... .~-ci ./,". :.7~~ -- j!.;tr',' ~.;II~~ r-. . '::; .::..;. "..}. Rid: \ ~'
"'O'~ ,"~~ . ,-'",", .'p/>o/,.W_.-' .. 0"""'1'1;;---:;' .' ."' '''0
.~ '. ~~ ,",,' '0' .i'" UUb', , , <~ ''-,' ~'M >.e "A' , '"'~.. ':~~l\I' . ., '....." \ ~8
~f ~ ~ ,,~~~~;,;~i~~~i;~ I(~~"~', }~ ~.~ ~ h ".l,y~ (/) "ill::!::::::j' i\'C\\',\\ "\":\\::\\\:;.\1 .: ~:~tll ~ r
".~ C\l 'ao"l \9~.~ ~ \J ~ ZZ!!{ ~i ~~~J~,l~~ I ...tlr ~ ~ 1 i\ a~,..;;~"; ''\;w .,1:,,!'!,::,! · .~,,' :t1 ., ~
~ I . ~~~ ~.j~~ 'hi ~ '" q. .' ... ~.; '< d~~~!I>'l~"~" . ~i~~ / ~
~ ~ ,~~ 1 'i' ~"l"t.\), () M '-;; . ~ ~~r :J;) ''I:''~~':: ,:;~%rt '< '~\.>;," , ~ ~lll:: al~~ ~&~ ~~ - ,-_li~~!' ~U ~ .t
~ ::::':' :.: :::::......::::~:: .<i 7/ ,..,_. '" t \oj II ~.]~ .JII: ~~ .~~ i'\'" 7 · 7t~... ......,~-f!MO ti / ,- ~ nt~""" . , :t ~
'-.:.:-,:'. '-",,:1 ~::::9l"!S::'::~:: l\:~' /" j \);. _) ~,,1" ~~. ", ~ t' ..' , .. . ,-,' ,..,"'OJ"" , . uou ""IV fiNO' V "" ~ ":Ill Jr V>. .. 'J- · ·
~ ~". ,,;a. "~.'!..:.!.. ,. ~ ",. .' w Oj~ .. "'~ 0'- -:.':;; '0 ~ ~ t . ,. . """''IS'" ' p~~ P/ !/~ ,..,'Z -.~ ..""""<' CO t6 ~ ~,
."~" ~"~"i1"'~"" . .'''' <Ft ~",,,,,,,.. ~ r;.~ n '" _ ,""1_.... 71h-H ~ ~ >.' -. _ _ <, - -. un' "'"""'~. 'l:
_ '~~~a::::::1 . ~il'd~ ~ ~~~~tJ;J -'f~:f i-"'Iloji" t.'t~~~L 'ltDJ!::~ ~i~'-;~1o)1 .~~.~~.~ 7". ~(?"'.2L J;;J u..'gJ~1 "A: ~ ~
.~ ~ WtQ"j:::IJlI.~! \~~ ~ i'\ " ~~.,at~ I/;f?~~ 'ftJ1 ;/~~ ~~~ ~ ~:t~ ~ 10 ~ ~!,:?".l - ~ "'~.10~~~:\ ~ ~ ""'J ~ ~"V~-'1Cb''/,>j~1 ~~ r ~ 0
J'<. 'V.. .. ..,.,. 1~" li) ~ 'Xi.~~ ::>r d' J,y lJI.!J. ~";;"r:- ~IV'" ~ '1 '''l:.:TIrr . oIl!t.. ."QCl;r ~ l'-': ~~~ ,~>.(;:' ... n:... ~ it' ;y it..... ~ 0
r or or' ~. ." ......ff '" '00.' '0'" ,.., ,nr ,'$<' ,,.,,,< ., "" ~ ,,..,,; ."" ~_. 0" r "".- ,,,, .. ,.' .,,, ..J'~"'"'' ~ ..,""" 1!1 0
'(" L:.J N ., tJ9~d tJtJS ~ lit ~"' SH'HN"" I!l!
o
o
o
!
.
.
.
,
< t ,
.
.
.
May 5, 1995
City of stillwater
Jay Kimble, Mayor of stillwater
stillwater City Council
RE: Comprehensive Plan
This letter is to express our concerns and opposition to the
current stillwater Comprehensive Plan which proposes to annex
portions of stillwater Township into the City of Stillwater. In
addition to the fact that neither the residents of stillwater nor
the residents of Stillwater Township support this annexation, we
are concerned with any proposal that allows for a few landowners
and developers to change our historical and rural setting into a
profit center for a few.
other issues that we believe have not adequately been addressed
include:
- Transportation/traffic flow problems have not been
addressed. The proposed plan calls for dumping huge traffic
volumes on existing township, city and county roads that
cannot handle the increased changes. Boutwell, McKusick and
Owens are examples.
- The proposed housing density for "small lot, single family"
and "single family attached" would again only benefit the
developers.
- Fiscal impacts on current residents of the township and City
are not addressed adequately.
- We have also heard that the Stillwater Community Development
Director has proposals from existing developers that are
different from what were presented at recent meetings.
Based on these concerns and other issues not properly addressed,
WE OPPOSE ANNEXATION!
SinCerelY~~
Jett B~O~
12720 McKusick Road
Stillwater, MN 55082
,...
:
.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
V,,~ " PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:-Lf tJ{tLtt( L. Hu -&(.r r/lui H V\
ADDRESS: /2-0 (0 102-~; sr!rC-c:}T NcJtrH'\..
WRlTIEN COMMENTS: 2.. f-, 7 ( 1AJtL.f=e\/'-' I rn N sro f &-
~-K_ #rl~~~JL-.
.
.
.
.
.
, .
RICHARD L. HUELSfv1ANN
12610 62ND STREET NORTII
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
April 21, 1995
Mr. Jay Kimble
412 West Elm Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Dear Jay:
Very shortly, Stillwater's City Council will be making major decisions concerning Stillwater's
Comprehensive Plan. I have attended a number of City and Stillwater Township meetings
regarding the proposed plan and I have reviewed the "City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan-
March 30, 1995". More recently, I learned that specific development plans for the area west of
Long Lake have already been prepared in great detail and are "all set to go" as early as late
1995. Then, the April 20, 1995 Courier reported that the City Attorney has already prepared
the "annexation agreement"! This is very disturbing, especially when the detail plans appear
to reflect the very specific desires of the landowners and their out-of-town developers in order
to maximize their financial retu'~s--and not necessarily following the Plan's stated overall
concepts.
Attached is a detailed analysis and commentary that I have prepared. I hope you will take the
time to review it. Following is a summary of my concerns and recommendations:
· Overall Plan objectives include preserving scenic corridors, natural features, semi-rural
character and large trees, and any development should be compatible and complementary
to adjacent areas that are already developed. With these concepts in mind, the Council
should change the proposed plan to:
(1) Eliminate the commercial use at the southeast section of Highways 12 and 15-there
is no need to provide more scattered retailing.
(2) Change the proposed "smalllot" (four lots per acre) for the areas (a) just west of the
south end of Long Lake and (b) north of Long Lake to large lots (preferably two acre
lots) to be compatible and complementary to the respective adjacent areas already
developed with 21/2 acre lots and expensive homes. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a
suggested land use for the area west and north of Long Lake.
.'
(3) Move the proposed "trail staging area" (parking lot) from immediately southwest of
Long Lake to just east of Manning A venue.
(4) Adopt a provision that requires that any changes to 62nd Street North preserve
all the trees and its maximum width not exceed 24 feet.
Page 2
April 21, 1995
(5) Adopt a provision that prohibits developers from forming II associations" to allow
residents of the entire area to have access to Long Lake-a "meandering" lake that is
privately owned by the adjacent property owners.
The Plan states II Explore methods of reducing the financial impact on annexed. township
residents who do not need or want city utility services." The Council should deal with this
issue now, in the Final Plan, not leaving for later. I have the following suggestions:
(1) Developers of parcels requiring city sewer and water should be required to cover
all the costs of supplying these services including the extensions from existing
services and related road costs. Existing homeowners on a street that is used. to
provide the extensions should be exempt from assessments.
(2) Existing homeowners should be required to hook-up to city services only when their
on-site systems fail and -require replacement At that time, a "hook-up" fee could be
charged. Since the developers would have previously covered the extension cost, this
fee would be new revenue to the City which could be dedicated to parkS or other
specific use.
In the Plan's background section, it states that II . . . families with two or three children
dominate recent (area) growth. . . II - that's four or five people per household. The Plan's
assumptions all use 2.65 people per household. If four or five is the experience, the projected
impact on schools, traffic and infrastructure are clearly understated and the actual impact will
likely be far more severe, particularly on the school situation.
The City Council really needs to slow down the annexation process until the Planners find
reasonable solutions to the many, many problems that are so well identified. in the Plan.
Similarly, the land use plan as proposed should be reconsidered in light of the many fine
concepts identified in the plan. The land use, particularly for west and north of Long Lake, as
proposed reflects the desires of the few who will stand to benefit financially in a very big way.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope you will read the attached commentary and
analysis. My comments above obviously have focused on those areas of most immediate
concern. I am sure there are solutions for the good of all, not just for a few. You have a tough
job. The preservation and enhancement of Stillwater's uniqueness is in your hands.
Very truly yours,
Attachments
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
.... .
Analysis and Conunentary
of
Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan
Very shortly Stillwater's City Council will be making decisions concerning Stillwater's
Comprehensive Plan, also known as the land use management plan. As a long time Stillwater
area resident (52 years in the City and more recently two years in Stillwater Township), I have
overall concerns for the area as well as concerns over how I, and others, might be very
personally impacted by any decisions.
First of all, I believe it is important to have a comprehensive long-range plan. Third, fourth
and fifth generation Stillwater residents know well what has happened since the 1950s, not just
in the City, but in the area-where each political subdivision has done things without
consideration to the overall Stillwater area. There should be joint planning between the City
and Stillwater Township; there should be a joint effort with Oak Park Heights (and Bayport .
and Bay town, etc.). Instead, we have ended up with a sprawling proliferation of disjointed
retailing on both sides of Highway 36 with many huge underutilized parking lots, the necessity
to drive from one store to the next, the abandonment of the downtown area by business that
served the residents, resulting in tourist retailing that attracts thousands of people, but adds
little to the area's overall economic base. The reality of this is borne out by the lack of funds to
take care of present city infrastructure- the streets, sidewalks, the parks, the ice rink. a larger
City Hall, no holiday lighting, etc. We also have Stillwater Township with significant
development that is different from "city" development
The growth the area has experienced since the 1950s has not provided the revenues needed to
maintain, let alone improve, the infrastructure-in spite of the fact that property taxes are very
high in comparison to the overall Metro area. The revenues from growth probably just covered
the costs associated directly with that growth.
I have attended various City and Township meetings in the past two years concerning the
Comprehensive Plan. It has been difficult to learn what the facts and real issues are, and
rumors abound. I now have read the "City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan-March 30,1995",
hereinafter referred to as the "Plan".
While the Plan covers a broad range of issues, it appears that the Plan's thrust is to provide a
foundation for the City's expansion in Stillwater Township and, more specifically, the area
west of the City, north of Highway 36, east of Manning A venue and south of Highway 96,
hereinafter referred to as the liT ownship Area". There seems to be an underlying premise that
the City has the right and entitlement to this Township Area. In fact, very recently I became .'
aware that specific development plans for this Township Area have already been prepared in
great detail and are all "set to go" as early as late 1995.
The Plan covers some issues quite well; it also identifies specific .problems, but then does not
provide solutions to those problems, and proceeds with recommendations, policies and
programs that in some cases exacerbate the problems that do not have solutions. For example,
the Plan proposes significant density housing in the Township Area (which could result in a
30% or more increase in the City's population), identifies major current traffic issues with
existing core City streets (but no solutions) and ultimately recommends the high d,:::nsity
housing anyway.
.
It is difficult to know what the facts and real issues are. However, I would summarize the
situation as follows:
. City planners are determined to have the City expand into Stillwater Township.
. It has been reported that a survey (which included enough residents to have statistical
validity) showed that over 60% of the City residents were against any expansion.
. It is quite clear that almost all the residents of Stillwater Township are not interested
in "city style" land use-multiple housing, four lots per acre, commercial
development, etc.
. Stillwater Township, particularly the Township Area in question, is alreadv
developed to a considerable degree along standards that are significantly different
from "city" standards-therein lies the majority of concerns and problems.
.
".)
"Long-range" is a misnomer regarding the comprehensive plan-the rumors are that
at least three of the owners of major land parcels in Stillwater Township already have
agreements with well-known developers to commence developments with as many as
four lots per acre as soon as the land can be annexed to the City. We are not talking
about 4,000-5,000 additional residents in 2010-2015, but 4,000-5,CXX> additional
residents in 1996-1997!
. The Plan seems to be based on concepts and desires of specific landowners and
specific developers who have dictated the specific land use to maximize their profits.
.
The issues boil down to the following:
. Should the uniqueness of the Stillwater area be preserved or should it be just another
sprawling suburb abandoning its heritage?
. Should a few landowners (some of whom are clearly speculators and some of whom
plan to leave the area) and out-of-town developers (who get their way, do their thing,
make their dollars and then leave town) be significantly enriched by allowing high
density use, while most of the added costs for additional services that are required ,.
will be taxed to all existing residents? A 30% increase in population will require
significant expansion of services-police, fire, public works-and, in particular,
schools and jails. To provide schools for 2,000-3,000 more children will alone result in
several more buildings at costs ranging from $20 to 50 million! The City should not
ignore the impact of its decisions upon other taxing authorities.
.
2
"
e
.
.
..
· Should existing homeowners in Stillwater Township be subjected to substantial
assessments and significant declines in property values - people who made
investments in homes under one set of rules and now the rules are changed? It is
unlikely that most of the existing two and one-half to five acre parcels can be now
subdivided into 10 to 20 city lots.
· What about the impact on "historic" Stillwater? Traffic is already an incn:.)slng
problem on the main streets-Pine, Third, Myrtle, Greeley, Owen, Fourth, etc. What
about the need for a larger City Hall, more public works buildings, more fire stations?
There is no easy way to solve these p~oblems. The Plan identifies these problems; the
Plan offers no solutions.
· Is there any significant interest in an industrial/business park west of County 5 by
businesses that provide other than minimum wage jobs? I think not- for several
reasons: it hasn't happened to any degree in the current business park; our State is
totally unattractive to significant business expansion (there are many examples of
companies moving to the Dakotas, Texas and Wisconsin); there are many other
business parks with plenty of space and attractive incentives more strategically
located near major interstate highways and the airport. More free standing "fast
food" restaurants and stand-alone retailing do not appear to be needed. In fact,
numerous suburbs and cities are currently questioning, and fighting to not permit, the
kind of development Stillwater recently approved-the so-called "power malls" -the
giant Cub/Target typ~ ~omplexes.
· The undeveloped land in Stillwater Township will be developed-the issue is in what
form and how fast. It's not an issue of whether it is annexed to the City, it's an issue
of zoning-of preservation or dramatic change-of slow or explosive growth-of
gradual need for more services or horrendous immediate tax increases for schools,
jails, police, fire and public works. The need for township residents to share in "city"
costs such as for libraries and parks can be dealt with in ways other than annexation.
· Finally, it's an issue of whether the people, the current residents- both City and
Township-have a say, or do planners and a very few landowners (who could
become very wealthy at the expense of others) decide the fate of an area that has a 150
year history of being something special, something preserved-a community in the
real sense-not just another suburb.
By this time, I have taken more of your time that I had planned. However, I have attended a
number of public hearings and it is very difficult to express one's views in that forum. I have a
great deal of interest for Stillwater, its history, its people. That interest has been expressed in
many ways-recent examples include my extensive involvement in the restoration and
expansion of the Saint Mary's Parish complex, the Hope House facility, Stillwater's 150th
Birthday, and the careful development of "Myrtlewood", our family home for forty years _ a
project, by the way, that became necessary because of the changed environment in what was
for many years a "rural" area in the City that was allowed to change.
3
.
The" orderly annexation" of the area bounded by Highway 36, 15 and -96 west of the current
City (hereinafter referred to as the" Area") is probably inevitable. I respectfully ask that you
consider the following suggestions as you deal with Stillwater's comprehensive plan as it
relates to the "Township Area" as defined above:
.
· Prohibit any commercial and industrial development in the Area, except for a narrow
band along the Highway 36 corridor. There is no need for commercial sErvices at
County 15 and 12-commercial in this area is inconsistent with the many worthwhile
concepts advocated in the plan-the preservation of space, compatibility with adjacent
use, etc.
· Prohibit any multifamily housing (townhouses, apartments, etc.)-these belong closer
to public transportation and services. (It is hard to understand why the upscale
apartment project proposed for north of Highway 36 and east of Greeley Street was
denied. )
· Phase-in development; otherwise in three years there will be 2,000 new homes placing
horrendous burdens on schools and other infrastructures. In the background section
of the Plan, it states that" . . . families with two or three children dominate recent
growth. . . " - that's four or five people per household; in the statistical sections of
the Plan, 2.65 people per household is used. The plan's assumptions would appear to
contradict the City's "recent" experience and significantly understate the likely impact
on needs for services, ~chools, etc.
· Phase-in should be sequenced based on proximity to similar development- for
example, the only parcels currently directly adjacent to "city" style lots are in the
northern edge of the " Area"; these should be first approved.
· The entire "Township Area" should not be allowed to have "four lots per acre". In
particular, the parcels west of Long Lake should be developed similar to the north and
south of the Lake. All one has to do is look at the success of the Lake McDonald and
Cloverdale Farms developments to attest to the desirability of this type of
development-the preservation of open space, the high taxes these properties
generate but with a significantly lower use of services (schools, in particular). The
high taxes contribute to the overall area, not just covering the costs of services used by
the new home owners. It should be further noted that some of the Twin Cities area's
most desirable neighborhoods have two to five acre lots within their respective cities
(for example, sections of Orono, West Bloomington, Wayzata, North Oaks,
Deephaven and Bear Creek).
· Existing development in the "Area" was based on entirely different rules and
concepts-two and one-half to five acres with on-site systems. Existing homeowners
should not be subjected to unwarranted financial burdens for duplicative
sewer/water systems. Rumors abound that "a deal" was struck to not require certain
sections north of County 12 to have city sewer and water. This exemption should be
extended to other similarly developed areas such as the 75th StreetIJackson Farm
parcels north and northwest of Long Lake, Parkwood Lane and the 62nd Street area
.
.
4
.
.
'.
(all areas where it is very clear that it is not possible to split the existing parcels into
city size lots). The Plan identifies the problem; it states "Explore methods of reducing
the financial impact on annexed township residents who do not need or want city
utility services" (underscoring added). The Council should provide a solution as part
of the plan and not defer this issue to later debate. .
