HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-25 CC Packet Special Meeting
e
I.
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
CITY OF STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 95-15
April 25, 1995
1. Revised City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Possible Resolution employing temporary laborer.
2. Possible Resolution employing full-time secretary.
ADJOURNMENT
/Jlo/C" t!. /
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Minnesota
,'it
MEMORANDUM
e
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director ~
DA: April 21, 1995
RE: DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Pux:pose of Meeting
(1) To briefly (30 minutes) present key elements of the proposed comprehensive plan.
(2) To receive public comment on the proposed comprehensive plan.
(3) To provide direction for the planning commission to prepare final comprehensive plan (at
subsequent council meeting after comments have been reviewed and discussed).
Background
The enclosed proposed comprehensive plan is recommended by the City of Stillwater Planning
Commission for City Council consideration. The recommended plan is the result of 20 months
of study and over 30 regular planning commission meetings. In addition to planning commission
meetings, the parks board and heritage preservation commission has met on the plan several
times during the plan development process. A joint City of Stillwater/Stillwater Township Task
Force has been established to identify common interests in planing for the Urban Rural
Transition Planning Area, URTPA. The results of those meetings is a planning guideposts
document that provides a common framework for development of the URTPA. The
recommended plan reflects many of the shared city/township expectations for the UR TP A.
During the summer/fall of 1994, several ward network neighborhood meetings were held to
provide input into the process. That input was used to prepare the proposed plan.
Plan Contents
The comprehensive plan summary is attached. Listed below are key plan elements:
The planning areas in the comprehensive plan is the same area as was planned for in the
1980 comprehensive plan. The plan area has not grown into Grant Township to the west or
Stillwater Township to the north.
e
1
Moderate Stillwater growth over the past 15 years has resulted in all but 220 acres of lands
or 6 percent of total city land area developed.
e
The proposed plan will accommodate a share of regional and Washington County growth
consistent with past growth rates.
An extensive greenbelt buffer system is proposed around the planning area and along major
roads to define Stillwater from the semirural countryside.
The plan contains strong environmental protection policies and regulations to protect
wetlands, blufflands and sloped areas and maintain the existing landscape.
The proposed plan would result in a housing unit increase of 1,200 housing units and a
4,000 to 5,000 population increase over the 1995-2010 planning period. Of that number
one-third of the growth would be in the existing city boundaries and two-thirds in the
URTPA.
The plan provides for a range of housing types single-family, large lot; small lot; attached
and multifamily. The multifamily housing is located around the downtown and next to the
West Stillwater Business Park where services are easily accessible.
The plan stresses the importance of the existing older city housing stock to maintain
neighborhood character as a supply of moderate cost housing and to provide housing for a
diversity of households; elderly, young families and professionals or single headed
households.
The plan designates an executive business park to provide lands for light office type
industrial development to accommodate job growth and increase the local tax base.
The plan contains a comprehensive approach to preservation of Stillwater architectural and
historic structures and districts.
The impact of the plan on the city taxpayer is examined and based on that review there is a
surplus of revenues to expenditures.
The plan provides a household and population projection to plan for future city services and
facilities.
The traffic impact of proposed development is considered and recommendations made to
improve traffic conditions and reduce cut-through traffic from residential areas.
A parks master plan is proposed to meet existing and new development neighborhood and
community park needs.
-
2
e
. An extensive trial system is proposed for the existing city and newly developed areas for
pedestrian and bicycle travel and to coordinate with Washington County and state trail
systems.
An implementation program consisting of zoning amendments, land purchases, capital
improvements program is proposed to assure plan implementation.
The proposed comprehensive plan is developed to be consistent with Metropolitan Council
Blueprint policies and Washington County Comprehensive Plan Policy.
The proposed plan was developed in cooperation with Stillwater Township and anticipates
continued cooperation in the implementation of plan through an orderly annexation
agreement and other agreements to minimize the impact on existing Stillwater township
residents.
Plan Review Process
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to receive public comment. Staff will summarize and list all
comments preparing a response to the comments for council consideration. With the comments
and responses, the council should be in a position to provide direction for final plan preparation.
It is recommended that the council consider setting a meeting with Stillwater Township to see
how MUSA, annexation and other related plan issues can be cooperatively addressed.
Attachments:
Summary Comprehensive Plan
Draft Comprehensive Plan (previously distributed)
Joint Task Force Resolution
Additional Information:
Comments on the plan have been received from Stillwater area schools and the Minnesota-
Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. The comments are attached.
e
3
.a MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION .
~ 619 SECOND STREET, HUDSON. WISCONSIN 54016-1576 -'
. . . Serving Our Sponsor States on the St. Croix .....
"innesOIa Tel:Phone and Mississippi Rivers since 1965 Wisconsin Telephone
. (6121 ~7131 (715) 386-9444
Office Hours: 8 A.M. - 5 P.M. Monday-Friday
FAX (715) 386-9571
April 20, 1995
Steve Russel
Dirctor of Community Development
City of Stillwater
City Hall
2167 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan
Dear Steve:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft plan, received by our office on April
10, 1995. I have reviewed the draft plan at the staff level apd submit the following
informal comments. These comments are not intended to represent the formal position
of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, since the Commission itself
will not have another regular meeting until June, 1995. (It will have a special meeting
to adopt final comments on the proposed St. Croix River Crossing 36/64 on May 11,
1995 at 2:00 p.m. at Afton City Hall.)
Section-Page Comments
1-1 Thanks for acknowledging the St. Croix River as part of the natural
setting.
2-4/2-5 Support the objectives for Open Feeling and Rural Backdrop.
3-1 Support the idea of a greenbelt around the ultimate Stillwater planning
area.
3-5/3-7 Support Policies and Programs for open space protection and
management of development.
4-3
Update information about bridges to reflect the recent agreement that the
old lift bridge is to be removed within 10 years after completion of the
new proposed crossing at Oak Park Heightsffown of St. Joseph.
(Likewise, you may need to update any proposed uses of the old bridge as
a connector to Kolliner Park.)
e
'" f'.
Section-Page
Comments
e
7-1
Support goals 1,2, and, particular, 3, to "protect and enhance the ST.
Croix River as a natural open space and recreation resource. Mention
should be made, however, of the fact that this needs to be done in
partnership with the partner agencies of the Lower St. Croix Management
Commission, particularly the Minnesota DNR, within the Riverway
boundaries.
8-2
Support completion of master plan for river front, including Aiple
property and Kolliner Park. Such should be done in coordination with the
managing agencies of the Lower St. Croix Management Commission.
General
In your overall approach, it is clear that the City is moving toward an
increased awareness of the relationship between its natural and cultural
amenities, including the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. There
is evidence of attempts to incorporate contemporary planning strategies
and goals, such as greenways and open space protection.
I am taking the liberty of sending my copy of the draft forward to the Technical
Committee of the Lower St. Croix Management Commission as well, for their review
and comment. I wish you, your city officials, and citizens, well in this effort and hope
that it leads to a bright future for the community and the river.
Sincerely,
0~~
~McGuiness
Administrative Director
cc: Jim Harrison, for Lower St. Croix Management Commission
e
e
~,~
~ ~
-- ---
STILLWATER
AREA SCHOOLS
II!u!II
Effective Learning Ttlrough Excellence in Education
1875 SOUTH GREELEY STREET
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
351-8303
April 20, 1995
Mayor Jay Kimble
City of Stillwater
City Hall
216 North Founh Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor Kimble:
At its meeting of Thursday, April 13th, the School Board of 1.S.D. #834 had the pleasure of a
presentation from Assistant City Planner Ann Pung-Terwedo, on the City of Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan 1995-2020.
The Board had particular interest in that portion of the plan dealing with potential development of
the area currently west of the City of Stillwater. It has asked me to indicate to you that they have a
long-range interest in the possibility of a school site being identified in the general area of County
Roads 15 and 12.
The members of the Board also asked me to indicate to you that they would like to be kept apprised
and are willing to enter into cooperative discussion on other areas of potential land use that may be
of mutual benefit to the City and School Disuict.
~,J,f~~
David L. Wettergren I
Superintendent of Schools
DL W /dkh
cc:
Nile Kriesel
Steve Russcl1
Ann Pung-TeIWedo
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Board of Education
LYMAN GEARY
Chairperson
ROLAND BUCHMAN
Vice Chairperson
KAREN ROSE
Clerk
SHAWN DRAPER
Treasurer
e
JOAN FRIANT
Director
MELVA RADTKE
Director
STEVE ZINNEL
Director
DAVID WETTERGREN
Superintendent
e
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
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 ftrst 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.
e
The Community Character section defines 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 and site inspection. The Community
Character section of the plan is the ftrst section because of its importance in setting the
framework for the remaining se.ctians.
e
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.
For the Urban Rural Transition Planning Area (URTP 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 CR5 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. tit
Policies in the land use section call for continual cooperation between the Township and the City
e in implementing the plan once it is adopted.
Transportation (4.0)
Key Goals
Goal 1:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Goal 4:
Goal 5:
Goal 6:
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.
Develop a coordinated transportation system that provides for local
as well as areawide traffic.
Provide efficient and environmentally sound transportation
facilities consisting of roads, bikeways, transit lines and pedestrian
paths.
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.
Develop and locate new roads sensitive to historic structures and
sites and natural features.
Protect residential areas from non-residential traffic.
The Transportation Section defines 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
Ie
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 CRI5, just north of TH36. 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 e
looking at infill opportunities further in area or neighborhood planning. The special housing
e
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:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Create an open space system that preserves open space within and
outside the City of Stillwater.
Use the system to connect open spaces, parks, activity centers and
neighborhoods.
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 St. 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:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
e
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.
Enhance and expand existing recreational facilities for Stillwater
residents based on the recreational needs of the community and its
neighborhoods.