· Developers of parcels requiring city sewer and water should be required to cover all
the costs of supplying these services including the extensions from existing services.
Homeowners who happen to be on a street that is used to provide the extensions of
sewer and water service should be exempt from assessments and exempt from near
term hook-up. (For example, my on-site systems were constructed about two years
ago to County standards - by far the most stringent in the state and was designed to
last at least 50 years - all at a very high cost)
· Existing homeowners should be required to hook-up to city services only when their
on-site systems fail and require replacement At that time, a reasonable "hook-up" fee
could be charged. Since the developers would have previously covered the extension
cost, this fee would be new revenue to the City which could be dedicated to parks or
other specific use.
· Preserve 62nd Street's "country lane" status with all the overhanging trees. This is
one of the most beautiful roads in the entire metro area-requiring a road of city
standards necessitating the removal of thousands of hundred year old oak and other
species is totally unnecessary, especially if the land adjacent to Highway 36 is to be
developed with a modem frontage road (which it must have) being only several
hundred yards south of 62nd Street If anything is to be done with 62nd Street North,
the Council should embed in the Plan that the trees be preserved and the road be
restricted to 24 feet in width.
· I t is rumored the owners of two of the large undeveloped parcels west of Long Lake
are proposing that the homeowners in their proposed developments (as many as 600
to 800 homes) would have deeded access through an "association" to Long Lake.
Since the earliest of times when lands were transferred from the United States
government in the 1840s-18605, Long Lake was deemed to be a "meandering lake"-
without a defined shoreline. Accordingly, the lake is private property-the deeds to
the lands surrounding the lake specifically describe property lines into the lake. To
provide access to that small lake for 2,500 to 4,000 people via some sort of
"association" is absurd and imposes adversely, and certainly unfairly, on other lake
property owners who paid dearly for their properties. Permitting such access results
in unfair enrichment to some at the significant economic detriment to others.
· One of the concepts embedded in the Plan is that whatever is done should be
compatible and complementary to that adjacent thereto. One proposal shows a "trail-'
staging area" on the southwest shore of Long Lake. Is a "trail staging area" a fancy
way of describing a "parking lot"? Certainly a parking area in this location is not
compatible with and complementary to some of the most expensive homes in the
Stillwater area. The "staging area" should be moved much closer to Manning
A venue.
5
· The Township Area just isn't large enough to provide for large lots and small lot densities
in such close proximity. In particular, the "smalllots" (four per acre) proposed for just
west of the south end of Long Lake should be changed to "large lots". Similarly, the "small
lots" proposed in the area north of Long Lake should be changed to "large lots". In both
instances, these changes are necessary to comply with the Plan's overall guiding concepts
of "compatibility and complementary" to adjacent areas-the adjacent areas are both
developed with 2 1/2 acre minimum lots and very expensive homes.
.
· Attached as Exhibit 1 is a "land use map" redrawn to reflect more "compatible and
complementary" use of the Township Area (rather than the proposals of the developers out
to make the most money).
Any high density development west of Long Lake has a negative impact on me. However, I
am not the only Stillwater Township resident subject to adverse impact I do not think it is
unreasonable, in fact it is only fair and economically just, to not subject a number of Township
property owners to unnecessary declines in property values and excessive costs for unneeded
services when the primary result of such actions is allowing the certain few to make millions
upon the sale of their lands-lands zoned as rural for over 150 years. The overall concepts of
compatibility of surroundings and preservation of the natural beauty are in the plan; the
specifics of various land uses do not follow these concepts.
I urge you to consider what the J'esidents of the City have said and what over 90% of the
Township's residents have said. Don't be swayed by planners and a few landowners who, in
reality, are the only ones who will be benefited by high density land use. Think about what
hasn't been projected-the costs of more schools, more jails, more infrastructure and the impact
on the "old" city; think about what already is in the City that needs repair, replacement,
upgrading, enhancing. What about programs to rehabilitate deteriorating neighborhoods and
parks, more effective use of the industrial park, consolidation of retailing, etc.? Don't approve
a plan that identifies problems, and increases those same problems, but doesn't provide for the
solutions. Don't approve a plan that raises the right questions, but defers the answers to the
future.
.
Don't approve a plan that provides for instant annexation, without providing in the plan for
those current Township residents "who do not need or want city utility services". Don't allow
for more disjointed and dispersed commercialism to dot the countryside.
Don't get too comfortable with the positive "fiscal impact" studies. At best, these are guesses
about the future. Look at the results of previous development growth and the City's current
financial needs. Growth may not provide the financial windfalls desired.
In some respects, the best course of action may be to "slow down" the annexation process-
this is what the whole Plan is about-until there are realistic solutions, to the extent there are
solutions, to the many problems the proposed Plan has identified, but ignored in proposing
specific development. The Plan identifies the area west of Long Lake as a "Special Study
Area", but then proceeds to propose detailed development plans-where and when did the
"Special Study" take place? Will there be a "Special Study"? Or was the "special study" the
work of the landowners and their developers?
.i
I
6
.
.
I.
Recently, the local newspapers had some brief articles about the "old prison site" becoming
available for some sort of development. I would have expected that the proposed
comprehensive Plan would have dealt with this site in a very specific way. I had a dream-
what a wonderful way to create a renewed "downtown Stillwater". I dreamed the area had
been transformed into a major retailing center for Stillwater residents-I parked the car, walked
on a real sidewalk, bought groceries at a Lund's (or Byerly's), walked next door to the St. Croix
Drug, the Stillwater Bakery, to Kinsel's, a new Kolliner's (with men's and wom~~l'~.>;, bought
paint at a Thompson Hardware and, had coffee at Reed's "counter"! All within an hour and a
haIrs time, with one stop of the car. When I woke up, it was back to reality!
Think about that dream; there might even be a way to have a new City Administration
complex there; imagine, people strolling about not getting run down by cub carts or cars,
home-townspeople being neighborly and friendly, not being rushed, tied-up in traffic trying to
crisscross 36 to go from one dispersed retail site to another.
Attachment
7
'\, ~I 0 II:> '/S
\"i
..I-
-&
Q
<l
. ,~~ ,'r_ ..WH_..._o_._
! !l" ~!,lll'\ '''''''''''ro----.--
i" IHifl~~ ~JIIl'U!nrm m~~r"""'.. -
! t "I: : il'!. ! I ii ytl'!J!! . ~ 111'! hUlUH ~ii (a
~! "I '+ I ~ J: fln~ ~ I Ii Ii ~llii!!Jl'ni =-0
H "I! ! ""~ I - i I I II nfi[[ W In~ : ~ g
1 I' i Hi l i I . I! "g ~ a. ~
.,;,1 19" ' \ I - ~r-~
2 I ~l~ !~:~,ll !~& ' : I ~ ~ 3
i 'I!' '. !",:;!!!E! !~"!' . ~ a. ~
. . lb-,'? .. . ....,,"ell"-.-'. · ~ c ~
~ .....~..~~e 8:G~ki~G"e...llIt: A. el ~ il1.~I!l;lSl:sii~~~gg:i en Z
.."" ,.,,'!' . ,,_ .. m"
..............~ " l::iIlll:&e~-- .. .
.. ........#~~~!~~~~~b~2-NP~1I. -.,,3:
. .. """,.":ll -".{;
.
.
': ~ ."
~'. .
!;.
"
/
-.If :'
__.,.J
~-... .
\
~~ ~
p.j~
~
('t)
~
~
~
, .
~
"
'i-
.
-
, I .'. ~ '" ""1 !. I ~....
.
.'
". c'.' ~c.:i
'~"'" ~"l fl ,.'.. ~., ....
I .
I l' .... . ., '... I . I ~ ' ~
.
" !
! t.
.. J. .,:
..
1995
Community Development Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
Nile L. Kriesel
216 North Fourth street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Kriesel:
Trout Unlimited takes very seriously the threat of loss or
degradation of any trout stream. This is especially true of those
streams in the Metropolitan area. It has been our experience that
changes in zoning that increase the density of residential housing
have been disastrous to the viability of cold water streams.
.
We are in the midst of a very long and very costly legal
battle to try and save Eagle Creek in the southwest portion of the
Metro area. We may well lose this battle, but we have learned many
lessons. The main th~ng we have learned is to get started early,
before development plans have been started and personal positions,
egos, and attitudes have solidified. We have also learned not to
give up, it may not happen with Eagle Creek, but in many.cases the"
state or federal authorities have come in at the very last minute
to save a valuable piece of real estate from any development.
It is our hope that you give serious thought to
implications of annexation of the land around Browns Creek.
is exactly the type of area we have fought so hard to keep
development around Eagle Creek.
It is our hope that a very low density type of development
could be worked out for this land. The best way to ensure this
might be to leave it under control of the township. No matter what
course of action you decide, we would be more than willing to work
with you, the township, and the landowners.
the
This
from
.
Sincerely, .
)J(,'/~~ jl~~ . ..)
Duke Hust ('/' 'I" /;. /,>:-/(.) <.- 7.,/ j!,:;JJ IcY
President ~./........ of... L'i" ! ;(""7./ / ./(. __ ~_
i ; .\~l' / '-I 1/' j-,) . /l//' /\/ z; J:)
(/ L/ I - 1 <,. , /1 .......
)
DH:jlh
-::-%' .
'. (/
.J I
America '" Leading Coldwater Fisheries Coruervation Organization
Washington, D.C. Headquarters: 501 Church Street, Northeast · Vienna, Virginia 2218~ . 703-281-1100
r;prvrt"s'S l bu I- NO
-.1J / '
o &\. '\ Tl-12.. rD / c< v, t.1. I\,.1 L./ (0 t^1 v4 r S S (C./ ~
tv) k i/I5-leV1,;iA~ f-o ~
! n0 V-/- i-/>!/w AL.? reS/L-1e tV+ .
~~ueJ I LV~f{1 fJi2f ~,A) ~ / ~
-)\,~ /,,~, . ~1~1t'l.~.(V1l:'~ AI/lJ./ -kJ.AJ'A Y\I1 e~~.'~v'~.?-
- l
I - J . II U I \ f ' /
, I.'),' J ( Ll l"b /1/ b 1l.,t? r2l -tc {'\, './),7
, I.' (' /
Y'v iA I C~,CvfC~ vk,~ /'V'\.fC..V\S ~ l+~ ~D 1/
C, \/IV\-<-I" -+t 0 '" 6, Lv "0 ~\;~ .., (~ QkLd", P Iw:..W'l[ ('-, t:i(~ M~_
.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRlL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
.
NAME: !!oj t Deb /rul/UL
ADDRESS: /2525 ?;2WdSL
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
~
Ov~ +[11(.. ~c~ kC(",~ ~V\ ~~
COo ~~ _ 0...;.11 ~. B(C\.VI:'",'1 9. ~
\ 7 _' -t L f.!eMCtI.\'VJ
01C<Vl(l C'. w f~ToL..J"'Lf ~""$
k- 'ljrdf~ ~ or; ~. If~Q,^I\I~Y
./ '7 /
Q..NtA.. I
.
//)
C- ~e'J
&crZJ d
O!l\L
C::;f?e C~{\
.r'! . J/ l~
f......' l, ",,7/ I c-
.
&
~
~
~
~
~
~o
\J
.
) \~ tt",-<
is. (lj-r-~~L ~~ Z-l)t~~p{
~r-- d~~~o_,1j f=' -
4-t ~ "'u f-fi " 0 ~
c\a1'e .' r?'- ~\A.L- ~ ~f"
(kW.:Lft" ~O~ / We.. I l~f
, \ / / f
. -'irt '"\It(.' (, .
I, .
4 c:~~-~t'\
._0 ) ,.j I
V ,c)-t;t.~1 L.:t L-<{2_j
a+-2.SA-C~.S
\J \'~'f:. \J'- ~-Lt.
d0
~-
C-E-
.
, IO~~~f:e. =~ [k.IS~~J
~ ~j t0~ Sfa(t'-, b-e~ U,YlYLQ;,C<4..-ti....,
~ep 2.5 ~C~ - ,--~11 ~-QV\s';-;b<
<.
.1
.
.
.
,
,
{~}-
0$
<9.9$
Community Development Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater,1\1N 55082
3 May, 1995
Dear City Council--
I moved to Stillwater in 1993 with my wife and two small children. We moved back to
Minnesota after spending five years on the East Coast. I have also relocated the company which I
joined (and am now president of) to Saint Paul from New Jersey. In addition, I am president of a
local company named Minnesota Mercantile & Land Company (Stillwater) which operates a
vegetable farm, an orchard, and two country stores in Chisago County. We moved to Stillwater
specifically due to our knowledge of the area and all of the good things that we have heard about
Stillwater's community spirit and family values.
Since we have been back I have become very involved in the current effort to craft the
Twenty-Five Year Comprehensive Plan for the City of Stillwater. I have attended virtually all of
the public meetings on the subject, including the Planning Commission meetings, and have been
active with the Ward Network. We even had a little ad-hoc meeting of our own with Dave
Johnson (Stillwater Twnshp), Gerry Fontaine (planning Commission) and several members of
the Ward Network. My point of telling you all of this is for you to understand that these
thoughts I am putting forward are not knee-jerk reactions to what I heard on Tuesday, April 25th,
when Steve Russell made the formal presentation of his plan to the City Council.
The Planning Commission has worked hard to get their hands around the difficult task of
planning for the future of the local population. Nobody is an expert in this field, therefore it is
very important to involve the citizens affected. I believe that the Commission has seriously
missed the mark, however, in terms of its understanding of the people's desire to remain a small
town. Mr. Russell believes that growth in Stillwater is inevitable. It is inevitable only if you plan
to grow. The 1993 survey told you emphatically that this was not what the citizens olStil/water
wanted, and we voted you into office to protect our desires, not to mollify the City Planner. What
has been presented to you as the Comp Plan simply ignores this fact, while the City Planner
continues to behave as though he has a popular mandate to grow Stillwater beyond its current
boundaries and in defiance of the overwhelming call to "preserve our small town character".
The lack of imagination used in this proposal is frightening. It is basically a regurgitation
of the plans that have been proposed by the developers wishing to build houses
fencerow-to-fencerow in the northwest comer of Stillwater and the adjacent township area
referred to as the URTP A. This is not what we want, and I am not speaking as a lonely citizen '.
out here. There is a very large group of City and Township residents who are adamantly opposed
to virtually every aspect of this Comprehensive Plan, primarily because it is not comprehensive
and appears to be the plan of one individual primarily focused on growing Stillwater.
As you go through the Plan, the objectives stated at the beginning of ~ach section give you a
good feeling. But as you read through the policies and all of the rhetoric you begin to realize that
the objectives are only being stated to pacify the citizens concerned about maintaining Stillwater
the way it is. Very little in the way of firm planning has been done regarding the current city. All
of the effort has been spent in dealing with the "growth area" that the city planner feels is
inevitable. This leads me to wonder why have the citizens spent so much of their precious time
trying to convey their message of sincerity and commitment to the small-town concept when the
City Planner simply follows his own agenda anyway. It's time to point this project in the right
direction.
.
The Comp Plan is perhaps the most significant item of local legislation you will vote on
as Councilmember. Many of us have thought that a referendum on the issues raised in the plan
would be very helpful to the Planning Commission and the Council. But in meeting after
meeting we have been told by the Planning Commission and the former Mayor that Minnesota
law does not permit "advisory referendums". We have therefore explored whether a non-advisory
referendum could be called to repeal, if necessary, any action of the Council approving the
Comp Plan in its present form, only to learn that Stillwater is one of a handful of cities in the
State that does not provide for the right of referendum in its Charter. This is too bad. Although
the Charter could be amended to add this right in order to take these issues to the citizenry, this
should not be necessary to strike down a policy that is opposed by virtually all the citizens who
have been asked and should nev~r be put into law in the first place. Please hear me when I tell
you that the citizens are opposed to growth in this town and will definitely not allow the Comp
Plan to be adopted as proposed without taking further action.
-
At one point in this process, I became somewhat committed to the concept that the City
needed to annex part of the Township in order to allow for orderly growth and make sense out of
the extension of city services etc. But growth is not necessary at all--or desired. Whereas I am
opposed to the concept of consuming 2.5-5 acres of real estate in order to build a house because
this denies the use of precious open spaces by the public, Dave Johnson ( Stillwater Twnshp) has
told me that the Township is very willing to consider using the 8/40 or 16/40 density concept
coupled with the cluster housing concept. This would then provide for large open spaces that
would be common areas for the local residents, while allowing the Township folks to still feel
"in the country". This would be an excellent solution when combined with an aggressive plan to
preserve open spaces and create a greenbelt through a parks system around Stillwater. But it
wouldn't sit well with the developers, who clearly have their own interests foremost in mind.
It is important that the City Council take charge in this matter and send the Planning
Commission back to the drawing board with the directive to plan according to the people's
wishes. Use your imagination and creativity to craft a plan that implements the objectives of
maintaining small town character while preserving open spaces and improving the local
infrastructure. This will be a far more important legacy to leave this town than simply taking the
easy way out by declaring that growth is inevitable and therefore we must plan for it. Let
Woodbury grow, this town wants no part of that. We can maintain our separate identity, but only
if we are proactive and put our foot down now. If we wait, it's too late.
e:
.
I make a special plea to Terry Zoller, council member from my ward, to consider all of
the things that I know he has heard from the citizens because I have seen him at the meetings.
And you too, Mr. Kimble, with all due respect, have been present and have heard the people say
that this is not what we want. Think about the large meeting last year in the SAHS auditorium.
How about the input stated loud and clear at the meeting held in the SAHS Symposium Room.
last fall? Please create a way to find out what the people want if you still feel that you are not
sure. How many signatures do you need in order to receive the message "Stillwater does not
want to grow" ?
You are an upstanding body of publicly elected officials. You can choose to do the right
thing as requested by your constituents. Alternatively, do not be surprised if your constituents
seek other remedies due to your refusal to help us. Planning to grow better rather than bigger is
not necessarily easy. But this is your call now. Very best ofluck.
.
Just Another Voter
Eric H. Jackson
422 West Pine Street
Stillwater
cc
Jay Kimble-Mayor, City of Stillwater
Terry Zoller-Council Member
Richard Cummings-Council Member
Eric Thole-Council Member
Gene Bealka-Council Member
Dave Magnuson-City Attorney, Stillwater
Michael Zalk-Oppenheimer, Wolff, and Donnelly
The Courier News
Stillwater Gazette
i.
v.
.
.
.