Provide both passive and active recreational opportunities for
Stillwater residents.
Goal 4:
Provide safe and accessible parks and recreational facilities.
e
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.
Foster 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. e
This section outlines a work plan of future activities to continue the City's historic preservation
e 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!: Construct a new city hall that will meet the city's anticipated
staffing 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
ParksIFire/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)
e
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' tax bill would not increase to
accommodate new development. In fact, taxes could go down relative to where they would be if e
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.
e
a.~ '(:.##################### # ~########### # ~#### # j I
.. o~~~~~~9!3~~~~~~~~~~!~ Ii !:!~~=~~~9~!~; Ii !:!~~5~ =
:E 'll 'll 'll"
· # # # .t~ I
2 ~ mj la~l~lllll;,l:l~illm I I!lii!:!'~!; i 11"'1 i l~l ! I : la
i " J lid I . 5
z {i I;;. ~ ,,-+ ! i;
I ...I ~ ~33 )1] 11 I 33 )1 I ! ~ · ! ~ J C
~ 1~ j.1l1 ~tli U II j lit! II J ,i{J I
Ii IlliIllliJiirlfffllll," ~ IlIrlll, ~ ~rl," ~ ill1 01
[)
~
t~
~ ----
-~ \
::- ~~~,
....."-J -'~"_
"c.:.....,,(~..,~.
(~.~.
e
e
STILL W ATERlSTILL WATER TOWNSlllP
JOINT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
It is the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee that the City and Township
establish a joint planning committee that would at a minimum include two City
Council members and two Town Board members for the purpose of addressing the
specific concerns and remaining unresolved issues, and to co-ordinate the
implementation of the updated City Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the
URPT A Planning Area.
~ ~ Z- fa--:
~~ ~4;f~~YP
!{~. Ru'~
,O~aJ~~
7;1 v
e
JOINT TASK FORCE
The Stillwater/Stillwater Township Joint Task Force was formed one year ago to discuss
common issues regarding the URTPA area. Through a series of monthly and bi-monthly
meetings, the group developed the guidepost document (as attached) which is a common
framework for future development of the area regardless of which jurisdiction the area will
ultimately be under.
The Joint Task Force Members included:
Kurt Roetman, Stillwater
Don Valsvik, Stillwater
Jay Kimblefferry Zoller, Stillwater
Dave Johnson, Stillwater Township
Diane O'Bryan/Louise Bergeron, Stillwater Township
Karin Reidt, Stillwater Township
Jeff Pratt, Stillwater Township
Alternates included:
Jerry Hicks, Stillwater Township
Jack Takemoto, Stillwater Township
Jerry Fontaine, Stillwater
Other interested individuals included:
Hans Hagen, Hagen Homes
Marc Putnam, Charles Cudd Co.
Rick Packer, Arcon Development
Art Palmer
The Kroenings
At the last meeting of the task force, a statement was endorsed (attached) which supports further
coordination to address unresolved issues as it relates to the updated comprehensive plan.
e
e
RESULTS FROM STILLWATERlSTILL\VATER TOWNSHJP
JOINT TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Guideposts for Joint Planning
The following policies and principles were discussed and considered by the joint task force as
planning guideposts for cooperation between the city and township.
The guideposts are the result of six-months of meetings and discussion and reflects a consensus
of direction, although neither the City of Stillwater nor Stillwater Township have officially
endorse the statements.
Overall Planning
Determine the desired growth rate and phasing of urban services to accommodate planned for
growth as needed for the urban-rural transition planning area (URTP A) for the 25-year planning
period 1995 - 2020.
NOTE: The urban-rural transition planning area (URTPA) is the area west of
Stillwater currently in Stillwater Township bordered by Dellwood Road (TH 96),
on the north, Manning Avenue (CR 15) on the west and Highway 36 on the south.
This area represents the ultimate future planning area for the City of Stillwater.
Skeleton Framework
New development will respect the environmental framework of the plan. This framework
includes wetlands, woodlands, windbreaks and sloped areas.
Natural drainage systems shall be used in new development areas to promote the recharge of
water tables and to reduce the speed and amount of run off.
Views from major public roads of new development in the URTPA shall be screened by existing
vegetation and land forms, new landscaping, wetlands and greenways. Major public roads
include Dellwood Road, Manning Avenue, McKusick Road, Boutwell Avenue and Highway 36.
Any new non-residential development shall be buffered from all adjacent residential uses,
connected by trails to residential areas and appear visually subdued in a landscaped setting as
viewed from public roads.
Design new subdivisions to minimize through traffic and when necessary design neighborhood
collector streets with greater setbacks, landscaping and pedestrian and bike trails.
Create new neighborhoods in city growth areas that retain elements of Stillwater's small town
e
1
identity, appearance and character.
e
Develop special design guidelines and performance standards using the planned unit
development process to implement visual screening, park, open space and trailway and natural
resource policies.