,
,
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
cIa Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Still~ater, MN 55082
APRlL 25, 1995
STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: J:l ~.ft,e ::k1'Ln5c)"y\
ADDRESS: qy2.[ t"Jh~rl'cL;S2-;AJ
". "
.-~
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Shl\~"'krl;s ~Y-~4"'-~~ f(~ ~ll
Se~~ ~~\oy-~ ~ ~ 'h
Sh U~ f14J.... tb .5t.<./r~ LUr-M--.
, - ,_is ~ 1I /l^-c-r h. ftt.!M!- t~ ~ Iaue.. db
ShLL~. ~I~ u.:u ~-hYl'\iGRr-~h-1k
rOJ(- Ago lo't-I.l~Vx"5 ~~ (.r~-tte-
\M1-~ d ~k ~ W~~I 5-!~i f{)~ /
~ A 0 o......,oL rcR07J-f 5.. .
- ~ e 1c.t, D rrf. 511l.-tb-/l cy, lA1> 11 ~VhrL
t .
I/vitMu0-01e . l-,; ,n, l1VWc..rDW<1 'n:) I
--(r~,t.l 1#/1. b~1L Q V1Ljh~~'
1k ~D-fJ2J hi') h <k",,~.cyo)ll/n--, \.N1 II
{l"Yt,~Lf- ~ :St?-lllNkv- ~C-OYY1Ir:j ~+- 'b ~
..:::)1v/1/"L1/" ~Qtl~ Ll-yb~ 5f~o--( : ~s;- l1.& .
r
.::the; rR.S ~ ~ :21-. raM-I s;M.~b\a. D-Y'tW1-+--JZ..<:{ .
tf;;to.t/"Q w d \ lO~.s 6'Yn ~ czro vv ti, b ~ J eJ- I y
.I~ :ct: ~"ntY1J{l<d - 2-112 (lUI2 leis trrik>
(,yLOL 't;ve5-r -to C~1d J'.f ~ ~(ev-..
Jlvv1 3b ~ a! 1t, 15 ~{{I..H""'~ 1'Y 'ffi~
J a.'V\ d 6 w YlLI6 +:> vro.K e.. c.L f YD~ -ct- '
;netLSe {lb,k kyfu IAMW ~l~.
_Vht)ovrro' ~~ VhaOCV"l~ tJ..-r1l hD+_Vn
-=tCl/\JeY 1 itlA.s f'~ I '.
.
.
.
.
'.
~'.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
clo Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25,1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: J)014 r:-lc. j C. :Jo(0S utJ'
ADDRESS: "I.{ ~'1 ~fd tv.e.-b r : J 1 ~ -(It (\/0
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
~..~
"3= ~ d\ 9{JL..v;ii,~ Cf/'rr-~",^~ PL.,.
G~ ~.; ~ :P;U-~'7U-. ~ ~
~ c&-,...f4'TYr-'~ ,.:. ~J "', ~ ~ ?1;",
f~ --Jk- ~ L . . LJ S .; ! .<U2- ~ '"
~ -:ewr~, ~ ~ --y, ~.R ~o!
~ ~~k ~ =r~?t-tk ~ 6.r '
~J- h,...~ ~ ~ ~c .If?l>! ' LJ:;
sLo~~ t~J. .
'7b ~ ~ ~h-r~ st-~ ~
~ ~, ~ P'Il ~A J.,; ---tf.... ~
. ~L ~J · ~I . 'ii ~~
.~ .~ A~-vv<
'" A~ J JJ. ~'
I I I
~~r~
U
-jJ-" ~~ 1-~'
,.
. . '9} ~~ v~ ~.rJ--. ~
a r~~~~~ ~.4Mf .' .
^"1) ,,~ ~ ,,/,> ~ A;1~
.' ~ ~~, .~ tr
~ ~ ~t.lI Jf~~ ~~1-
" ~A. ~. (M-,~ ~ h~J
~ h;t; ~ ~ ~~ ~~h:,.
~~~~~J
~~~~~~J1f;
. ~J.. ' ~. 1L
.~ u. ' . ,;,"J;, ') .
~~~~~..~~
~~ ~~~~~.(~.
4-- ~ M.. ~R r
.'
MAY 05 '95 02:27PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
J J .,
P.1/2
~J4At'-vtf~ f;. ~/re;;eY1~/;.e cP/~ tpro/Q~
.e: . . ....... ...... ... . ... : .. m~ s,;/f7'S-
..............63u.f...!fiet/.Gq./t!'v.T ..~6~~t:C::J'.".'H.H .... ... .
:./J.-:-_?CO .~C~.~.r.;C~. .~ M. .... .
. ... ..... .._~r/LL.~~k- ",&p". .HH............................
.~~ ..~ d ~~ ~. CTU/l. ~
.. '. ~. .I~ M7'. /f?1. t'.ve ~p~ ~
'.. ,&...-&. L'1r.'l.shlt'""~Y wAen l<d
..~'v~t;/ &. ./~}/e't?rs. /-t.r ./S'/c? .~#t ~U~ S(J~;It.,
.....:! . ..{y~. /q.~~h~.s:.e~. .d.~r. ~r.tp"R'7 /;' Sh //~Jt-h-;oo-
..~_. ?;;uo:ts.A.~.......;jec:~.-(5:~ _..~.~. ._r~rd .(L~u'7'~Y ~/~
.+ar~ .... .$rptAr>)s:CN't'k./I'P'rt<./fl',y ~. .
.~.: bry.t: 1'~ //1J/~r!J'..~~/ .d;ee'/f ACi-'dS~
. .:.; .e.,-qz..vn ~ Cr~C'~ ).$ .. fl..e- 4r.1. ~/~ I!'r fPr'Y~;;,1t ..:Io/k /'IurA
.. ..;. C!~ ~~...~ ~ ...~' .
;:. t1~~,~4 ~-/.f'. . ~.
H.";,: ~..~. .vW 1...:Ik..~ .~ ~
r.... ';'~'-~'...~'1.Y11.'C'~~.~H..CULPI~;/Iv
H' .~t.~_,t4L~__..~~ ~.~-~._..~.._q .
i........ ___~[.......~~(~...~....- .4/U.._.__~.._._h.....?..._~ .. ~_,
:.. ...._~~._._?V~_._.~...p.Jt;.. ~..:!IT~_.,~.. .
· .... .':'1~ . ..~. ~ ...~~.~....~.~.. .
, .. ~... ~.~.A~~
. . JP// ~/ .J*t/'" _ :{; ,/~ I~ .J./ J
i ...~ . . . .r~~ '-"-"'7' ~'~
..~~ . ~'~~r~"
=i~ffiJ.A-e ~1~~
MAX 05 '95 02:27PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
; :
. .
P.2/2 '
. .
, .
.
"
.li ~.. ~ ~. ..~ ~~. ~
.._il...~_.u.;2l;> ...~._..._~...~~..~
. . ,,"L..~.....~...... ,.' '..-.., .'.,. ..-. --.. ." ..~ ~...~
.....l:..~._~,.....~.~u~~_..... ... _._.
.....~..~.L.. ....
.d~:......_~....~..~~~r~ .
.~'~d ~~,0f/~-I~ ~
.-..~k__.%~f>' .~. .~.~~.~
.. . ~.,. ~._..~(J.f!.:-....~.d/~I.. ~.~ .~ ~.~ .
.~.~....~~.~.~~
.....:r.F...~. ~.,- ................-.... ...... ...... .
+ ...H;z;&_H~ Hte(~~ ~. ......... .
....--"~-~...._..~.....~.....~...~....~. ....
j : ...."..L /u ;;..0 ~ A -L .t//j"U .- _' _1./
.....::..~.... /s:~vt4--.....~...~,. .,_._ ~'~'t.-:
...:+._~~ ..L~._..~.~. ..~l.,(l ~ ~. ~
.........~-...::f;~.....~...--Uk. .~~
....-~~4~. ~ ~
.~:~~ '~~d~.~ ..#.L
._~.;.~. .~ ..M~..~ ~t..e.~.
. ....~~...~...~~~4, .'..... ........ ,......_................_..... . '.
. .
.. .p. '_'.._""'U' .............._....._...._.,..._._. _, ...... ._....
, ,
-.a~.4?~: '..
/.,;JS"/~ ;t:Ue.~~ ~"f ~
~ ~ S-~~rz.
..... . , :
<./~"J- 17$/.5
.
~'.
.
.
.
· I
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRlL 25, 1995
STILL WATER CO:MPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:~ ~~
ADDRESS: 9'/;)1 )jJh~
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
~
...~.
~'llw~'s ~~~ fJ~
ck-{)~~~~~
jk'r~ ~ A>d hJ~
~ ~- ~Cf -f~ ~ lH.~
~~~.'~/'~/
;CQ~ ~ 7fo~. ~ b~
~~r~A-v ~~
~~~~~~
-~...~~
- .
tJU~.~~~~~
~~ t.ffYl,~ ~'::;f-, "
~;> ~h.~~~~~
I .
'7/-D ~I/ I/t/C~ ~~ t:1vL( ~ ~~~~( C'tLJ'vt,1/~
~ ~ 0.- ~ ~ A~ -;rwc .e~-e_ ~~
A-e ~-{A_J~~~ ? I
.
.
'.
I
." .
Mailing Address:'
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
I
NAME:=r;:,n-. ~ ~ v-r/>l k~/7F Y\hr ~
ADDRESS: I~SCf) mr tu<;,.cJc Rd !J
WRITIEN COMMENTS:
h'~ ~/\~ JlJl/r/';R~~~A -j,l'p C"'r~J),tIN!~A~" ~-. LV/~~A7/
-+./uP ;fRa--r~ c-h{J ~ ~on:dL;t~.A gf .aP_~J.d/,Jzd /~vt .
1~ L~(Z/4I L~ ~ Lrd i~). r,~~---} ~ :~b:1PA~
c/-~~jM~ 'I -t4 7"",g1 f ~;,. j.i#~ kL
~~. ~.n4,-;t, o~~p/ :4& j;;".~ . ,~?,~.,.Mycl
1-; ;,.,.,y;-.Y!~~~ ~ J/-~r 'f-r ~1"A/.L.jj7 ~d
~ ,kin.lM:! k.,""'e-d <<j ,'ti ~A'-I".t AR~.ftE- :tf;"
.ed~ ~A"J frb-UA ~ ~-dL 4,l.~.A .-l~1fJ dR77 ~
rId<; 4i.:p ~ JC}Ln:t:. .
4 ;tlft fl ~~d't. I'Af/JPA7)'''~ ~~~f'~~ I ,~.~~m~
1fV&rp-1d .tL~lP~ ~P~"", CA..krU:!~. k a d~, ~-d--1.e~
I . .J
~-;:ifp-4- / v~~~_..:fJ I?~' Jh dR.e--v /,( ~g? If' ~p .krz-u4R
d'
;t~ c~~~.I2L-1 L(~/f;} r - 04"r.!-M {:R;.tldu?~ cf ~-~
!:;1^'t;t:~~.~!f!~:4~a1t~ it .
~d.M . :J)da~ ;C.~"- Cc->'~ ~~ ~ ~
i.. ',.. ;j-;,.,-:A -t;/lUI ~~6 'c&.tJ,-I:i:u~ "/ I
'"M ~i) ~ gMl2"J..H ~ /l!~J.- ~'.:&,~ . .
J~'(!t2..n~F. ~~-1 ;;;7 nYt-L~>~~ ;,~.~ - J!/-.lhuj/ ~ ztl )/UP_/~~k!
~JCtI 'L'~~ -:In /h-1~"~__~_~_ J;t;t~. 7tZ- ,:.. b~/1 ~__~::&
f~ -aJi- I6J"j) /'l-U_{~_lJ!b.
7a r~A"Y1L~L ~_~A. nI~----'f.PlZ-~" ~ t"'~1/'e-1"-"')
~ -;L/Jl~~-ta~1- (/QC'-F2L~ i c-A~~~4-'"?..4 ,j~
/l.f!/.r'Yn-!,rnd-"Y1/- r1--rv rJA-P-(? ,L:1!t6 ~A.--fh'~-e ;1>-1--
~~_~~ ~d AA~da4 ~~-6-r.4 . JIcz-t)-ak:l rL Lt/~
-~~- 4.tI& ~- ~'J~~ ~ ~r ~J In do ~>~
~.et4) r--~1 ;",~~ U; &~~-~~ d'~A .~~ of a"i
fkl %P. v .lttl~ ? .jt;.. .ww.,U A#~dt .
tM/k. ('~~~ ~~1~ . =->1" ~ 1Z4o)-
/ /
C~~r;7=-:~~Y~J:::;; .~ /fTdt r
~~4A. ~ ti!J ~f7~ dJ /hit. ~d~ a/h~t-~ .
.5k p-~ ~_ ~~d ~tt ~~~
CUv."-.Lrt-~ ~ ~ --aM vi a~?~ ~~ -
It;tA ~;f&~ ~- CL~~~ ~.~
~~.
j~af ~~:ve ~~ ,ifp "'4~ ~ .
~-'1~ c~~ .~-~d-a ~ clcr ~",-~I Z,
/--1~e J~~WlZ1R.~..JL~,~ h~:ur-A'v::dl'Z ~
d~ ad 4-P CL~ ~~ /U~/J~J .~-f ~~ ffJ
~,.d-crutr~ q. ~~-1-Nl~c:I tdfl Jl~ ~ f- ei
f(],t. ) -<1 ~--..ct.Jk ~-r ~ff-'1.'
",,'1- /lP /J ,....tl J} D.-/J.-/2 7 ~
nf.N.-yJ .we.Na,,- ~ .:t~ti- of. .=.I 4AafA.~4~ C~:-<U ,
P-o-y A4", ffiylc~.;tAL ../Z-U-~ ~'~r --dart "~.Et )
X~ O~~ I , ~(- -t/& -t7c.vI-t.-~ ,<,.-J ce,~--#ctl ~J!a T
I r.
.
c.
.
!
~~~<J ~~tI~.~? .'
c/,;;{a/;t/JJ "V~r ~/ ~~
~~- kg a ~r dAeE~ ~ ~ ~,
/)0 p-uk~ p2~ ~ ?/~y U a ~-;
~~e .,;6 L~- T>l /1X-~-f ?
A-U'l- --ac~~ "o!~cU-J CL /tJ-e~~ ,;<1-a~~,,1
""t.lz--(J ov- ~. tZ..d M.~ p'v :tdi o&u.J
~ r~~~d~~~ ',.
)ked ~ ./-~f. .fA .J~ ~ I-LL G;J~~
~ l>u:a~dL 6f ~ ~ 0/ & ~
c1 jU-tP;de.. a.vet ~ ~~ ~~ 1
Gy C~"v".;jJ ~.jc.~?h:th .~~ .
j)o-~"~ ~ ~ ~0W7~ ~g)
day~~.b:~~qttt~
I~co~ ~ ~~ Fet.d?~
.!!Ned t~ /~ i- .Q~~ ;6 L.<-.v+
~f.J1e k4.'-rv& ~ _ ~~-d / "'~wy ~..
~~I 1- ~9d .~::J/) ~#"'-' ~c.Q I --;t4
9CZlila- tf ~~ - ~;{,J P-
J ~ -/-~ 'U ~~ !y:.90 0;
lA .h- J~ .MJ~tP ~ ~:d /1~~~ .
Jk~~.
:JkJ-~. ,
j~-l;&u>>~YJ~~
-
.
.
.
1
i
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
do Comprehensive Plan
216 NoiJi Fourth Street
StiUwatc::,MN 55082
"
APRIL 25, 1995
STilLWATER CONfPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:
ADDRESS:
WRlTrErr coMMEillS:
:r U1~ (If-<'-' -t-o tjt2l:~
t:pW- A;1dmb'&A J.
ii i. ...~: \.l'<rw ~ w...,j ...1_
,d.' .. '''' ........ ,,' ~ ,..,.. ,..i ~,_
, "1.1,,, ""..... W' ,,'_ 'w'" ., ....'1.,.
.'lo
. May 3, 1995
Dear Mayor Kimble,
Please consider the following items in your consideratio~ of
the Stillwater Compreher-sive Plan.
1. Open space
Stillwater Tow~ship 1 s policy of 2 1/2 acre lots has
essentially eliminated oper.. space. 200 homes in the Highland
Development is insignificant compared to the urban blight of what
200 homes on 2 1/2 - 5 c.cre lots have done to our farming/open
space area. Ask any far~er living in Stillwater Township what has
impacted open space and he will tell you its the homes on large
lots (some would have you believe these are ranches or strawberry
factories) built in the Township that has destroyed valuable crop
land, not land annexed by Stillwater.
.
Donlt be misled by the survey the Township fosters as proof of the
citizens opinion regarding the growth of Stillwater. I believe that
the citizen's would agree that a Comprehensive Pla~ as proposed is
better that having Stillwater surrounded by 2 1/2 acre lots housing
people that want all',che benefits this area has to offer,
especially the parks & services the City of Stillwate~ provides.
These people do not contribute to the tax base that funds these
services and are unwilling to allow the type of growth that would.
'Rest assured that this area is going to grow regardless where the
line is drawn.
2. Ground Water Pollution.
As you know , the concern for ground water pollution is a
concern or all environmentalists. There is no doubt tp~t the cess
pool systems in Stillwater Township are a problem that we should
all be concerned with. One day in the not too distant future this
problem will have to be mitigated at the expense of all the tax
payers.
3. Job Opportunity.
As the Township grows with its liberal
additional burden will be put on employment with
Stillwater. As Stillwate~'s Comp Plan allows for
it should hopefully p~ovide this area
opportunities.
lot requirement,
the Business I s in.'
comme~cial orowth
oJ
with employment
5. Cooperation
.
I
I would like to commend you and your council along with the
planning department & staff for the patience & professional
attitude in the various meetings held. I am disappointed with ou~
neighbors intimidating and condescending attitude. The work and
\Y-04-95 THU 08:03
WHITE BEAR LAKE
FAX NO, 6127793139
P,03
.
eff9rt put fo~th by the city in developing this comprehensive plan
benefits all of the communities in this area. This plan is
recognized by othe~ professionals representing many other
communities as well planned and best use of land for preserving the
future of this co~~unity and surrounding area.
6. Preservation of small town Stillwater.
I believe t~at preserving Stillwate~ mear-s focusina on
downtown & the older neig:iliorhoods that make this such a beautiful
corrJnunity. I believe the City's Comprehensive Plan, as presently
written, will achieve this goal.
Comparisons have been made to Woodbury in that the comp plan would
result in this t.ype of cormnunity. Where is Downtown Woodbury?
Presently Stillwater Township resembles Woodbury.
Growth will OCcur in t.he Township sur~ounding our community with
many using and abusing our parks I creating more traffic and not
contributing to the mainten~~ce cost. The Comprehensive plan allows
Stillwater to grow its commercial tax base which will help fund the
D~eservation of Old Stillwater. Those of us that are fortunate to
iive in property ap~exed'to Stillwater appreciate The Old Community
and will support its preservation.