Available Areas for Development
There are approximately 500 acres of vacant land in the URTPA to be developed at either
to\\'TIship and city densities.
Preserve historic resources and unique land forms in growth area to maintain elements of the
areas past and provide and identity to new development.
Park, Recreation, Open Space Development
Develop an overall trail system for the URTP A areas that connects new residential development
areas to existing and proposed trials on McKusick Road, Myrtle Street and County Road 5 and
connects all residential areas in the URTP A from Dellwood Road to 62nd Street.
New residential development areas should include desirable design elements from existing city
neighborhoods including a mix of housing types, landscaped streets, accessible neighborhood
parks and open space areas and a unique neighborhood images.
Require new development to provide 10 percent of the development residential land area or its
equivalent for neighborhood (7 percent) and community parks (3 percent).
Cityffownship Land Use
Try to locate within the planning area an elementary school site, 10 acres, and community park,
25 acres. (Good planning in either case.)
Require a detailed environmental assessment of physical site conditions including plant and
animal communities, topography, soil, drainage and wetlands before land development planning
begins.
Density
Use new development concepts, where appropriate, such as mixed use development and cluster
housing, to provide life cycle housing opportunities, minimize the need for and use of the
automobile and maintain open space.
Use ghost platting and cluster development to allow some initial growth with the opportunity for
el
2
urban density development in the future when desired. and planned.
e
Establish lot size and other development standards for the UR TP A areas in the township that
accommodate future urban development according to the Stillwater comprehensive plan.
If new residential development areas are developed at city densities, design elements from
existing city neighborhoods including a mix of housing types landscaped streets, accessible
neighborhood parks and open space areas and unique neighborhood images.
Coordination and Implementation Structure
Establish Joint Planning Board to coordinate planning between the City of Stillwater and
Stillwater Township so both city and township plans for the URTP A are consistent.
Use orderly annexation agreements, joint power agreements and municipal urban service area
extension agreements to coordinate and implement comprehensive plan growth phasing policy.
Elements ofthese agreements may include:
Defining a rural taxing district so existing residents will be protected from unreasonable
taxes.
No adverse economic affects to existing township residents by MUSA extension into the
UR TP A for urban development.
Establish 5-year planning periods for overall growth phasing.
Any implementation ofComp Plan for the URTPA shall have input from the township
and city.
Key Planning Concepts for URTP A
The following key planning concepts provide direction for the preparation of the comprehensive
plan. The concepts will be a part of the comprehensive plan for the city and township and shall
be used to guide special area planning.
Greenways/Open Space Definition
Greenways shall be established along Manning Ave, Dellwood Blvd, Myrtle Street, McKusick
Road and Boutwell Drive. The greenways shall be 100 - 200 feet in width depending on the
location and site conditions. The purpose of the greenway is primarily to preserve the natural
semi-rural character of the transition area by screening new development from major public
roads. The green way shall appear informal and natural using native indigenous plant material
adapted to existing topographic conditions. Enhancement of existing topographic or vegetative
e
3
conditions is encouraged to th~. extent the enhancement appears natural. Wetland mitigation sites
may be used as part ofthe'greenway. Pathways may be located along side or in the greenway but
not appear as a primary design element of the greenway. The green way will provide a landscape
separation between newly developing residential areas and high volume traffic corridors.
e
Trailways, Parks and Open Space Areas
Trailways, neighborhood and community park and open space areas will be provided throughout
the URTPA. The extensive Brown's Creek Wetland systems shall provide the framework for
park and open space resources preservation in the north portion of the transition area. Long Lake
and existing woodlands and windbreaks shall be used in the southern portion of the site for trail
locations. An overall system of trails connecting new neighborhoods from Dellwood Blvd to
62nd Streets shall be planned along wetlands, new natural drainage ways and wooded areas.
Within neighborhoods pathways shall conveniently connect residents to neighborhood park and
open space areas separated from auto traffic. Any active community park, convenience
commercial use or school site shall be clearly connected to surrounding residential areas by
walkways and bike path, utilize and preserve natural areas for trail locations.
Development Pattern and Density
The overall character of the transition areas shall be single family with selected locations of
compact clustered attached housing. The existing semi-rural character of the areas north of
McKusick Road (Random Creek) and south of Boutwell (Spring Creek) shall remain with some
in fill at rural densities.
Newly developed areas shall be large lot ( 1 to 1.5 dwelling units per acres DU/ Acre), small lot
(2 to 3 DU/ Acre) or higher density attached housing at 4 - 6 DUI Acre.
Large. lot single family areas are located in areas of sensitive sites. Because of topography
wetlands, lakes or timberland conditions the amount of site disruption is limited. These areas
tend to be located on steeply sloped or wooded shorelands or adjacent to sensitive wetlands or
open space areas. A cluster development concept could work in this area to minimize the impact
on the land.
Small. lot single family areas tend to be in areas that are less environmentally sensitive. These
sites can be interior to the large lot area or setback form open space areas. These sites are the
flatter com or hay fields of the URTPA. The development density of the small lot area is typical
of the existing city.