Therefore, I would encourage you to adopt the Comprehensive ?lan as
proposed by your p~ofessional staff.
.
ary Kriesel
1451 Lydia Circle
.
.'
.
;,....
.
i.
"
~- :.1..~ - q S-
I
l-~ ~~-'--,~,~;..,~ ~~
I - - - -~ " ~ ~
I ~~~~.~~~~'--~
I
I
t
i
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~'-~ \ C\ '\.'\ ~~___ ~~
~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~
~~~""-~~ ~~-' ~~~'--"-
~~ ~~~~--- ,~~~
~~ ~ -~ ~J~' ~. ~-,~ ~
~--~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~'.'
~ ~~--i ~~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~"-~" ~~
.~~~~~~c~~~~
~~ ~~'~ ~~ ~~~x
~ "'- ~- ~ ~~~~-"'-~.
~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~ ~~,~~~~
~-~~~~~~~~~
~,~~~~'-~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~.~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
~~ ~"-., ~..>..."'-~~ ~ ~ "'-~~~
~ ~ ~,~ "~~'6 ~~ ~~:s::.~
~ . ~ .
~---s- ~~~~'- -....:.~~~~"'-~
I
i
I
i
I
I
!
i
.
,~~~~~~~\ ~~
~""""'--~~~ ~ ~~~~'- '~~~ . ~
~, --' ~ ~ l.~~" ...-- ~ ~ ~ '-
~~--~~~ ~'<..~~~~" ..__:~ -~~" ~
~ ~~ '--'-~~~ ~~~~-----
.~ ~'-~~~~,~ ~~~~,
--~~ .' (~~~
~ ~~"'-~'---~~~'I-~~
~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~"" ~~'-:.~~
~ ~
C!>-~ \. -:L '-~~ ~~~ ~"-~
~~~~~ .
~ ~ ~--.. ~~~ .
~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~
~~ "'-~~ ~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~--\
~~~~.~~~~~
~~~~~~~~-- S-~~~ ~
'- - ,. '\:::-- .
~.~ ~ s ~.<--.,~ ,--,~""-~"-,",,,, ~~...:.~~ ;
~..s- ~~~ ~'-,.-~ ~~ ~~~~~""-~
~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~'-'-~'k
-,\,'~,-~~,-~, ~ ~'--'-:.~~~ -",
,~-:. ~"'- CS' .
~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~).
~~ ~ ,'~~~ , n~ .
~'-'-J~"-.:.~~"--~"-~ ~~"-~ ~~' I
~~ '-S~ .
q ~~ ~"-".~~~ ~~'-~~
.. ,\('-
- \ ' '
"\ ~ 'l\ ~ ~ - ~.'"1 ~ "'~ ~ "'-.. ~~~~ ..~ I
,_~~~",,~~__ c.~
.
.
I.
)
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25,1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLA.1~
. - ;.. .ill YUBLIC HEARING
NAME (!),A.L/.J r/C/4-.Y~
ADDRESS: 151 J Q/'~/a-c.A1;,- 4
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
~ t?A'Y1 uJ~~ 'Jp) /AA,j'L r-<) ~
-h am.nu;d./ p"" f ~ ~n..aA-~
* ~ ~. c . j/~-,
~/J1 d-tuJLCi-;-z I .~ J- -r6Z ~~
~-nd0~ ~Y- If 7% '% 7'7'lQ.
~/)u4CY jk~ ~ ~~ ~~
'te /24Z/YL-i;6 o-'90w b &J ~<-L.
~ ~Y' bkD.-J CLilL ~ L2<-V'~ <j
. . ~ R' . L?;
/l/y~,Lt/'k0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~
ytzJ .
'.
.
.
;.
'I
''lo
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
_PUBLIC HEARING
NAME
ADDRESS:
I
~'?~...~, E~ 0~
'~.:z: ~~!}~:'J,
S~ ~ A1Ff~jh~, gWL!J~
.~.. .,. ,.' .
-.S
'.
.'
. ;
.
.
.
mad (;)) /qqS
,'To; rY\T ~ ~~
ru~ ~Crl:_cA~ c~ C Gu~
LU.SL W\O._ uYu:L.n'a- ;lo Slit ~u ~f)G't0
W-€. ..OJ~_ ~ V\ -b00J-tYl ~ ru~~((\&
S:hffi~~dtn j:.~~_.. _H___.
. .
.P b-?-.D~ .Si~ to_ ~ ~J~ .!1b ~
YY\~ ~. N~... .heth.... . . (f\.. ShSl0.w~
Cv\~ ~ Ufu -t-C\J.rY\o~. l.}JrL _ ~UL . f\cl V'\
fuGUJ"{f) ..'b ctN~~at~ ~- PtA- d-.J 09-- l.>-el~
0./0 M -fu., r(\(ll~. .~~~ ~+.-0 .~ctd
- -()- .() ~ .
.vto {l9.fL L~ .p.ucY\ 0..(\ .~~.~ ~"K...
~f\ ~ I~L bts o-.~ ~~ G\~j\.U.J '~d
..n(\A/''::--f\~ ~~~ -nv..o ~-A...D .L(.~
'-'rl)V~' ". -. -.- - . - .... -- ._.- --- - "-- . \.) .. - ..
,J02-a~} o.rd ~ k ~ f71U ~
d-DJ~~ to Y'A-~-\-o..~..._~_.~-1:t:h. 0.. ..
w~ (Y~ x~ ~'-' (L J~\u.., W\A' ~\NL
..Ctl'N",\J~~ 0-\"0 '1~.Q.d- J-- ~ ~ 'i5-\%
-r\'0~' (~\~ iJJ,JJtf\ ~r.. .
. . ~<~lW>~Ili)~ta-~y
'f'.J>.:te ~ ('{\<Jv~,^- L,,'{/."~'H~ ~ee be"",)
802, W. Cb-k: Sd-. St{~~ ~J '::;S6~~
L-t'dc\ -3731
..
.
.
III
Carlson
Wagonlit
Tr(l\~e.l '"
April 28, 1995
~layor Jay Kimble:
I was sorry to miss the hearing on Tuesday Night but ole man virus knocked me down. I
understand I can still "enter" comments on the draft plan for the record, and so here they are.
Whatever transpires, please do make an integral part of any plan to be as on pg 3-6: "establish
development staggering.....and monitor growth impacts to see that what occurs is as anticipated
or determine changes are needed." ~:ly fears are that undue pressure exists for an "open the
gates" implementation ....let the developers all in right away and let market forces dictate...they
have their holding costs and can't afford to wait for what may be more important considerations
of both the city and township residents regarding a measured impact process. I remind you that
your primary responsibilities revolve around the costs and benefits to your consitutents... .not the
benefitlhardship of business entities who are making their own investment decisions with
concurrent risks. You owe it to your citizens and taxpayers to consider annexation proposals to
see if therein lie net benefits to the City, but you owe nothing to developers other than reasonable
consideration.
I find in interesting that in land use recognition the roughly 40 acre Jackson Lake DNR wildlife
area is missing (combined water and land)...a significant piece.
The Bergmann property is mentioned several times and particularly on pg 5-4 Program
l..".designate the bergmann farm area...." I personally would not want to be a part of any plan
that did not give maximum protection to these hard working people (and friends). Whatever plan
you approve, please make it 100% absolutely positively clear in writing that under no
circumstances will your designating or engineering or inadvertent zoning make these people be
forced from their land due to taxation or valuation or whatever. Have a heart!
Traffic. I see a fairly good analysis of traffic conditions....but minimal solutions particularly with
the Owen, Myrtle and Deerpath areas. Cty 12 and McKusick are the only real east-west corridors
and I see no way of improving that. Traffic by humans is like water and gravity...the path of
seeming least resistance is always taken...I could never see folks use a 4 lane Cty rd 15 to a light
at Hwy 36 to a congested Hwy 5 intersection thence to Cub Target as seeming less of a hassle
than down 12 and thru Deerpath to Olive...won't happen and there will be one giant mess!
I also am definitely opposed to extending Neal Ave. to Cty 12....the fact that it would trash my
wetland, woods, and clip my pool and totally ruin an environment that frankly I busted my .. . for . .
25 years to get is totally irrelevant!! ~ Between Boutwell and Cty 12 there are no additional
residences that need access, and in any case you would then muck up the steady flow on Cty 12
r ("J('" :"fi I.J 'f'{':~:-.\ !..~) r~ l'''i;'~'~
~-.I "'.. .... ...".. .i. ... ......." \.... ... 1 \.. \... 11
/.~ I . I '1 r) .. ... .. .""
t .,. n ), i l' I ) \ t t.., ~
.....J, \/ ',./<...'\ . \ - ~ \" "....;.
Carbon Wa~onlit Trald . l~j, T',..ltr Un...,; "Xt~1 . Slillwatl'r. ~1ilnlt'~ola 'i'im{~-7) 1:\ . ((I\~) -1.)<)-.-;);2 . Fax Ih I~) -15')-1+111
Owned and Operated by: Tubhy I.ohmer's lbvcl
tI
Carlson
Wagonlit ~
TrGl\7el"
.
creating more jams by adding yet another intersection which would then simply feed more traffic
onto Northland and/ or Deerpath in the quest to get to the latest sale at Target for $.59 nose clip
cold healers.
MY MAiN CRITICISl\1 COMES AT THE SCARY FISCAL IlVIPACT SECTION. You
fella's are running a business and have an implied fiduciary responsibility to watch the purse
strings. Any business that would have an auditor that would have the audaciousness to summarize
their fiscal impacts regarding a planned expansion with" the City need not weigh fiscal impacts in
pursuing its planning...." should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail... this would
be akin to the carpetbaggers of old. For any business, weighing any plans, to accept a "need not
consider" as related to fiscal impacts is in the elementary....FOOLISH.
Pardon me for being so blunt, but I was flabbergasted by page 11-7 findings.
Beyond that glaring fault is the fact that these figures are based on 100% buildout. 100% !!
Rose tinted glasses?? Alice in Wonderland? What is the reality between lets go! and were finally
here! ??? You cannot base reveri~es on a completed project ( 4 of them?). What if after 15 years
they are all only 1/2 full? What if in 5 years one of the developers goes belly up? What if after 20
years the Bergmanns are still raising pumpkins and hay??? (which they plan to do by the way??)
Take that commercial revenue out of the picture and cut the residential by 15/25 or 50 %, who is
going to pick up the slack? Also, on behalf of your citizens do not fail to consider the impact of
schools and related taxes. Even if you could break even financially on the city side...all of our tax
statements would certainly reflect increases for the school district. The 1200 homes with
2000+kids will not carry their own weight re: education. Be honest to your citizens with the Total
Picture.
e
If you cannot come up with solid reasons to answer the question, Why do this? then don't. Please
do not get caught up in the momentum of "this is the way it's always been done." Keep your eyes
on the bottom line. You do not owe it to the landowners to help them develop their land. I truly
see more detriments than benefits to the City.
As a final comment I hope you all know there are no real adversaries here, at least among
residents... we all live in the Stillwater area and want to keep this place special for us and our kids.
..
Those are the highlights...thanks for your time.
./} .''/ ...-
..' .- ../ ......- ...y
Bob Lohmer /~(.~ . . .,.) '-................~.
.
LUGll
"
J)I~('.~:SC:!-1.(~(:.~ ~
C;Ioba 1 r\)\ver o.
Carboll W:t;.\olllit Tr:I\'d . I;';~(, ."Iwcr 11m': \VL..t . Sl1l1wall.r. \lilllll~ll;1 :;:;(~-;!-7:; I:i . (hl!I-l.1'.I-:i'i!! . Fax Ihi!1 .1)'1-1....;(.
Owned and O',cratcd b\": Tubbv Lohmer's Travel
.
.
.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
. Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: Ii. ~ )/l~
...
ADDRESS: 30lY }J1~ ~
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
d oeh! ~~ Y4
cf ~ ~ ah-ur.~.
P7J<d~ f ~~/~d-zc;
Yh wuT~ :f ~a. (bdJ<<t~
t7
dj ~~~.~,~
/ / / t1 ~
,~~ ~~~, ~ ~ ~ dd/t4A.
\t4 ~: ~~J~Un-~~~~~,
-.h aUY-Az~~ ~~~
/lU~. ~~ ~ ~ ~a:I- W~ L4~.
q/~A:;;,~, ~ J>/le~~~
~~~{~~~ #;r~ /M~
tt-a aA- Y/-d ~ ~ ~d " ~
~ Y;(c , .~ 1cJ~~
~ ~ d- a;r-?~ .W~'1' ~, d-tI ~ ~
jru;.ifA4 ~ h1~ r ~ ~u..J.~
~~ ~"l ~h~~aA.J n1~
/il r::k~ -.
{/ ./-.
r.
/-~ ,1 Y4 ~~. ~ ~v.Pf M<-6( ~ .
tH1.Ltj ~2 ~/oY~~d k-,
I~~./ ~ rc ,( r ~ ?7<.-U~
~ ~ dd-tJ /C ~~ did- ~ d- ~
/7VH/*- ~ 1- Y4 L~ (~~J ~7
/./~ (Ul(&/ A iN-d~ / --I~ / ~
.~, r:of~ ~V~ tf71. y;( ~(~
PrM A~J ~ ~ W?d4 ~k~
VI- ~ fiWU-~fJ ~ H{ fl/-..I ~ ~ ~ /7! dw-d "..
dde- &1UA:; ~.-ft~1f.- !) /n db ~ c.{/ ~ . . .
. / / tJ
~#J~~,9,k ~~~M~~.
(YN.~ ~ q ~ ~~~~~ t?-7L~~,.
.J;f- ~tI ft ': l"l:~ d~ r .cdIl) t~, ~~
~ 1 t<4- tv-4 ~ 'r4.- ~ rry) 'l' 7x.d-
~ ~ ~ ~~~ tJ-v-vL,/ Y4..r~ ~
p~ ./1f.A-tfWLd ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~
~tr7L 10: ~.IM. ~~~ ~
~~4e .J~L~~~
0; M .u~~.l ' ~~~ .//!
.
~<U.s0 J~
. ~..........
. , . "
. ...... .
./ ~~~I\! Mip,n.esota Transportation Museum, Inc.
I I l P.O. Box 1796, Pioneer Station, St. Paul, MN 55101-0796
. .~ Accrediled by the Minnesot:1 Historical Society
"-'~
.
.
October 1 0,1991
To: All MTM Members
From: John Diers, Chairman
Subject: Annexation of the Stillwater & St. Paul
The MTM Board has asked the City of Stillwater to annex our property. It will then be
completely within the city limits, and the county ordinance that would have restricted
MTM operations will have no effect.
There are two ways for the city to annex. If the city owns the property, it takes only a
vote by the City Council. If someone else owns the property, adjacent landowners have a
voice and it must be approved by a state board. In other words, the only way for the city
to annex our property cleanly and quickly is to own it. That is why the MTM Board has
decided to sell it to the city for one dollar.
The city staff asked the MTM Board to keep.the. annexation a secret until'it went before
. ~~~"..yj!~;C()"fiBfi~"r.r~~,.~9.n.~~~:q.th.~rj~qu~pf.~tfi~YWere'-goi~g.T6:~ril;~t-rup~as:'a:non-
'agenda l~cfciY before the "meeting' they changed their mind about being secretive.
The annex'atlon" was put on the published agenda, but it was tabled at the meeting. We still
believe it will pass the City Council by early November.
. . '. :_..... ..;. .._.", . __,_ .,. .,,__ _.' ";.f"'~." " ....JiI....-:....~ 't,'I: ",.'r. . ..,. '.-
,~-'1~_~.x.~~Q.!l}..s~~~~al_~~a~~~. !'",~lli!!l,Q..ql~~J!~~ ,~~opp'ed the" 9,fdinance.JFirst ~e tried
P~!,!~~.<?~J.-BPr~~dS~!.~~: .g~'~'dr .J~~~~~.R~yr",,~.PPdP?rters. fajr outnumbered the compl8:l~er~~ thEj
County oar contmue to pursue the or mance. .
-..,. ~ .~_. '.. .". -".~ ......:... .~ .;.,...... ..... ........jf._. ..i\l ....:... .~.. .'
Then we got an ICC certificate and became a common carrier. Unfortunately, the ICC
picked that exact time to reverse their previous decision on the Napa Valley Wine Train.
Without going into too much detail, they ruled that a tourist train running within a
single state does not get ICC protection from state regulation, even it runs on a railroad
that carries interstate freight. The freight is protected, but the passenger trains aren't.
While there are some differences between the S&StP and the Wine Train that might
change the ICC's position, I doubt we would receive a favorable ruling.
That left only four options:
1. State legislation preempting the county's ordinance.
2. A court challenge of the ordinance.
3. Admit that the county has won and apply for a conditional use permit.
4. Annexation.
(over)
jU r frt
-'
DAVID T. MAGNUSON
".TTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE # 203
THE GRAND GARAGE
3Z4 SOUTH MAIN STREET
STILLWATER. MINNt::SOTA 55082
(612) 439.9464
P.o. Box 438
January 23, 1992
John Diers, Chairman
Minnesota Transportation Museum, Inc.
P. O. Box 1796
Pioneer station
st. Paul, MN 55101-0796
Dear John:
I am writing with regard to your letter of October 10, 1991, sent
to your members to update them on the possible annexation of the
MTM tracks to the city of stillwater, a copy of which is enclosed
for your reference." .
This letter has caused both the staff and the stillwater City
Council a great deal of embarrassment since you imply. that the
whole matter of the annexation was to be kept a secret until it
went"before the city council/ As you might now, a copy of the
letter was obtained by people in opposition to your operations
and has been circulated to elected officials and newspapers in
our area.
When steve Russell and I met with you in early October, we told
you that our discussions with you were preliminary and that the
City Council should hear about these discussions from the staff
at a meeting before they read some sensational news about the
issue in the newspapers. Any implication that the City Council
does business in secret is far fetched and unfair to all
involved.
Yours very truly,
DTM/sls
cc: Wally Abrahamson, Mayor
steve Russell
Nile Kriesel
.
.
.
r ;,~,..
.'~'
.
.
.
~i l1wate~
THE IIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA i)
\(\h~05
MEMORANDUM
TO: DICK MOORE, CITY ENGINEER, SHORT, ELLIOTT A~D HENDRICKSON
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION STUDY FOR AREA EAST OF OAK GLEN AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 96
(CASE NO. ANN/92-1).