Attached or compact housing areas are located in pockets separated visually and physically from
single family areas. These locations have good direct access to major roads and are more closely
tied to existing urbanized areas. Sites for compact housing area located on County Road 5, 62nd
near 15. Myrtle Street south and west of Long Lake, possibly McKusick Road (west of
e
4
e
e
mitigation site) and pockets south of Dellwood Blvd.
Convenience Commercial Locations. The purpose of this use is to provide services and products
for the surrounding residential areas to reduce auto use. The sites should be clearly connected
by pathways to adjacent residential areas, be of a residential scale and style compatible with the
adjacent residential areas.
Office park or research and development areas. These locations provide a job base for the
surrounding residential areas and tax base for the community. These sites should have
convenient access to major roads, be visually and physically separated from residential areas, be
attractively designed and landscaped to fit into the site conditions.
The plan will respect current uses as they relate to assessment policy and any required land use
changes.
5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
MEETINGS AS OF APRIL 1995*
~'e
August 11, 1993
DATE
MEETING
SUBJECT
City Council
work program and budget approval
September 20, 1993
Planning Commission
work program
October 18, 1993
Planning Commission
existing conditions
November 29, 1993
Planning Commission
Questionnaire results/ goals policies
December 20, 1993
Planning Commission
Growth trends/land use/ natural
resources
January 31, 1994
Public Hearing Phase I Existing conditions/goals and
objectives
February 9, 1994
Planning Commission Alternative Plan Development
March 7, 1994
CounciVCommission Workshop Phase I results/public facilities
March 21, 1994
Planning Commission Phase II/Existing city
May 2, 1994
Planning Commission Greenways/Trails Update Township
Task Force
May 3,1994
City Council Phase II Alternatives
May 9,1994
Planning Commission Alternative plan/neighborhood
meeting schedule
June 6, 1994
Planning Commission Public Meeting Phase II Alternative Plans
June 14, 1994
Planning Commission Alternative Plan Workshop
June 18, 1994
Planning Commission Alternative Plan Workshop
June 22, 1994
Planning Commission Alternative Plan Workshop
July 11, 1994
Planning Commission Discuss input from neighborhood
meetings and alternative plan
July 18, 1994
_July 27,1994
August 1, 1994
Planning /Council Workshop Alternative Plan selection
Planning Commission/Council Discuss alternative plans and public
input
Planning /Council Workshop Alternative Plan selection
. ,
ugust 16, 1994
Planning Commission Recommendation
to Council on Comp Plan Alternatives Alternative plans
I
September 6, 1994
Council direction on Comp Plan
Alternatives
Alternative plans
e,~
September 26, 1994
Planning Commission public hearing
review and recommendation on Comp
Plan
Comp plan
October 10, 1994
Plannil1g Commission
Comp plan update
October 11, 1994
City Council public hearing review
and adoption of comp plan
Comp plan
October 14, 1994
Planning Commission
Comp plan update
November 30, 1994
Planning Commission
Receive ward network presentation
December 12, 1994
Planning Commission
Discuss and review ward network
report and receive UR TP A
presentation.
January 23, 1995
Planning Commission
Response to ward network and joint
task force report
March 20, 1995
Planning Commission recommendation
of chosen alternative
Comp Plan
*Besides Planning Commission and Council meetings, the Parks and Recreation Commission has met 7 times
to discuss the parks element of the Comp Plan. The Heritage Preservation Commission has met 6 times and the
Stillwater Township Task Force has met 10 times.
City staff and planning commissioners have been involved with the Washington County Comprehensive Plan
and have attended Township Board Meetings.
Other meetings and workshops were also included in the planning.
The Ward Network has held numerous meetings.
The Stillwater Open Space Committee and Friends of the Parks were organized.
e
. \ ~I"" ,.... .: '. :". '...!8. . ~
1....',.. .
~ . '. . . .
Attention
Concerned Stillwater Township and City Residents
e
NOTICE OF HEARING
City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Draft
. (Annexation)
Tuesday · April 25, 1995
7:00 PM
Stillwater City Municipal Building
216 N. 4th Street .
Public Testimony Will Be Accepted
The.Comp. Plan Draft is at the Stillwater Library or phone 439..612 to obtain a copy.
TEL NO.430 0848
'.: ~." . '.. ."' "lj' . ~., l' ," :" .:. ~ ,.. 00' ~ '.' .
....,.. '" "
. .
Jun 09,: 1
Town of Stillwater
Box 117. .
Stillwater, MN 55082
......
I
'," ,.,~~---- ,~
.. ,n, _,
8:16 P.01
-. I
I
\
I
I
I
4J "-I
I
I
CAR-.Ri' SORT
W SPANGLER
12811. 62 sr N
SrILL.WAl'ER,MN
:;
. .
RR04
55082
..Public Hearing
~ity of Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan Draft
(Annexation)
"1.
MAGNUSON LAW FIRM
LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN
e
THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING
333 NORTH MAIN STREET. SUITE #202 . P.O. Box 438 . STILLWATER, MN 55082
TELEPHONE: (612) 439-9464. TELECOPIER: (612) 439-5641
DAVID T. MAGNUSON
MATTHEW A. STAEHLING
LEGAL ASSISTANTS:
MELODIE ARVOLD
REBECCA ERICKSON
April 19, 1995
The Honorable Jay L. Kimble, Mayor
City Council Members
Nile Kriesel, City Coordinator
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Diane Deblon, Treasurer
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: City/Town Issues for Annexation Area
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I enclose a proposed Development Agreement and Orderly Annexation Resolution that I recommend be
used for formalizing an Agreement between the City and the Town for both accommodating the
annexation of the proposed new areas and for dealing with the remainder of the Township that remains
in the Town but substantially impacted by the new growth.
The Agreement, if executed, would provide for easy annexation of the areas desiring immediate
annexation, relief for those parcels that would be annexed over their objection and provisions for dealing
with areas in the Township that would be impacted by the new growth. The Agreement would also allow
for the easy annexation of Township areas that would desire annexation to the City during the term of
the Agreement.
With regard to the issue of detachment, this paragraph is a suggestion only and would be operative only
if 100% of the people within the Penthouse Acres Development would desire detachment from the City.
It is only a suggestion, however, it would indicate to the Town the City's lack of interest of ~y property
north of Highway 96.
I stand ready to assist in any way that I can in working out an Agreement that would handle this expected
growth.
Yours very truly,
e
DTM:rbe
e
e
Third Draft
April 19, 1995
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF STILLWATER AND THE TOWN OF STILLWATER
AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
TIllS DEVEWPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this _ day of
,1995 ("Effective Date") between the CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, MINNESOTA, a Municipal Corporation ("City"), the TOWN OF STILLWATER, a
Municipal Corporation ("Town"), and the MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ("Metro
Council"), established by ~473.123 of the Minnesota Statutes.
INTRODUCTION
Several developers and land owners have requested the annexation of property now in the Town
. to the City by petitioning the City for annexation and for the extension of municipal services into the
annexed area to serve the development of the area into mixed residential uses. Since receiving the
annexation request, the City has undertaken a review of its comprehensive plan and has otherwise studied
the ability of the City to provide services to the area and has concluded that the resultant growth would
be in the best interest of the City.
DEFINITIONS
1. "Immediate Annexation Area" is the land that has petitioned for annexation
2. "Annexation Mitigation Area" is the land that will be annexed at the same time as the Immediate
Annexation Area but that has not requested annexation
3. "Transition Area" is the land that remains in the Orderly Annexation Area but within the Town
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this Agreement to ensure coordination of the Development among the
government parties to achieve goals set forth in the comprehensive plans of the City and Town that will
ultimately promote the general welfare of the region.
-1-
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION I.
CITY ACTION
e
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City will adopt Option _ as an amendment
to its Comprehensive Plan and will finalize the Plan and submit the Plan Amendment to the Metro
Council for its review; and
B. MUSA Action. The City will prepare and submit a request to the Metro Council for
approval of an extension of its Urban Service Area to enable the City to extend urban municipal services
into the areas designated in the Plan Amendment for immediate annexation; and
C. Zonine Ordinance Amendment. The City will review its Zoning Ordinance and adopt
any changes that must be made to implement the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and
D. .' Orderly Annexation. The area of the Town that is South of Highway 96, East of County
Road 15 and North of Highway 36 will be designated as an area in need of orderly annexation and the
City will adopt the Joint Resolution attached as Exhibit" A "; and
E. Transition Area. An area described as the "Transition Area" is the area South of
Highway 96, East of County Road 15 and North of Highway 36 that is not subject to immediate
annexation. Within the Transition Area the City will:
1. Police and Fire. Provide police and fire protection to residents of the transition area
according to the Schedule of rates attached as Exhibit "B."
2. Road Maintenance. Plow and maintain Town roads to City standards according to the
Schedule of rates attached as Exhibit "B."
3. Local Improvement Costs. If the City orders public improvements be furnished to
property in the City, the City will direct the City Engineer to include in the Feasibility
Report a summary of expected impacts to the Transition Area. A copy of this Feasibility
Report will be sent to the Town Board and any affected Transition Area property owner
must be notified. If the affected owners do not wish to request annexation and participate
e
-2-
e
4.
e
5.
in the Project, the City will treat any benefit to the Property as a hook up charge to be
collected when the owner requests annexation to the City.
Acquisition Property. Within one year of the effective date of this Agreement the City
will identify those parcels of land that will be necessary for the implementation of any
Development through the year 2010, and notify each owner of parcels so identified of
the estimated date that the parcels will be needed.