Background:
The City Council at their meeting of February 4 directed the Planning
Commission to study the annexation of the area bounded by County Road 96 on
the north, Oak. Glen Drive on the west, the old Burlington Northern
right-of-way and a portion of the Stillwater Country Club on the south and the
railroad right-of-way north of Hazel Street on the west (see'attached map).
, ,
An a 1 ys is:
In order to review the annexation information on how the area could be
serviced with City water and sewer service is necessary. Review the
availability of service lines and the capacity of those lines.
It would be useful in describing the area to know the approximate acreage of
area being considered for annexation. The acreage should be separated into the
area north of the old Burlington Northern right-of-way and the area south of
the railroad right-of-way. Also to determine the appropriate process for City
Council consideration of the annexation, the distance of common City boundary
with the area is needed as a percentage of the total perimeter of the site.
Please make this calculation.
.1 ..~
Acces& to the site does not appear to be a problem with the existing road
sys ten).
.;
Please submit.your response to this request by February 18 so the comments can
be a part of Planning consideration of the annexation. If you have any
questions regarding this request call.
Attachment:
Annexation Map (Ann/92-1)
D m@rnu\YI~
FEB 2 8 ~92 ~
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
I
~~j:v~te~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MARCH 5, 1992 .
.1
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF 158 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN CITY
BOUNDARY AND HIGHWAY' 96
......-
lhe Planning Commission reviews annexation,requests for
consistency with the City's C'omprehensive Plan. Thi.s was
discussed in the Staff report for consideration of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (Case No. CPA/92-1) .
'-.l!'!!~ C"?~J .....--....,.......... -v. ..--
Wie~kIY:Z9~~~)~~~~;;9-~~Fj:~~~~\K~n~p~.?j~~.c~e~.
4v..~.~ant,~~1:~9~R' ,'-. :., !.ut'ur.e<;l~.e~..l..Q.p.!lliill-:t...J.S...ilm;~J!.~~t
JSJ.lpoJ..YJ Before expandlng to the northwest toward County
Road 5, the City is infilling areas where urban services
can be extended logically and economically..
, Parts. of the area being considered for annexation is
currently suburban in character, particularly the areas
west of Stonebridge Trail. The golf courses are an active
recreation area with manicured grass and selectively
, plante'd trees. -Lands along Brown.'s Creek are mostly natural
with some re~idential intrusion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation of annexation to the City
consistent with the Stillwater Comprehensive
logical extension of the City boundary.
:. ..
.
Counci 1 as
Plan and a
.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
"
...
.
.
"
.,
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
Date
J.'/.)..qJ-
/) ;J
l . b<...J cl!..
Resolution No. $/q.'""l-/ I
Seconded by ^. ~ g"~LA'1'Y1.-
Motion by
WHEREAS, the City of stillwater is considering initiating
proceedings to annex 158 acres of stillwater Township; and
WHEREAS, the land proposed for annexation is not now nor is
it about to become urban or suburban in character; and
WHEREAS, the Township has adopted a comprehensive environ-
mental protection ordinance to protect sensitive areas such as
Brown's Creek; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety, and welfare of the area can be
protected by the Township; and
. ,
WHEREAS, the entire annexation proposal is a thinly veiled
attempt to bring the Minnesota Transportation Museum's railroad
track into the city, thereby effectively repealing the County
ordinance regulating the railroad and preventing a public
nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the proceedings without
consulting or informing the Township.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of stillwater Township:
1. The Township opposes the annexation.
2. The Township will use every lawful means to prevent the
annexation.
ADOPTED by the Board 9f supervisors of stillwater Township
this I J- day of /rJtx.A ~ ,1992.
~.
ATES : Q
f,a'V \ ~.
/1
Pat Bantli, Clerk
BY:
::
i,
q
,,- -~ ''';\j(' ~
.. .. .."" ....
" ~.,
,
.....
.,
.
/;
April 8, 1992
,
.!
i!
The Honorable Wally Abrahamson
216 North 4th Street"
Stillwatcr City Hall n
Sli1lwater, MN 55082
..
,.
or
.;,. .'
Mayor Abrahamson .and City Council Mcmbers:
i I \
I would like to take'this opportunity to reiterate the importance of annexing the property proposed for
incorporation into t~e City of Stillwater.
. I . ~
II
The Minnesota Zepryr has a substantial vested interest over the past five (5) Ye:l~S and at the current time
planning a $1.1 milli?n investment in a depot museum and 58,000 square feet of property.
Ii
With thc current W~shington County restrictions on the Minnesota Zephyr operations we cannot generate
enough trips to operate profitably.
I
II
Consider the MinneS?ta Zephyr's economic impact to not only the city, but to the entire area including the
county. Please vote ~o annex this property in order to exempt us from these county ordinances and to secure
continuing progress ;~n development and economic growth.
.;
;.
d
I.
Ii
"
'I
I:
"
.:
~ ~
!'
II
"
I'
"
II
I:
:;.
.
..
.
.
.
t.
.
.
.
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Regwn, Planning for the Future
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 291.6359 IDD 612 291.0904
DATE:
April 25. 1995
TO:
Steve Russell
Tom Caswell, Planner 4.~.
Office of l.ooal Assistance-
FROM:
SunJECf:
Draft Comprehensive Plan 1995 - 2020. Dated March 30, 1995
I apologize for the lateness of these comments on the draft plan. It was my understanding tbat the
city was requesting an informal review of all the technical information and projections cont..tined in
the plan. Based on a discussion with Ann Terwedo Jate this afternoon, the primary question was
whether the city's plan reflects the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Council's Blueprint.
Although it appears there is considerable work yet to be completed in providing data on sewer flows
and transportation impacts that result from the alternative to be chosen, the goals and o~';ectives of
the plan are quite good. This is particularly true with respect to the plan's reference to life-cycle
housing opportunities, the need to stage growth and sewer service expansion. and the city's interest
in purs"!1ing orderly annexation agreements. as well as innovative approaches like development
agreements, the potential exploration of transfers of development rights, and joint planning with the
Township.
If you bave any further questions, please call me at 291M6319.
I.... ~.1 ~ ~. ........ ~ ''''l, , , ,~.~, "",.." '''.;' ,~ ...'........". "l,~ 1 .....,.., II 'I. I "..... 11... ,~. ',..,. .r.,,",/,!. ,. "'i~r."
.
.
.
i'-
2962 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
April 26, 1995 .
Stillwater City Council
216 N 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Jay, Rich, et al :
Last night's council meeting really helped me pull my thoughts together
regarding the annexation. I believe the speaker from Nightingale Boulevard and
I share a common view of the situation:
· Why is growth of Stillwater necessary and inevitable? I saw no clear
financial analyses pointing to a compelling case for benefits to the city at
large. The concept of "growth is good and bigger is better" was proven
wrong in the corporate world of the 1980's. It has been replaced by a focus
on being the best at what you are. The council needs to think more along
these lines.
.
Issues of congestion, street costs, and continued growth of school bonds are
real issues that the residents of Stillwater have a right to decide. By ignoring
the wishes of the city (and the Township) you are ignoring your fiducial
responsibilities as elected officials..
.
I too did not appreciate what appeared to be a veiled threat on the part of
counsel should this plan not be approved. Maybe it was not intended that
way, but it surely felt like an attempt to stampede.
Maybe the city should focus on improving and better using what it has now
rather than trying to expand. Our streets are a disgrace and deserve some
attention. If Stillwater was currently surrounded and landlocked by other
cities the annexation alternative would not exist. The council should use this
scenario to develop creative alternatives that are more in line with what the
people want.
Everybody has something at stake in this proposed plan. However I do not
know how the council can claim impartiality and bill this as good for all when
it is very apparent that the impetus for this plan was the desire of a few
Township landowners to increase the value of their assets--at the expense
of hundreds of others. The council has fostered and continues to have a
credibility problem.
.
Finally I must echo the sentiments of virtually all of the speakers -- put this to
a referendum! Remove your egos from involvement, better explain the
benefits, and then let the people decide. Seems pretty straightforward to me!
I
SinCerelY,~
~r
~rMTrnT~@LJ&"
. ~DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
METRO WATERS, 1200 Warner Road, st.
PHONE NO. 772-7910
.
~.
RESOURCES
Paul, MN 55106
FILE NO.
April 25, 1995
Mr. Steve Russell
city Hall
216 North Fourth
stillwater, MN 55082
RE: city of stillwater comprehensive Plan Revision
Dear Mr. Russell:
Metro Region Waters has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Revision dated March 30, 1995. Please convey these comments to the
city council for consideration as part of the official hearing
record. Of particular concern to the DNR is the proposed
annexation area in Stillwater Township. Brown's Creek is a state
Designated Trout Stream with a number of public access easements
for anglers. Brown's Creek is unusual in that the stream is at the
very bottom of its watershed. Only the lower portion, from
McKusick Lake to the st. Croix, is fed by sufficient groundwater to
maintain the cold temperatures necessary for trout survival. It is
the temperature parameter that is particularly critical to the
maintenance of trout.
The annexation area would drain to Long Lake and then on to Brown's
Creek. Even if the stormwater was managed onsite through the use
of ponding, there would still be an increase in volume of warm
water delivered to the stream from higher density urban
development. If the annexation proceeds, the DNR would like to
work closely with the city and the Water Management Organization
(~rno) to develop stormwater plans that may protect the resource
from degradation. The planning effort would likely involve
complete hydrologic studies of the area. In this case, a watershed
approach to managing the resources seems to make the most sense.
However, the watershed approach, which involves big picture
thinking and analysis, is complicated by the fact that the trout
stream is at the bottom of the watershed. We plan to initiate
talks with the WMO at its May meeting.
The DNR met with city officials on Thursday, April 20, 1995 to
discuss preliminary observations. It was discussed at that meeting
that it is still early enough into the process to deal with the
stormwater concerns. We all agreed, however, that dealing with the
annexation area in isolation from the bigger picture of the
watershed amounts to a piecemeal approach with increased expense in
the long run. The city was very supportive of participating in
further analysis and discussions.
0\ ::rH 10:' n:>':>n::;'n I,,~rv '::I\~':>' nv'::::;'
.
Mr. steve Russell
April 25, 1995
Page 2
The first steps involve assembling all of the known pieces of
information and history. Once we review what is known, we will be
better equipped to determine what needs further study.
Unfortunately, the time period for discussion of alternatives is
very short if the annexation proceeds according to schedule. The
ci ty should be aware that an engineering solution, such as a
complete diversion of stormwater from the creek, may be the only
viable alternative to protect the resource.
We look forward to continuing participation by the city as we work
cooperatively through the issues and concerns. It is hoped that
the Brown's Creek WMO will also be interested in becoming an active
partner in developing a long-term, systems approach to maintaining
the viabrlity of this very susceptible resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the public
hearing record. If you have any questions, please contact me at
772-7910.
.
Sincerely,
1\ ~\{ '- S~~C~
Molly Sbodeen
Area Hydrologist
MCS/cds
c: Mayor Jay Kimble I
Dale E. Homuth
Duane Shodeen
Dave Zappetillo
Dav<;! Ford
Brian Rongitsch
Sharon Pfeifer
stillwater Township
Brown's Creek Water Management organization
Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District
Clayton Eckles
.
.,
( ,
.
Mailing Address:
CommunitY Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: ~el.l /1tJhtir1
/
ADDRESS: /) 17
~'. ~ r"\ t) 5-1
S'/; J J I.-'\/?t.r
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
{, 'r c .--J
~ I
4 WH^'1 t. r-~1
/'"^ -I- (()~ j ('It; /( -
c I... c, ,/~, .-i--
rJ;v-/s
J, 2, "3
..f [".0 ~
",..,
h/,. "., I;~.)
{ () \.J I J 'v1.; I u .i,
/7 c.. ,d.:"".J,J
-/-Z,.,. rc I t.( / J{.,r
(.1 (/
<)..J.-r(.-l--i, ;,;.,. I ?re-A
.
-/r-CVl "> ,()t'...-l
I
IJ Ie. --;;t. ,I ". ~ Vl-t....
,
a S co........ 1/1... .--, <; 6-. -i, t.;V\' I 0 v'1 s' ~.t--..... -I, ,,::, ..4
I J 0
h(.'",kvt\.rA 19...... C,-y" iJ.r J-1.V..-r ({ t'?v.t"'
1.-1 f /-.. I t.. (; "' .. t.. : 11
.
lat..;. j ~ ~ -I <;./ r-<.~ f.;",
· c Iou
)
't" cf s c ,",-, ?" .., .fA r 0 \of j J,-.. .s-l rc:<.:+ ~
"..... ,^-J.':/f.JI:~-& ^-_.A 1/'V.,..,^..~,r.K ~II''''''''''-''''-<'+ ~L'",-<;,'~ 7b .:~f,;.l.'1I~"f-{ c....-/-.-/k...u1.....
I I I V 'J
Me.\jL-l-,oV'hooJ -I-rctfl'~ (~I:-'.t~.r -Ib MfJ~ 5'f)vtl. ct /v.it +- -c'r.-H 1!'
J"/~'l)"Al< ,L) t.-.<. "
/
Thlt.-V-t" /C'-:] t....II"...... Cr.1;'\t.<,,'"I.<;;' ~.hl.",+ ~.v..- IYlt;d-h.C. h.""/~
,-C) r~r:A h~lr~-11 Lv;<:'l.L'Vl5:,.~ ii':ftcJ /(\I,Ht;w,.1 cOYl.~<;If()~"
u s..<.s 54J 1l~,:L r ltJ" ~I"";~ ...,. t!0L....""'+C\,.(".V) -
~.
(j{',U.t 60.A blle,...:c c:,(" h,..r..( -F".. ,-A cs I d.t "'"\. f-S ~d.SS L' N -h, .'"L-tc;" 't. Lu', l ~ ~,~ ('
<l.V\. J C"I',.c ~ "'+ r. .... ..t dlc:'~ -< h" '0' J.., 6.'''' I ~ ,i'\ Y\ ~ \~h. ~v'" hc c J~ ~~L, . :j
1" -It; I"ov'<'"'~~'\
t-r.t..H.,- c'-~ f'C'~r$ :i'\)f' Co~...( of. l "'-('ocr' '......~~ ...J
5 '-'fro "'+ \ '-"3 S (; t -/10:'..",> Ja~" +~ of t c.:",
11
!t.;"",A u"'~. S. ~ "" ,.....\
. I I
). ''6(;wt.-f- UL').";" C{
(,' () (..... ,
I
r,^",;-(
~ /,....,A &t
.
.:2
.
r1 v <:.h
p(~.ho-=({
1)01
~~ '6
/ .
N. c ,J: LA,.. '^-c c.\ () ~ -\ \..A.. 4: ..... -\ ~
, ,
(;'tl-h:> (,j.CL- 51,"~,A /).<' -Ie'1"rl'( 'd b- Collo~-r D .....,,1,,;'" .10
(>O,,{ 0.... \...v..."","~c> +0 ~...ol hC'l./-t$.. ()." -+e.., u .'!:-u->7A 1'.... ~ l.(j ;t '/2
(~(-rl...., b....:\.tJ.c:....Uf' '0+, ~ C....."'~L'-'-u" ~-G..AD H,(nLt! jv..e-:"1 Id~ \'t.o'-'-'-
I'cLJ h:J h C\..':, La-<. \l .. T 1'1X I~\M l )""h t.... ~,-,..J. \" .rc........~ .,-.J..IC~ ~ lc...." Arc"
~"\()..,\c.f h.<. ~t.;;-\. ~ 1\.\JA ,:-,"'\\i(~ L.-.C\""-td -l-c:> u..'-.\....,t:'~-{ l..-o...\.~-\ '{YsIL~w.d.j,
h,u...... ....fC-:L..L\ ~e L.0.,-~......+ -~l"Y.w..,.~.d kLl( /.t:Je,.....<. r-,^",.Vl "'5l?l.ee' ('c.,.-,J. /~)
eJ ' c ,. (T- -
/'111.0.... ('Lvt~,:s- 2-0,-'1',...) h'CO- $,-OD /.... U Q{ ? A t......~+L\
/itlu-C:C.- Or"L^,\.""~"'c:"t' +k,_-\ Lvc'd..,\J. Pr(~I~t..,.<....( /fLr!J'~ -/rb-e.+s.. o(<o? ':Jf(~C:<-.'
$ . . .
f:,v'-J j, 0'\ t. ~..dlt..(. -Iv r 1"\ t. (t. t ~Y" J u 'vI.-- ) c, ,,-,I () w v~ r <:~ rh ,I)u...-t- ' (. . r c.. ~ . .
JG f-.../OO .~- ). \ f-oo+ (;/. \/; l~ -h, l"'.:.vtJ. ~oA.~.::r N, /.z.~
~ ~ ,"200 -\ (> \l.L"" \.vv"":-\ 0 :-L-'o.( t"A.. t'rC..<1 ';rt(J {)'" -!-ou.;V\<;' h:p
lA> ,,~-t . . id -G c.', (j S-< -I -t? f'~ k $
?L S. h'"'tS of J~cJ -tQ p-<-fl +1 c.''''i " . ~ A..J (.',JA
.a~,lLnt~ lA.\r..'--t ~..
\. it, t..UA,V" &. t~'^c.( .......:" tl... '-z: 5t ,cl.t.....i
(tll~\~i.-b ~:J' \6fClt<::.-h) '6 -+2J Li~t'\ (\.A.U.' Olli' 60~'.5:
--- L , , .-J..-I \ \ I , \0 ... oS I ~ 'i..S '"0,
_, I'X ,~\..- -, U. &t.~,~ tA-,j V'-'l.'-' ~oV\ , \2.,.(,'~J~"""'~
Co""'c:.\ GCA..v\.~~-J !:>/,o...td.. he.. ,....?ft;.LJ, -ev\t.(."o,l I V\~ 2.. (j1""U{ .
b \..:1 0 b 10 us. r~ >5 . ~ c.....-e c.. ES r<.t ~ \ru \-1 Ov~d l^<.'" ~;.;.s+ i 0'> "..{"'~ al.-
!//so, /-ti:::. p....-t IVl -T(. 'flc..vI Lv0... cl'j +\,..",~ /-<../--5. '~~L.td ,re,,).tlfd
\L.",(.,,^- ~ \A-':'. ",:-\ -tv (."'l..l.-\- \~ ~ f \..; J' ";' "'--<. pc. "-L.. / D,~ "1 ':>P(.,e..
f''""ts..<'' L-,...-tI';.I"\, ~SI(.L","i S v"(}-) CL liffi:--J.. .-t""'~.)'