If a parcel will be needed within 10 years, the City will obtain an appraisal of
each parcel, and reimburse each owner up to $750.00 as an appraisal allowance for
obtaining an independent appraisal of their own. The City will then negotiate in good
faith toward the purchase of each parcel and, if a purchase is not agreed upon, will begin
. Eminent Domain proceedings for the acquisition no later than six months after
negotiations are begun.
If a parcel will be needed after 10 years, the City will not take action to nego~iate
toward the purchase or begin Eminent Domain proceedings before the year 2005 unless
the owner of the parcel requests the action. In all events the procedure and the rights of
each party set forth in the last paragraph must be followed.
Transition Area Ombudsman. The City will designate a City Planning Commission
member as an Ombudsman who must at least once per month be placed on the agenda
'of a City Council meeting to report to the Council complaints and concerns of citizens
with regard to the design, construction or operation of City activity that has an impact
in the Transition Area. The report must include an investigation of each complaint and
contain a recommendation for action. Appointed staff of the City, Town or Regional
.Planning Agency are obligated at the expense of their employer to assist the Ombudsman
in making investigations and generating reports.
tAnnexation Mitieation Area. Within the Annexation Mitigation Area the City will:
Tax Rate Adjustment. Following the annexation, the tax rate of the Mitigation Area land
F.
1.
-3-
will remain at the Town tax rate of 18.084% of tax capacity and will be increased in
approximately equal increments over a period of five years until the increase is equal to
e
the City tax rate effect in the fifth year, which is estimated to be approximately 29.6%
of tax capacity.
2. Financial Assistance. The City will consider providing financial assistance to low income
families in the Annexation Mitigation Area to reduce assessments for public utilities to
the extent funding is available for this purpose.
3. Attachment to City Utilities. The City will not compel any parcel to be connected to the
City water or sewer utilities for a period of five years after the utilities are available,
unless the public health requires the connection.
G. Tax Payment to Town. During the term of this Agreement, taxes based upon the tax
capacity generated from any area annexed in the year of annexation will be paid to the Town and
thereafter the amount to be paid to the Town will be reduced by 20% each year until the amount reaches
zero, when taxes based upon the full tax capacity will remain with the City. For the purpose of this
section any increase in tax capacity over the tax capacity generated in the year of annexation will remain
with the City.
SECTION ll.
TOWN ACTION
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Town will consent to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment adopted by the City and execute documents to evidence the consent; and
B. MUSA Extension. TheTown will jointly petition the Metro Council for an extension
of the City's Urban Service Area to enable the City to extend Urban Municipal Services into the area
subject to immediate annexation; and
c. Orderly Annexation. The Town will adopt the Resolution for Orderly Annexation
attached as Exhibit It A It; and
e
-4-
I'
D. City Costs. The Town will pay for certain municipal services described in Section I.E.,
e
according to the rates set forth in Exhibit "B".
SECTION nI.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ACTION
A. Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council will approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as adopted by the City and consented to by the Town; and
B. MUSA Extension. Will approve an extension of the Urban Service Area to include the
areas in the Orderly Annexation Area designated for immediate annexation.
SECTION IV.
AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be amended from time to time by written consent of the original parties.
SECTION V.
DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
A. . General Provisions. Failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any term
or provision of this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the other
party shall constitute a default under this Agreement, subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in
writing. The notice shall specify the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which the default
may be satisfactorily cured. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured
within such 30 day period, the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent
prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure within such period.
Subject to the foregoing, after notice and expiration of the 30 day period without cure, the other
party to this Agreement, at its option, may institute legal proceedings.
B. . Annual Review. Each year during the term of this Agreement beginning in 1996, each
party shall at the first meeting in August review the extent of good faith compliance with the terms of
this Agreement.
e
-5-
SECTION VI.
GENERAL
A.
Each party hereby finds and determines that execution of this Agreement is in the best
interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizen of each party.
B. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect.
c. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and
documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure
to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.
SECTION VII.
NOTICES
A. Any notice or communication required here under must be in writing, and may be given
either personally or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Such notices or
communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to the City of Stillwater:
Office of the City Clerk
If to the Town of Stillwater:
Office of the Town Clerk
SECTION VllI.
COUNTERPARTS
A. This Agreement is executed in 3 (three) counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an
original. This Agreement consists of 7 (seven) pages and 2 (two) exhibits which constitute the entire
understanding and agreement of the parties. The exhibits are identified as follows:
Exhibit A
Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation
Exhibit B
Schedule of Rates
-6-
..
-
e
e
I.
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
hereinabove written.
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
CITY OF STILLWATER
By:
ItS Mayor
By:
Its Clerk
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By:
Its
By:
Its
TOWN OF STILLWATER
By:
Its Chair
By:
Its Clerk
-7-
OTHER ORDERLY ANNEXATION
3. Other Annexation: Notwithstanding the procedure set forth in Paragraph 2, any lands e
contained in the Orderly Annexation Area may be annexed by the City whenever:
a. A majority of the property owners in any.area or a parcel that abuts the City
submit a petition for annexation or otherwise indicate their interest to the City in being
annexed and receiving sanitary sewer and water service. The City may consider
annexation of the lands after first having the proposal reviewed by the City Planning
Commission and receiving a recommendation from that body. If the City determines that
the annexation is in the best interests of the Property and the City, it may adopt a
resolution annexing the land pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~14.0325, Subd. 1.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PART OF RESOLUI10N
4. The terms and conditions of a Development Agreement made between the parties on the
date of this Agreement are made a part of this Agreement as if set forth verbatim.