I
ei
( OlL..,,'"\
f1-!u v S '''j ; 5u PF" ,-/
c,~ II.-U. l-t <::, ~l VV\ ~ l Lr 4 {() j-t-, "'" --:-+L___ + -1"0 t 6 (; r .;\ C. L...t
~\.Vl.:s',r""j" flit )1Jl,t"JV~ l-1.oc{L.i,. sA-o....ld Sh"N. ,..:. -lJ':J
.j () l~ , Nl.<<-C (~L...t Ii..> rv:.l ') 0 l\..{", c. C {., +<:-4 :VI 5 I z.. (.
. \. . n C~ "r / . 1_ . 0
~<V\..<..-'\ C' C:G..d /0 Z C.--t"~.J" .:.\. c.........U ~O v!. IJ + I '-t. l..~c..~ #-.
\:,. ~ \ 'f' h ~ i.,v~ tL c.,. U ,.,\.,4-..1 C<5 N \.'-' .:.. ,...),~. .Ie. i- 5>
''/,,6''''' c~ ~u h.OL">:-.J \.... o,~ 0", -t-l.Avo C,r(llr.
(;'0 c;.. \
1 1"2..
I~
( c.... \t.{ IAc....L...{
vL ..ll,. (]- \t1..{ J\~':;
VI '-'.., C 6,1. ( e".....-+r-<:..
tv c:',,-.\-v ev( ~':>()l... '-' DVf\...i. "'\..5> So f 'I. t t: '2
V c;.v.\Ls. T ..rC,,-,l.s Q" ~ S \..r fc:~-t e-H 6 ~ C-. \~
\..-.< or- 4-JOV"l.T :)
H'- ~-l-o-:'ll..' Z-e~ o\.. rc..e ~
.J
..e (. on 0-
K ~ k-,V\. 'C
5erf' .--It
\~ ')1 ~
t \^ c\..u s -t (-> ~<. ^" \(..
()lv,^S I
166'<::'
Iv <.c'J -b
\ :",,\I...!>
c:.... -\ 0. \ J. (>G. r-'<:
~:;:j <~~~,,:~
::r 6' -S (, ~ chI ; L'"1 -r.f""4 L..u d S'" -\- .::. -h, ..s c u f f"t. -"' -t
~b d- ~ k.y 1- ~ if lru I.. r p/ .:p.,.;dL 6.~r
......
c. W'" ~ "-$IG;~
?0~) It '- -F,.." I...} ',+, c".)
ru.- '^-
5 vrp Cr-~
J'\ c... ) I ~H'\o '"'J i,
6 G {:...1J; - ~c: ..leA
l JiG -I-r:- ~ fd (Y'- t M Co h, :t
~tif
i.
.
.
I.
. .
FLOYD & JUDITH MUNKELWITZ
8270 NEAL AVE N
.STILLWATER MINN 55082
MAY 5, 1995
DEAR STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL,
WE WISH TO FORMALLY APPOSE ANNEXATION OF .OUR PROPERTY AT
8270 NEAL AVE. STILLWATER TOWNSHIP.
THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSON MAPS OF THE AREA GIVE THE FALSE
IMPRESSION THAT WE DO WISH TO BE ANNEXED, BECAUSE WE ARE SHADED LIKE THE
PROPERTY OWNERS THAT DO! WE DO NOT.
WE HAVE LIVED AT THIS RESIDENCE FOR 17 YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
.CHANGES WITH THE ANNEXATION OF OAK GLEN, ACROSS THE STREET AND NEAL AVE
BEING PUT THROUGH. "fE; STILL HAVE COUNTRY AND WILD LIFE IN :OUR BACK
YARD. THE RESIDENCES OF STILLWATER TOWNSHIP AND THE WILD LIFE
..WOULD BE BETTER SERVED STAYING WITH 2 1/2 ACRES LOTS.
SINCERELY
FLOYD AND JUDITH MUNKELWITZ
-::r~ <f~ ~
CC. STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR JAY KIMBLE
.NILE KRIESEL
.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: S~~€,V\ J ~C\-U1 ~U\ tJ IU[[O ^
ADDRESS: III 0 AA'J\'\CtV-- \.-D. I~O.
,
.,
..:...
, t 7 JY11.~/)1. /VY7d0t0--
~ -L J. UI
0J c:.c~ . ~
~ ~k9-Yu ~ b (lfi~ I2P t1
dJV /.:Cl\(/(U;L?- tftR~- LAJc~. ~ ~~h' ~
...~ /.. ?
{~M .1UL-----;;;-(jil Q.-e-tO U.J-t-7fi..V:" " - 7(/'4 ,
fi! lLZ-l~.M~J:t1\JJ1Il1.,tyt{2., [)/-LIt: AU/l~
.~<VU ~V ~ ~
;U.u0 :t...1v % H~ OJ ~(C14'V~-fP~~
( r 1(rL~
I.
,.
.
i
May 1, 1995
. ,.
Wmunity Devel?pment Department
omprehensive Plan
2 6 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Please accept this letter regarding the Comprehensive Plan now being discussed by the Stillwater
Council. As property owners residing within the city limits of Stillwater, we oppose the annexation
Stillwater Township. We have many concerns about this plan, and along with the majority of city and
township residents, consider the extensive development of this property ill-advised. Please find our
major concerns as follows:
· The massive development would have a negative impact on existing neighborhoods;
there are no roads planned to route new residents away from established residential areas,
the increased traffic on county and residential roads would certainly affect the property
values of existing neighborhoods.
· Currently, the Stillwater schools are filled beyond capacity and could not handle a
influx of new students.
.
. The cost of new city services would more than offset any revenues gained through new
development.
· The environmental impact on this fragile area should be addressed.
Thank you.
Ken & Angie Parsons
2033 Neal Avenue North
Stillwater, M N 55082
,.
.
.
I
I.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
P LIC HEARING
NAME:
ADDRESS:
".
-,~
. .
.
.
.
)- 4- <TS-
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
cia Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
_PUBLIC HEARING
NA'l 'It: lit" ,(-J.\ ,..., ,-':"",'.:; I,
lV.c l'ICl\'t\..j iV" ~.,\
/'\ .
ADDRESS: rri ;'l1(\../uk~~(,)/ Uri~'e
/. . I
Sr,' I '.-\i:d--e'(., ,;~k;
WRITTEN COMMENTS: .J
, ~) .~~(,\;~j.
c
L I -n',{1 ~ ,+,) ,) _L
.( VV'-C\ ...J ,/,\J' .....>0 \.A..U~11;-r.-cr2.A
( .
- i' ~l:l', L) - -h
~0t' ..,~~. t t. \"....'-., ",\
J"
....,d~
~ v-. /L-
...l2.-t:~ ,
oj \I
C- "', /1\.1' j 1 ~ ,..,J
......, ~J.....:_{..I . .1' ~/I't'............\> c:
:J
f:
C\..-'J, '-C\
IJ :j
r..J.-~./,
...A .v...
I f II
v ~ \.L\....~ .t.., ! L.f-1../) ~. ,\ _ C
iJ
, I, ~.~~-ct .J.t:-~J\ ~dI,
: 'V,-Q
.2, .~ ~:,'l yt,
i
I
~ .l...- J \ ' , -L-i
~cvr- .(AI" '-':U.2_1..Jb--2.~ ..tA..~1.~.J,
~
r I '., I
Jtt-1,0UA-~'1 Ai.~ \A~7 .
f. , .J , . ~ '\
~L CJ \.:\/') ~J-Cl.'\J 1:"'VV1---VuJ-
) (: ~ i.
1"............,: . i{l11~~.-l-~Lt'1'\J./L1 L l.t.--1\_(-
~ 'I.
-..(.-\."1.. L
"./1'\.....)
'"
~~j'-"', \..-\.."1/\_
"J 0..1i
; ....Lx I'~
fi
, . ~
. J!\.-11 ,t . '\ .u2Xt-t2.v A.-j
\ \ . J
J -1 .
.~~T
J i'
,"_J"-1.1.._1.~~
,::---1.\ ,-LV)
.\..,'"\
~J
.\
-ilL.
../\.., "-"..
../I/l1.-L
~ (' ~ I
Y iCt. ~C0- 'A1~~I. C../J
(j
~ l. \;...(\..-,,\-.j- ./T'\'V[+--- LL..
'- t \ .vK. (\.--
-L-
.....{.'l-i\/C 0\--1 ,
I
r-'\...\:-1'\-~ ...A.A
1
~:f/
.....Q,"I,R..) <' f
.J r
o ;} 1\
, t X.:., /,' A'1.X
i ~'"-T-.
_j.;.J,
-'". ..
....' ~ V'"......._
/' I' \. .,
r. :' 1\ . ./ \., 1\. L1. ....."i r.t.. I \/7 \. L l-GL.L CI ....
Cr~"lv;'V~\,(1 \~'Vl'\.LI \...)L,i' ........1 ~/t:.
.-: 'II../~
..........-,.\...,.....
\
\. -.Jl
\/1 i ~_/U..:..LQ..VtJ'
)
.\. ~!,
:-;~ .-I.t...... I ~ .'t''-.."
_'~_ .t.. t\- l - ,
\J
\\., . ,
i. :-l -r;
/"-'_'1..- '- ~i ,...1.\/1""'1,. ,:1
""
.j
t, "'"- '.\ /'
- . I. . - ~~
./1 ~ 1. vi
7 '
, .~ .
.~
. -.;:
_....;l.
.A. ""__/ V.
.,"':","-_1: '.' /r
. ;
I
J!
I) I
i .......1
,I
_(~ .i-~.l'\../
"~..1 ,\'- ~'\_l..:_ "\._. \
. I
-r:- ' -..
.,f) 1\ .;. '.. .,.(" .117_./\.! -.J ,
-j J
r.' I.
r,-..t.c~v'LS)
4. J ~
r~,~ --:: d. \'~l
. . - .1..
~ .-t-hi .1-' \.".'v'i1.f~;
/ I
I
.I
'1'1 '~1
- .
~
.
I.
i
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.'
APRIL 25,1995
STILLWATER COtAPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAJ.'-fE:J!k-(k +- ~f"e,(\ It<..; ec
ADDRESS: qc?~4- AJ;:L1 Aile Afc, ,
c9--/ i /1 wo.. Y" / oaJl1-.j A /p
WRI1TE1'i coMMEillS:
.~) ~A~.;IJ--Ar~ -;II"
'f1A~U/ '/7~~V"'*~ r.,l'''_dJ/n.).t-;J:fIn:l-:
4A"'~ "L;' no #ri / ,h .LA A-l' ~ R: .L;d-,~ Lrf.f1tJ '
J~ y?Arya~ fJJr?/Y\. ~ //ER V .
:~~ -//'J,,,-~r,.wA:c,nAAd VEer
~rf ~.LU1A?f ! ifk LA1f ~AA ~uV
--l~~=~lI~~~~'_AAP ~~~
_ ._ _ __ ___ _' ~A< -& ~I : /J;:~LA'~
-:t; ~ /fA <../1 'I' ~ ~ ~ J ~~ CI.A...-< ,/:A d..a...J '.
_~ ;:;;/'nL~ ,A..h ~ /m"~{~~ ,.-/:6
CL ~_ "t7A~' .
6'~rL'nA..IL ~ A-"(f- /~ ..p/n~~~(j---'
-A'A /l P; /VY> ~, A ~ '" fJJ.-A.-R ,.0 i, 'U'~.!. .
U('L1:::1~.J..-A"f ", ,,~ j .+fA/! DA'~ ,Q~/,,j"/J~ ):
, .~ -.
(I
. ~gr~.~/
. AL-~ CaA fl ~
. / -' CJ-UA.'
I' A AA-F p...-r>tA).c. .L.P / '- . · tl~,.B -fA: .
a..-n A- h11..<-< ~ p J A.A-R ~ ~
; ~ (J .J. .J t"'>->> -"..<l-. ~ ~ -' ~ ~ -' ..' ·
j~./"p d t<l_U'-:t: .~ v _ -Y ~ f ~
"rr J-L '. . ~ .-f-dhA.J~
yO~.A4p;f.LJ.A. oJ
~/;/; ./1.1d.' , /7- ~'" t5\JZd
~/1-U . A./Jb-~.J.lrk ~ _L
1""~.. /1' ~ ?t-
opt. I2.A p.a.... / u~.
a..<l.- .L.I: . .R~ / =- · Z2d. ~ ~.-i,.: .
n ~ _ ~ If. / o(.-I",::I7/>"..) h ~.I r~
~. Ud If ~
AJ /l.J EXIT7"/O AI /
? L/VV~A;A .J
e
.
.
.
.
r'"
s
a
e
d
c
~
- \
- -'\
1'\
STILLWATER AREA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
May 4, 1995
Mr. Steve Russell
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Russell:
The Stillwater Area Economic Development Corporation has been following your progress on revisions to
the Comprehensive Plan with extreme interest as to how it could affect commerciaV industrial property in
the community. We are extremely supportive of the city's efforts to increase land holdings that could
provide for commerciaVindustrial property.
The city of Stillwater as well as surrounding communities has been losing jobs to other locations over the
past several years since we have a lack of industrial land that is affordable and properly located to suit the
needs of light manufacturing businesses. As you are aware, the manufacturing sector of the economy has
been the engine of growth in the United States since the industrial revolution. Lately, the city of Stillwater
has fallen well behind and has not been able to provide the types of jobs as well as the tax roll assets of
manufacturing facilities for a number of reasons. Most predominant among those reasons is the lack of
land availability.
With the current real estate tax policy in the state of Minnesota, a $1,000,000 assessed manufacturing
facility will pay taxes comparable to those of at least 25 residences ofa $100,000 assessed valuation each.
This is a tremendous boon to the city, the county, and the state in general, even before taking into account
the number of jobs that it would create that would provide salaries that would have an impact on our local
re+.ail economy. We welcome the vision of you and others who have been involved in the drafting of the
Comprehensive Plan to step forward into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Jim Kellison
President
JEK:kmh
423 SOUTH MAIN STREET. STillWATER, MN 55082. (612) 439-4544
"
.
.
.
r..
14790 119th St.
Stillv-later.. t./ln. 5.:)062
4 1-....1::;:':7 1 q q c)
r .... -'
To t11e H:)noral)le Ivla."':,ror an(l Cit""':,r Council of Stil1v.,ra.t.er:
, ,
I ';/.l"ish to (:ornnl€-nt ()!1 tilE:' pl::Hl to 3.n!l€-x :portiO!l:3 of Sti11""':..\r.:l.t.er
TO"':Arn~;llip a::; prop':)ss-d in thE:- rE:'vised (:o!111)fel1e!lsi"':,r€- pla.n of thE:' city
()f StHlv.,rat.eL I ;:1.t.tended t.he fneeting on Tue:::day ...e....pril 25.. 1995.. At.
tl1at. rfleetitl!2. it seel11ed verv. dear tllat a r!1a).oritv of the citizens
~ # ~
3pea1:in9. alf:O (:.DDosed the Dlatl. I.. t(:I(), anl op,nosed to the ...1)1an as it is
... --.o.l...;..L 1'"'
DfoD.:)sed.
... ...
ivI"':,r ODP()sitl()!1 113.S st.re!1'2tl1ened a.fter I hav.e studied the plc11l in
r .A ~ ,_, .
sot):le detail. I do not belie"':le the d€'velopnlent proposal1u€'€'t.s the
policy and prc'gram objecti':,res T.....Jlli<:11 are ou.tlined in the
comDrell€-n:3ive r)lan. SDecificallv policies and r)rOPTarns ou.tline on
... ~ J,." 1"" c.
pa.ge 3-5 and 3-6 under the t1eading of "C01Y1rnunity Size, Stmpe,
Separation, and buffering (1)j€-ctives.... are not filet.
Polin;r # 1 calls ior rnaintenance of ODen ST)ace tu;:;.tv.,reen Sti11"vlater and
~ ~ I- .
the surroun.jing area, discouraging of urban sprav.ll and preservation.
of open space. FurtJlelTnore the plan calls fa:)r the encouraging of 'Vus€-
of the nevol de~l€'h:)prnent concepts" . " such as rnixed use developrnent
and cluster hOlJ.sinQ" to " . " luinir.nize tJle need for and use of tJle
.-'
autornobile, prot.ect n::1.tural resources and nlainta.in open space:'" Tlle
proposal for land U:::e does none of these.
I see inade.Juat.e Dar!::s and open sp'aces and virtuallv no buffer
~ ~ I
tletv.,;reen tile area to be annexed and the surroundinQ. rural area. No
'-'
Par1-: in the Dlan volould even be 1ar9.e eU()ligll for a baset.all diatnond,
.. . U 1..-1
ti.) sav nelt.bing oi SOfrle O"j:)S'l1 8T);::t.(€' or v'lildliiE:' areas. Tller€' are no
r ~. ... 1-"
connecting links tuetvoJeen neigllb<:.!-11,)ods excent bv car. The scenic
~. ,-I .l- '"
railroad, nov.! a bCIl::;.n1 to ()lir 1clcal econofny, v.,rould SOC'11 be a ride
ti1rOU9"11 a fe.......7 suburban neiQ.llt..)rhoods. The greent)elt Droposed 011
~. w v ~
tile plan is too narr(.)-';~\i to provide the tvne of seDaration desired.
. ,. ~ .1
There are no (;olnrnunitv. (;(;.1"1"1er store::;. I don't believe vou could
. ' ,
':llalk anv"':..\T!lere. Z(Hlin9. DUts 111ultifarni1v ac(:ofIl1nodations next to
'# ._1 .. ,
farrn field:::. Preservat.ion ()f srna.ll t.OV.,rfl c1Etra.cter is lost..
Put. SinlDl-':l, tilE? plan Dfonc.sed doe::: nqt rileet its OV'llll2'c,als.
.I. .. .a. .L r _0
.
Ratil>?r tilan Dr€-f;er-':lE? tile cllann of the area, tlle 1)ro"]:)os€-(118.nd use
. !J 4
plan appear~ t.o pad::. tilE? fLl()st housing into the area that ~Arould
reasonably be possible. This appears to be an opportunity for a fe"(,l\"f
land oviners t:) sell ()ut to large developers insuring large proiits for
'-' '- ~.
both :parties. Tl1is is very unfortunate.
You ha-':l€' the o"pp~)rtu.nit':l ':Arith a pllan for til€' next tV'lO decades to do
4 4 .
;onletllhlQ' ':,-'londertul for the future of tilis conununitv: tCl preserve
--.; , .
the rural cll;:7:\ract.er of tt.le Stilt~,"olater area and our v.l(;.nderiul open
sp.aces' to accom.rnodate g1'ov..rt.11 in ~\;ravs that others v.lould en':lV and
,/ "-,,,, .,.
elY1ulate. I 110T)e vou v'lil1hav€' tlle c.:)ura!2"e and foret110lJ.!2tlt to rel'ect.
J, , """,~.
this land use p,roL)osal. In doinQ' so ':lOU '\.\lill11a~le rnade a l1ard
J: \..,.1 ,
decision. Ivlost irflf;10rtantl':l. ':lOU v.,rill giT'le bact. to Stilhtola.ter's future
... , I' I '\.-,
generations the clpport.unit.:'l to preserye the unique and beautiful
rural character v.ll11Ch ':..\le have enjoyed.
Respectfull;l subr.nitted,
.
~
jeiirey S. Schiff
.
FAX 612.139-li05
r'
0.1/30/95 17:50
.
.
.
I.
STILl.W;\TERfiiP
,Q.. 1.11,1,.
STillWATER TOWNSHIP
Box 117
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
April 25, 1995
Phone #
Fax #
The Stillwater Town Eoard, repr~sentin9 the citizens of
Stillwater Township, has taken the following position with
respect to the City of Stillwater's Draft Comprehensive Plan:
Development Density and the corresponding population growth
included in the plan is unacceptable to.the Township.
The Plan fails to represent the consensus of public opinion,
both wi thin the Township and the City, to maintain the "small
town atmoSphere and appeal of th~ City of Stillwater.1I
"
The abs~nce of specific assessment policy to protect existing
residents from. assessments fpr unneeded services ignores one
.of the most significant areas of citizen concern.
The Township is opposed to any neighborhoOd commercial or
convenience store type development within the Planning Area.
David John
g{~to
n
~~I...",~"~,,.l ~'" ~"'I'"'''l;r''''""rl ~)f.ll.,~I.
~' 'Il ..".
1,1,,/ ~",Ii ,I.,) .. I : .,)1,1 .~:1..1. I~.,~,'';I,I" I',;)
~i!i,jil\,ji.:.
. ,
(
.
.
I.
.).. ~. ,..,.~ n:i~..:'.~" .~ n l
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
IMPACT ON ROADS
CAUSED BY STILLWATER PLANT F3
4.25-95
Louise I. Bergeron, Supt. of Public Warks
BOUTWELL:
:I: Currently average road count at Co. 15 is 431/DAY.
CO. 12 is 1506 I day
There are 3.5 more trips per day going to County 12
than County 15. .
; ,
** Abramowicz property with 300 sites will generate 3000
trips/ day.
**
Could be 667 out to Co. 15 and 2,333 to Co. 12 which
would make a total of 1,098 to Co. 15 and 4,937 to Co.
12 if the percentage stayed as it is today. Co. 12 traffic
will be going downtown, toward 36 via Deerpath, etc.
Palmer property with 279 sites will generate 2790
trips/day I
Some of this traffic will go to Co. 15 but there will be a
high percent that will use either Neal to Boutwell to Co. .,
12 through Deerpath or HWY 96 to Co. 5 through
Stillwater to Cub, Target, 3M, etc.
04/30/95 17:51 F~1 6124394705
STILLWATER TWP
Anyone that would be taking children to school,
daycare, etc. will not be going out to Manning or
Co. 15 direct but rather through Stillwater city
streets then to their destination.
Anyone in either development would go through .
the city rather than out to Co. 15 south to Hwy
36 and East to shopping area. It is shorter and
traffic at Co. 15 and Hwy 36 for a left hand turn
is undesirable.
IN003 '
.
.
.!
-.,.
c
,
.
April 27, 1995
STILLWATER TOWN BOARD MEETING
Town Hall
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairperson David Johnson; Supervisors David Francis,
Jack Takemoto, Jerry Hicks and Louise Bergeron. Also,
Engineer Paul Pearson, Planner Mike Gair, Attorney Tom
Scott, Peace Officer Steve Nelson and Treasurer Warren
Erickson.
BOARD OF REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Recommendations by the Washington County Assessor's Office were received
and reviewed.
M/S/P Hicks/Francis moved to accept the recommendations for #1,2,3, and 7.
(5 ayes)
#4,5, and 6 were not reviewed at the local Board of Review (4/12/95) so the.
Board was not able to make a decision.
M/S/P Bergeron/Hicks
.
moved to close the Board of Review.
(5 ayes)
REGULAR MEETING
1. AGENDA - M/S/P Bergeron/Takemoto moved to adopt the agenda as amended.
(5 ayes)
2. MINUTES - M/S/P Hicks/Takemoto moved to approve the 4/12/95 Board of
Review Minutes as written. (5 ayes)
M/S/P Hicks/Bergeron moved to approve the 4/13/95 Town Board Meeting
Minutes as written with the addition of the Board's statement of items
in the Stillwater City Draft Comprehensive Plan that they are opposed
to added to #16. (5 ayes)
3. TREASURER - Report given. Claims reviewed and checks signed.
M/S/P Bergeron/Hicks moved that claims #11348 - #11384 and #11386 - #11407
were approved for payment. (5 ayes) '.
4. FINANCIAL ANALYST - Mark Stockwell of Evenson Dodge was present to
discuss a contract with the Board.
M/S/P Francis/Takemoto moved to accept an agreement with Evenson Dodge
I_or financial consultation. (5 ayes)
A cover letter and annexation issues raised will be forwarded to the City
of Stillwater for the Draft Comprehensive Plan hearing record.
~
Stillwater Town Board Meeting - 4/27/95
Page Two
5. PEACE OFFICER REPORT - General discussion about the state of the
Township - speeding fines, sign needs, trailer ~arking ~nd a decline
in burglaries.
.
6 .
STONEHENGE SUBDIVISION - M/S/P Bergeron/Hicks moved the following:
1. A grading permit will be issued subject to
the Engineer's review and approval and receipt
of an escrow amount.
2. Permission for aggregate
will be given subject to
agreement and additional
(5 ayes)
base construction
a signed development
escrow.
Reminder to the developer - final approval for the subdivision must be
given by August 24, 1995.
7. ENGINEER - The Engineer is instructed to amend the Township Road Specs.
to include plastic culverts.
I,~ PROPOSED COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - The Clerk will put on the record the
~nship's opposition to the density program and acquisition of right-a-way
for Stonebridge Trail (from Otchipwe to Highway), that will effect the Township
in the Proposed County Plan.
9. PLANNER - Mentioned that the Park Plan needs refinement and updating -
Board is 1n agreement for ~ future project.
10. PUBLIC WORKS - The Superintendent of Public Works and Engineer will be
marking areas for road repair.
.
11. ATTORNEY - The law was discussed for Township giving money to non-profit
organizations. At the next Annual Meeting the residents will be asked for
authorization to spend up to $5,000.00 for donations to various organizations
to do with health, social service and recreational opportunities.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Clerk
Chairperson
Approved
ei
..
.
i.
-..
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
Box 117
Stillwater. Minnesota 55082
April 25, 1995
The Stillwater Town Board, representing the citizens of
Stillwater Township, has taken the following position with
respect to the City of Stillwater's Draft Comprehensive Plan:
Development Density and the corresponding population growth
included in the plan is unacceptable to the Township.
The Plan fails to represent the consensus of public opinion,
both within the Township and the City, to maintain the "small
town atmosphere and appeal of the City of Stillwater."
The absence of specific assessment policy to protect existing
residents from assessments for unneeded services ignores one
of the most significant areas of citizen concern.
The Township is opposed to any neighborhood commercial or
convenience store type development within the Planning Area.
~~~~
David Franc~
;;;~s
() '1()1(! .
i:/P.&r"7( /}t-c',J-~,"-
David Jollnson
,I
,--",...
Jack Takemoto
@ Printed on Recycled Papcr
-' " .. ..
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
EVENSEN DODGE INC
'. '. ....
May 3, 1995
Steve Russell
Community Development Director
City of Stillwater
City Hall
216 N 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: City Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Mr. Russell:
Evensen Dodge, Inc., fiscal consultants for Stillwater Township submits the comments outlined
in the attached annexation issues sheet for inclusion in the record of public testimony on the
amended Stillwater comprehensive plan.
We understand that the publi<;: record containing comments on the plan will remain open until
May 5, 1995. As you know, I appeared at the public hearing held by the city on the subject plan
last Tuesday evening (4/25/95). My colleague, Mark Stockwell, also testified at the hearing. He
raised a few questions and identified some issues related to the potential fiscal impact that the
planned annexation of township property by the City could have on the township.
Because of the three minute time limit imposed on all persons interested in providing testimony
on the plan at that hearing, only a portion of my comments as outlined on the attached
annexation issues sheet got into the public record. Therefore, I would appreciate having the
entire text of my written comments incorporated into the record in behalf of our client, Stillwater
Township. Thank you.
Sincerely,
EVENSEN DODGE, INC.
~
Robert A. WorthingC)
Vice President
/ss
. .
Attachment
cc:
Donald Johnson, Chairman, Stillwater Township Board of Supervisors
Mike Gair, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
BWI7ss4
601 Second Avenue South, Suite 5100, Minne<lpolis, MN 55402
612/338-3535 800/328-8200 FAX 612/338-7264
EVENSEN DODGE, INC.
. .
Robert A. Worthington, Vice President
STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ANNEXATION ISSUESl
. Growth Management -- Stillwater will be making major capital investments to
upgrade its existing streets and related infra-structure improvements over the next
decade. Can it afford to extend new streets and infra-structure to the subdivisions
proposed for annexation at the same time as its committed to improve existing
streets and related infra-structure within the City?
. Infill Housing -- The Stillwater Compo Plan indicates that there are 223 acres of
vacant land available for development. Residentially zoned land contained in this
total could produce 370 new units. A cooperative strategic plan which
incorporates the existing infillland with land proposed for annexation should be
developed.
.
Random Development -- The areas proposed for annexation create a development
pattern that is not conducive to the compact and orderly extension of growth or
utility services from the City to the property proposed for annexation. This could
lead to costly inefficiencies and wasteful sprawl.
. Density -- The net density that will be created by the ultimate total number of
units (+963) proposed for the area to be annexed is of concern. Provision will
have to be made for preservation of wetlands, wooded areas, parks, and related
public streets. This could affect the ultimate net densities of the new housing
subdivisions. Also, what will happen to values and, ultimately, density when
land not included in the proposed annexation is ready for development?
. Absorption -- Market feasibility. studies should be conducted to determine if 963+
units can be simultaneously developed on the area proposed for"annexation. The
feasibility study should indicate the market values of houses to be built and the
expected time needed to sell this units. Is phasing of the developments
appropriate?
. Traffic -- The traffic impact from the proposed subdivisions combined with the
area that would not be included in the annexation should be studied. This
information would be crucial in determining the volumes of traffic that new
Prepared for presentation to the Stillwater City Council, in behalf of the Stillwater
Township Board of Supervisors, at the April 25, 1995 public hearing on the City's
amended comprehensive plan proposal.
bw9w 10
~
J
.
.
el
~
,^
.
.
i.
'I'
streets must be designed to accommodate their cost and routing pattern. Are
additional public streets needed? How will they be paid for?
.
Capital Improvements -- A capital improvements program should be developed
by Stillwater to indicate the sources, including developer contribution (impact
fees) that will be used to finance the street and utility improvements required to
service the new housing developments proposed by the annexation.
.
Debt Capacity -- A debt analysis should be conducted by Stillwater to assure
sufficient capacity to issue debt in the amounts and at the rate needed to cover the
long term public cost created by improvements related to the proposed housing
developments.
.
Annexation Policy -- A cooperative effort should be initiated by the Township
and City of Stillwater to formulate mutually beneficial policies that will guide
future annexation efforts initiated by the City. Should the Township consider
incorporation to avoid future annexation efforts by the City? Another issue to be
studied is what impact the inclusion of non-residential (commercial) will have on
the proposed annexation. Question - Where will new workers in the commercial
shopping areas live? Can they afford to buy the expected high price housing
created through the annexation proposals?
.
Fairness -- An analysis of the way costs will be allocated and assessed to the
unincorporated areas which adjoins the property proposed to be annexed should
be undertaken to determine the benefits and the fairness of assessment which may
be used to pay for those public improvements associated with the proposed
annexations.
. Comprehensiveness -- The entire area including area to be annexed. and
unincorporated areas not included should be studied as a unified whole to
determine the total fiscal impact of the proposed housing developments on the
Township.
.
Implementation -- No mention of implementation strategy. Very vague question
of timing of respective housing development is crucial. Without CIP information;
its not know how improvements will be paid for their timing and priority. Also,
will the existing and final topography lend itself to economically cost effective
street and utility systems needed to service each annexed subdivisions?
. .
bw9w I 0
"
.
.
:.
I
'"
77: 5'//1"",1(., c: /;/ C:;:"tC,/
J n~ ",--'I,l"y you //';5.
j; e ,x/rc s ) in):, ~.po/~-l-..., /:>
c7 /A7 )1 e )<. e1 1/. C. '-1. :.;- G~ J,'r j)' I; o-;..J j C L,)
/! h1; If ci C c c nrtf / j 1 j e C d U J . e I
h coo' .5 "/,//'.7 Ii e 3d,a t j,. /j
'" e e t; "J 0 rye.-, r J d I. M J '-<-' i tJ.
I., 1 II C './ J b 0 i .>.
;/e tv C C'" ., )" cue c '7 f,-" l{ L <<-', - / J d
.. ; lei' ~ t h e7 ! 9 7:% -7- c J f It c k' e 0 ~fr' )e / - Y/
,P', [".1 t/ 7 J
.. t /, e <U e cr '. d // r? c ~e.'/ "./ /j- (J.> e . . c1 la -'1 J
.. tv; t h.t h e. rn (1 ) c; /" I t 7- 0 J the I' e :t' I-L
. " i 1'1.. the. ... c, f/...... .."Y,S// /~." td?. J.J JlC U
. . ...C.ll'-t:._.. _ ..J..U i:? I .5 e / () ); CI re Y e. - /! ~. to: e .5
... " j, ~ '" j lc Z L' t{J j t:{ ja! .,., tJ t ) t' ~
. .._--t!.e_. CI..tl.ll C' ;<' d t/o e-t 14 fi (?.. )C{..c -e. /.1{ . qHl ;{ f.lt
J cr'M 111' t "') ,. /. J cf e 1/ el:l' m " ,I t
oJ _ j he) C1 it j c J q: W1 _ ~ v -5 eel . T 6 . C?
Je l(.J Ie", j C w ;re'-.5 d" I f h t r',. c/ e l/ t' ~ e r .5
be co J?-l / Y1 ~! r {. c /1. be C Cl it.l -e j Iz e 7 . w ~ v' e
.j' V e " 2- v" , h 5 ..k r ),'j J.. c/': " J /!j J~{/ '" Ic //17"
()4f/"P~;/;t~> 1
/;13:;-0 N, A~~' k tel ,1./
<-> t//~, ,T Ie' I 7c'. ~(,. /.' 5" J/j?
/
.Ie !/~ r
r/e
In L' ( ;{
A ,r, i/ e.
c,,1 f)~
C1 I /_ ~t f
:. ~ , ~ S; /77S-
, '/0; ~~~~~
. Fr-~;. ~d~ //dOl ~ /.if
.______.........~____ .... ..~.._v..~.~_.-..._'~..... ....,...-...--,,---.-
__:,:_~:'~:~:-A~~:~,=.-::~:..--- "-
L7/ _.~ ~/ ~ ~;(J~.
....._.__._.:-._".~.._..._._..___.._.. .~_ _ .... .._.....'.-...,.,_'-~_,.__.,..._.:.. .__..c...-.,....... -,,"._-'.'.:._..__-~.,__.__._~_'...-: .... u.n_ u_..
~ C .
.. . ~ .~. .~--. 4.Zj. ~ "'r' ..-........ -. ~..~...~_.._.-........- ._.._..~.
_._~u. . ._. ..__ ._ ' _ . ....
L_2-"., 1~ . ~ ~
_',=::'~~J.,Y--4,':-_)4~~- , ",.. .':-_..--~ -_.~::_':-:-----
J)?; ~J~.~-.~..~ .~.~2_.
...,'. .-,..........~~:.~.._....._.-...- . .,. -'.' .--.- _..~..--...~-...-""bT . . .~.~. .- / '" ....-...-.-...-.... -.. "--. ".",. .. '---'~
_:=:=--~'-~.- ~j=,,~=::::;:;:_-~:-'-:Z"-7L-~~~:~~'i"-~It_~=~=
. J~1J:~ ~~. l ' .~_ . /J _.- _ .. . ..._':
. - -_._.,.---~-~-~-....._.. .~... -.-
_'.' .. .__ _ ....+,' .,.:......_.. .......-_. _ "- ....._.... __' _u _ _._
.--_._~t"_..~-~----frLa-,--~-~
~
~ ...._'~__.__,....-...-..._.. ....~'=.""'~_-'"'....-....~...&.... '.._..._,;......_............ ......,_.__..,,_~-. ..'""~__-''-'-,..___~.-._ _......., ..._._.....__....._.............~s;...-.. .___~.~__.....~"'-",.~'__'_'"::s-. .~..._."~-:.....:t.;L.-__~"""~-';'.,,,,,_-_,_,___,=,;-"-"'_-:-;-'.""'-'-"''' __ -.'_>' .-.. .__~.,
~_.__~__~_..._~'r~~"~~~_~,.;I-o~flZL~_I/LL~.._"_..-
.......M__~~,~,...~_.,-~_..~-~-,..&6---,4..--~./C~ .~~.-
. ~/ ~ ,,<: ~ I I
~ .... ... ...--....,..~-..~.......~ . -.'- .. ... _. ...... ...... ....-.-~.,..~..._....,---_....,------.".... --:......, ..--. --~-..;_...-....-:;-.._-_. -. ''''''--'--- -.;.:..;. ...--~'......................'-. .-" "'-".- ~'-"'- .-.... -..-.-
.1 ......_ '.-.,:-.._. _~..';'._._._ I ,.._.,.-.:--___..,~...."..;_....,......... .....- .,.. ....... ... .. ___. -'.' '-'-".--'__'_.-.'- __ ---.... . r.:-' .......'P-. .. .r- . .--......... ,~......--:.---~......-.:..............-.._....,.....-.':-.---:-._-...._~-_._.-...:.,.:.....'."- -. -.-.- - ....-.....-;- - --. "---" .. - ...-. - . .,.......
.
".... ~~ ~..~'-. L~.~ ~---
.. &z.... - ~~P'~-,
. . .~.~.~..ZA-u-.-~7-.~....~..------,-----
.. ~. e.-..-.-Jf~~/' ~~$'~!
:: J~.~."~~..y" ~~
..~ ~ lA.L H?k ~~ &t/ ~~
~,. /
~r.
~~?A-
"
...j ,"
.
.,. . ' . 'I 'f \1 ' LT .. 1
'~1'-j1;'" ;lJ'l'j '''I~IC'1\'l-.. '11"1(' Inni'(.r'
J.. l .........,). ...... .c:...l. " "". . 1.1 ........... ..
.... --, >:':.. :~~_'!~ct' ~;\ ~:"';:1
~
'~
i ':\~I
~ :S"\i
: '~,i
I ,.).)1
May 2, 1995
MAYOR JAY KIMBLE
City Council of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear City Council of Stillwater & Mayor Kimball;
Please accept these comments into the written record of
the City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan public hearings.
I am a Stillater Township resident and also a member of
the Stillwater Township Planning Commission. I have
followed the discussions and concerns regarding your
Comprehemsive Plan closely through both public hearings and
informational meetings in addition to my role on the
Stillwater Township Planning Commission.
.
I am opposed to the Urban Rural Transition Planning Area
(URTPA) proposed Comprehensive Plan for the following
reasons;
1. The plan does not reflect the wishes and
input of either the city or the township residents. Both
groups have spoken out against the plan for the extent of
the discussions.
2. I feel the financial assumptions, factors,
projections and ratios are best case figures and likely
inflated. The unwillingness of staff to release and outline
the figures in detail serves to make them even more
suspect.
3. The concerns of URTPA area residents
regarding assessments and services have not been directly
addressed or relieved. In addition, these residents have
been told they must accept an increase in their property
taxes of roughly 10% for no additional services to support
an annexation they oppose.
;.
4. I feel this is a staff driven proposal
serving only the interests of a very few landowners at the
expense of the majority of landowners. The landowners do
currently have an opportunity to develop their holdings at
J..'I'l.";;: .11'(1 \;.'}1";\'.1-'\1.1T1'" T :'lc.i..rJr"
... 1....,' L..l J. J4.\....-l~... _~ .It ...... \.,'1 ".\"\.4..
l4~..H~ LV)H, ~~;_~cct ~"i,'i'~>
current zoning regulations. Their desire to profit beyond
the current value does not overshadow the rights and
desires of the affected residents.
Please keep these comments in mind as you review and
consider the URTPA Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your
time. .
Sincerely,
\u r,
~A\tl\rtl~tL
--
Sheila-Marie Untiedt
"
' ..
,
" '.'
. .
~. ..:i'l~
~ "i~
. "
I .
.
.
.
~.
cl. <!-.J So:: ~) ii :; ~
~ ~
"
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
..
204 NORTH THIRD STREET
.
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
BOARD MEMBERS:
DON JAHNKE. President
JOHN L. JEWELL
JAMES WEAVER
DENNIS McKEAN
SecreterylManager
April 26, 1995
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Stillwater
216 Fourth St N
Stillwater Mn 55082
Dear Mr. Mayor,
.
After reviewing the City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan in
draft form, the Board of Water Commissioners have great concern
of an item, that suggested oversizing trunk watermain would cost
$700,000.00. The area, of concern includes all of the proposed
annexed property to the West of the City. Also, mentioned was
another water tower and possibly a well, cost estimated at
$1,000,000.00 plus.
The Board feels strongly that the oversizing charges for watermain
be borne entirely by the developers involved, as Croixwood and
Oak Glen were. Capital outlay for future tanks and wells would
continue to be the Water Board's responsibility, as in the past.
The Board would like to meet with the Council and staff in a
workshop setting, concerning this matter, prior to final adoption
of the comprehensive plan, if agreeable with you.
Sincerely,
'R'-~t-t7 74!A:--
Dennis McKean
cc: Nile Kriesel, City Coordinator
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
'.
"
.,' , ~-
....
..... . I f--
.
.
~ ", -. . , - ,
. " . ,,, . ....\-~..
. ,".'
TO:
Steve Russell- Stillwater City Council
FROM:
Dan & Susan Whalen
] 180 Nightingale Boulevard
351-7230
DATE:
Apri125, 1995
We are currently Stillwater Township residents and have a working septic
system. Because we live between the city and some proposed development
areas, it appears that we may be forced into hooking up to city sewer.
We believe it should be discussed who is responsible for paying for:
1) the sewer Hnes going past our house.
2) hook..up to our home
3) closing up the existing system
Because the developers will presumably be the persons benefiting fmandally,
I would hope some of these costs will be paid by them. It seems S9mewhat
unfair that we would be assessed costs for someone else's benefit
. .
t:' .-
.MASf:.
..~ ~
.~
MINNESOTA AMATEUR
SPORTS COMMISSION
1700 - 1051h Avenue N.E.
Blaine, MN 55449-4500
Phone: 612-785-5630
Fax: 612-785-5699
TOO: 612-297-5353
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release: Oct. l8, 1995
Contact: Paul Erickson, Executive Director
Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission
(612) 785-5630
MASC Receives 82 Applications For "Mighty Ducks" Grants
Blaine, Minn. -- The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission announced that
it has received 82 applications from communities interested in receiving a
State of Minnesota grant to develop new or renovate existing ice arenas via
the State Capital Bonding Fund.
.
The applications were a response to a Request-For-Proposal (RFP) published
on July 24, 1995. The application period closed October 2, 1995.
The Minnesota Legislature, during its 1995 session, appropriated $2.9 million
for the purpose of developing new ice arenas or the improvement of existing
ones. Called the Mighty Ducks Capital Bonding Fund, the grants will be
issued to accomplish the following objectives:
. Provide increased opportunities for female ice sport participation.
. Increase ice-time access for sports other than hockey.
. Generate increased net economic activity for the state.
. Encourage partnerships among public and private organizations.
"We are simply overwhelmed that we received 82 applications from every
corner of the state," said Representative Bob Milbert, chief author of the
Mighty Ducks legislation and a member of the Minnesota Amateur Sports
Commission.
'.
--More --
An Equal Opportunity Employer
. -- f'
The MASC will potentially award 10 grants of amounts up to $250,000 for
new arenas and 8 grants of amounts up to $50,000 for arena renovation.
The following communities are seeking grants to build new ice areas:
Alexandria, Bagley, Brainerd, Breezy Point, Brooklyn Park, Cambridge-
lsanti, Carlton County, Champlin, Cloquet, Cold Spring-Richmond-Rockville,
Crosby, Dodge County-City of Kasson, Duluth, East Grand Forks, Edina, Elk
River, Faribault, Grand Rapids, La Crescent, Lake of the Woods County,
Maple Grove, Mahtomedi, Mankato-North Mankato-Skyline and Blue Earth-
Nicollet Counties, Minneapolis (Edison), Moose Lake, Nashwauk, New Hope,
New Prague, Oakdale-Maplewood, Orono, Pine City, Plymouth, Princeton,
Rochester-Olmstead County, Roseau, St. Louis Park, St. Michael, St. Paul
(Highland Central Hockey Association), St. Paul (St. Catherine's), Sauk
Centre, Sleepy Eye, Steele County-Owatonna, Stevens County-Morris,
Stillwater, South St. Paul, Virginia-Eveleth-Gilbert-Mountain Iron, and
Willmar.
The following communities are seeking grants to renovate existing facilities:
Albert Lea, Babbitt, Benson, Brooklyn Park, Chaska, Chisago Lakes-
Lindstrom, Cottage Grove, Duluth, Eagan, East Grand Forks, Farmington,
Greenway Joint Recreation (Coleraine), Hoyt Lakes, Hutchinson, lnver Grove
Heights, Litchfield, Little Falls, Luverne, Lyon County-Marshall, Minnehaha
Academy, New Hope, Osseo Area ISD #279, Ramsey County (Pleasant Ice
Arena), Ramsey County (White Bear Ice Arena), Richfield, Rochester,..
Olmstead County, Rosemount, Roseville, Silver Bay, Stevens County-Morris,
Waseca, West St. Paul, Windom, White Bear Lake, and Worthington.
The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission Board will review the
applications during October, November, and early December. Grants are
expected to be officially awarded at the December 18 meeting of the MASC.
###
'- \.)
e
e
el
MI\SC.
~ ~::
-~
MINNESOTA AMATEUR
SPORTS COMMISSION
1700 - 1051h Avenue N.E.
Blaine. MN 55434
Phone: 612-785-5630
Fax: 612-785-5699
October 17, 1995
TO: Mighty Duck Grant Applicants . Ji-
FR: Paul D. EriCksOrC2~
Executive Director
Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission
RE: UPDATE ON GRANT PROGRAM
.
The purpose of this memo is to update you on the Mighty Ducks Grant Program. The Minnesota
Amateur Sports Commission (MASC) received 82 applications; 47 for new arena grants and 35
for renovation grants for existing arenas. Enclosed is a copy of the press release and the list of
applicants by Congressional Districts. The MASC is mandated to award grants to all regions of
the state.
Also enclosed for your review is information on the upcoming MASC Amateur Sports Congress.
We encourage you to attend. It is a great opportunity for you to learn more about the MASC and
amateur sports in Minnesota. There will also be a special update on the Mighty Ducks grant
program led by Representative Bob Milbert, chief author of the Mighty Ducks legislation.
Finally, the MASC is conducting preliminary meetings with the cities of Coon Rapids, Blaine,
Spring Lake Park, Circle Pines, Mounds View, Forest Lake, and Mahtomedi about the possibility
of developing a four sheet ice arena at the National Sports Center in Blaine. Please note that the
project does not plan to impact the first round of Mighty Duck Grant monies.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or discover any errors in the
enclosed grant applicant lists. I can be reached at 785-5631 or 1-800-756-7827.
'-.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
New
Dodge County
Fairbaull
l.a Crcscem
New Prague
Rochesler
Sleele CoumyfQwalonn.1
New
M.1nkato!North Mankato
St. Michael
Sleepy Eye
Willmar
New
Champlin
Edina
Maple Grove
Orono
Plymouth
New
3t Paul - Highland Central
Sl. Paul. St. Catherine's
South St. Paul
MIGHTY DUCK PROPOSALS
By Congressional District
,j" '''<-.. ~
.....
.
District # 1
Renovations
Albert Lea
Rochesler
Waseca
New
Edison/CilY of Minneapolis
New Hope
SI. louis Park
District #5
Renovations
Minnehaha Ac:1dcnw
New Hope .
Richfield
District #2
Renovations
Benson
Chaska
Hutchinson
lilchfield
Luveme
Lyon County/MarShall
Slevens County/Monis
Wmdom
WorthinglOn
New
Brooklvn Park
MahlOnledi
Oakdale/MaplewoodlISD #662
Slillwater
District #6
Renovations
Brooklyn Park
Osseo
Ramsey Coumy (While Bear Lake)
While Bear Lake
District #7
Renovations
Easl Grand Forks
litde Falls
District #8
Renovations
Babbitt
Chisago Lakes
DulUlh
Greenway joinl Recreation
Hoyt Lakes
Silver Bay
District #}
Renovations
Collage Grove
Eagan
FarminglOn
Rosemount
New
Alexandria
Bagl~'
Cold Spring/Richmond/Rockville
Easl Grand Forks
Roseau
Sauk Cenlre
Slevens CountyiMorris
District #4
Renovations
Inver Grove Heights
Ramsey Co. (Pleasam Ice Arena)
RoseviUe
Wesl St. Paul
New
Brainerd
Breezv Poim
Crosby
Cambrldge-Isami
CarllOn County
Cloquel
Duludl
Elk River
Grand Rapids
Lake of lhe Woods
Moose Lake
Nashwauk
Pine City
PrincelOn
Virginia
.
..!
10/20/95
09:05
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ~ 6124390456
NO.S5S
[;101
.
AGENDA
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 -- 5:30 P.M.
5 : 3 0 AGENDA
I. Council Workshop - River Hills Addition Stormwater Pond
Design
6:30 AGENDA
I. Cal~ IQ Order
XI. vi$~tor Co~en~s, Q~estions. or Con~e.ns
III.
Dep~~t~t Reports
1. Police 3. Building
2. Utilities 4. Parks
Enclosure 1
5. Administration
6. Cable
.
7: 00 AGENDA
IV. Uufiniehed Business
1. City Logo
2. Proposed Fire Substation
EnclOS\lre 2
3. ADA Cost Estimate
Enolosure 3, 3A & 3B
4. Deferred Assessment Policy
Enolosure 4
5. Park Dedication Fees
Enolosure 5
6. Update on Design Review Committee
V. Review Minutes - October 10. 1995
Enclosure 6
VI.
Publ;,,~ H~ar1ng:~
1. ~pplebees, Inc. - Request for Liquor & Cigarette
Licenses
J:nclosure 7
.
10/20/95
09:05
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ~ 6124390456
NO. 858
[;102
VII.
New Business
1. Comprehensive Plan Update - Estimated Cost
Enclosure 8 & SA
.
2. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Enclosure 9, 9A & 9B
3. Engineering Survey Cost Estimate
Enclosure 10
4. city Engineer Letter - Valley Branch Watershed
Study of Temporary Flood Easements
Enolosure 11 << itA
5. Pay Request - Arcon Development - Autumn Ridge 1st
Addition
Enclosure 12
6. Approve Novak ~venue Improvement Bid
Enolosure 13
7. Request for Variance - Robert & Lydia Wood - 15075
65th Street North - Establish a Public Hearing Date
Enolosure 14
.
8. Request for Variance - James Bonse - 14775 Upper
55th Street North - Establish a Public Hearing Date
Enclosure 14A
9. 1995 Auditing Agreement - Tautges, Redpath, Inc.
Enclosure 15
10. Employee Recognition
Enolosure 16
11. List of City Meetings
Enclosure 17
VIII.
Cor:t::eS12Qn~~n'~
1. School District Election
Enclosure 18
2. Speed Limit on stagecoach Trail
Enclosure 19
3. Valley Branch Watershed Plan Adoption
Enclosure 20
4. Valley Branch Watershed Appointment
Enclosure 21
.'
Closed Meeting: The meeting will be closed for an update on
union negotiations.
,II'
.
.
.
c..c. 1(}(~'!/1r
LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.
washington Off".ee:
Hot 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
WaslHBgtea, D.C. 20007
(202} 6254356
Fax (202} 625-4J63
Minnesota Off".ee:
Y.O. B6x 2131
Stillwater, MN SS082
(612} 439-768l
Fax (6t2} 4J9:..m9
October 25, 1995
To: Mayor and Councif Members
City of Stiffwater
From: Ed Cain, lA'
Subject: Probfems, Strategy, and PFans on Stiffwater Federaf fssues:
1. Increased authorization and appropriation for Stiffwater levee Project.
2. Status and pfans for the authorization and appropriation of funds for the
new Stillwater Armory in 1996.
Everything in Washington is .out of Synch" this year as a resuJtof the massive
budget activity in both the House and Senafe, and the differences between Congress
and the Administration. StiffWater has four veryimporfant issues before this Congress
that have the potentiaf to bring to the City $17 miffionin project funds.
1. We must get new authorization of $11.6 miffion for the 'ewe project. Whife
authorized in the Senate Commiffeebiff, we need changes in the fanguagein a ffoor
amendment.
2. We must be sure the authorization is included in the House biff without the study
fanguagecurrenffyin the Senate Committee biff.
ftis Hkety thatone-or both of these actions may be delayed unfitearfy 1996. If
fhisis the case,theauthorization and the appropriations bilts witfbemoving
stmuftaneousfy. When this happens, al pretiminary work must be done before the .rolfel'
coaster'" ride begins in 1996.
3. Workmusf begin now on the appropriation in bothfhe House and the Senate. If we
wait untif after the authorization biBs are enacted, fheappropriafionsprocess wil be too
far afong to be included in fhe 1996~Ne agenda.
.
.
.
Page 2.
The New Stiflwater Armory ts coming on track and we wiff be in a position to request
both authorization and appropriations totaling $5.4 milrron under the 1996 fegisfative
action by Congress for its. construction. The armory ts an tmportant part of the
proposed Sport Compfex, and it woufd be a real boon to the community to move Uris
project atong in 1996.
The time ts rfght this faU to puff out the stops before the Committee feadership
and staff get involved in 1996 work. One of the important aspects is the invotvement of
toeaf leadership at this time. f woufd like to schedufe meetings for the Mayor with the
Minnesota Defegationand the eight committees making decisions on Stittwater projects.
This gives emphasis to the importance that you as a Councif have placed on these
projects on behalf of the City. These meeting should be held during the week of
November 13th, before the Thanksgiving recess. (There are special air fares now
available which wm minimize travef costs.)
, J ""
( :
(j
CHANGE ORDER
.
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, 200 SEH CENTER, ST. PAUL. MN 55110 612490-2000 800 325-2055
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT A T10N
City of Stillwater
OWNER
October 17, 1995
DATE
LI 317
OWNER'S PROJECT NO.
Landscaping - Wilkins & William Streets Storm Sewer
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
CHANGE ORDER NO.
A-STILL9601.00
SEH NO.
The following changes shall be made to the contract documents:
Description:
Add two 7-foot B & B Fraser Firs to replace tree removal for storm sewer adjacent to Wilkins Street right-of-way.
Purpose of Change Order:
p \y', C 'tS 1\/ t:., 0
.ll \. ]:....J -' ~..~~.. I""
__ r,' .--11 ll'-l-.'.:'~IU\;)UH. I.'"
SHO;'H L;l-L;..I r,.
To restore storm sewer easement.
Basis of Cost: . Actual
o Estimated:
OCT 20 i995
.achments (list supporting documents)
SL fA\lU
CONTRACT STA TUS
Time
Cost
Original Contract
$ 4,400.00
Net Change Prior C. O. 's .JL to .JL
-0-
Change this C. 0
622.87
Revised Contract
$ 5,022.87
Recommended for Approval: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
~@.0Pt;.rt.L
By
Richard E. Moore, P.E.
I Ag'?!i!i!l ~ Abrahamson Nurseries
.y /
/J1~
i ITLE ~
Distribution Contractor
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENORICKSON INC.
2 Owner Project Representative 1
MINNEAPOLIS. MN Sf CLOUD, MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
SEH Office
MADISON, WI
LAKE COUNTY, IN
:'-'"
..~i
. "
..
e
.
I
I.
Resolution No. 95-247
Endorsing the S1. Croix Valley Area Sports Facilities Commission for the solicitation of funds for
the construction of a multi-purpose sports facility and approving the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Stillwater and the Commission.
WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater desires to construct a multi-purpose sports facility; and
WHEREAS, the S1. Croix Valley Area Sports Facilities Commission, has been formed for the
purpose of obtaining funds to [mance the construction of the facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater that
the S1. Croix Valley Area Sports Facilities Commission is hereby authorized to solicit, on behalf of
the City of Stillwater, funds necessary to fmance the construction of a sports facility within the
City of Stillwater.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby directed to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Stillwater and the 81. Croix Valley Area
Sports Facilities Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Adopted by the City COWlcil this 25th day of October, 1995.
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
Jay L. Kimble, Mayor