MUNICIPAL BOARD JURISDICTION
5. the Municipal Board is conferred jurisdiction over the various provisions of this
Agreement according to Minnesota Statutes ~414.0325, Subd. 1.
DETACHMENT
6. Provided that this Resolution is accompanied by a petition of all the property owners
within the area, this Resolution will be deemed a Resolution of the City requesting detachment from the
City of all property within the City that lies North of State Highway 96, and that the property be in all
ways made part of the Town. Unless a petition of all property owners is submitted with this Resolution
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~414.06, Subd. 1 and 2, this section of the Resolution will have no effect.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION
7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the parties and its
filing, by the City and Town, with the Minnesota Municipal Board. The obligations of the parties to one
another according to the terms of this Resolution shall terminate on January 1, 2010, unless thereafter
extended by the parties.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this _ day of
, 1995.
Jay L. Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
_I
-2-
EXlDBIT "A"
e
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER
AND THE TOWN OF STILLWATER
RELATING TO ORDERLY ANNEXATION
AND FOR DETACHMENT OF PROPERTY
FROM A MUNICIPALITY
WHEREAS, certain lands contained in the Town of Stillwater ("Town") described in Exhibit "A"
appended hereto and made a part hereof, are urban or suburban in character or about to become so; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a process of orderly annexation of lands will be of benefit to
the residents and owners of lands, and permit the City of Stillwater ("City") to extend necessary
municipal services in a planned and efficient manner; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes ~414.0325 (1984) provides a procedure whereby the City and
Town may agree on a process of orderly annexation of a designated area of a town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED jointly by the City Council of the City of Stillwater
and the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Stillwater as follows:
ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
1. Orderly Annexation Area Described: The lands designated in Exhibit "A" are subject
to annexation to the City pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Resolution, and constitute the
"Orderly Annexation Area" otherwise described in this Resolution. This includes all of the area of the
Town North of State Highway 36, East of County Road 15 and South of State Highway 96.
IMMEDIATE ANNEXATION
a. The areas of immediate annexation are:
Area No.1 South of County Road 12, East of County Road 15 and North of State
Highway 36
Area No.2 Abramowitz Area
Area No. 3 Palmer Area
2. Procedure:
a. It is the intent of the parties that the lands contained in Areas No.1, 2 and 3 will
be annexed to the City as soon as possible and that no consideration by the Board is
necessary. Therefore, the Minnesota Municipal Board may immediately order the
annexation following receipt of this joint Resolution. A legal description of the lands
contained in Areas No.1, 2 and 3 is contained in Exhibit "B".
e
-1-
1995.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Stillwater this
day of
Its Chair
ATIEST:
Pat BantU, Town Clerk
-3-
(~ '
e
e
It
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Diane Deblon, Finance Director ~vx:D
DATE: April 20, 1995
SUBJECT: Financial Impacts of Comprehensive Plan Update
Although the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Update has included a section for fiscal impact, as
Finance Director for the City, I have reviewed this section and would like to point out my
concerns and/or questions regarding some financial aspects that would impact on the City and
have not yet been addressed:
1. According to Dick Moore, trunk line sewer and water improvements are approximately $5.5
million. According to the current assessment policy, the City may be held responsible for some
portion of these costs. If so, how much?
2. Easement acquisition costs for extending utilities through the township may be extensive and
are not included in cost estimates. Who will pay for these costs?
3. Additional costs associated with an annexation agreement will likely be identified. If so, how
much?
4. Will the County expect the City to participate in C.R. 15 improvements similar to C.R. 5 and
C.R. 64? If so, how much?
5. If the City will be financing (through special assessment bonding) the anticipated
improvements, the City should put in place appropriate and specific controls to assure that an
"Oak Glen" situation does not occur again.
6. Moody's has indicated that the additional bonding anticipated for the development ($10-15
million) may have a negative impact on the City's debt ratings because it is a significant increase
in debt and has a material effect on the City's financial commitment.
e
7. It is my opinion that the revenue assumption methodology utilized by the consultant in
preparing the fiscal analysis is not relevant to the City (i.e. - Because taxes represent 1/4 of all
City reve~ue;the revenue projections are based on 4 times taxes.)
8. The consultant has based cost projections on past expenditures which assumes that current
expenditures and needs staffing is adequate. (If this were true, the budget process would be easy
and there would not be a need to allocate resources.)
e
In as much as part of the 1980 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan stated, "A major concern should
be to allow growth only at the rate compatible with the City's ability to properly finance the
required public improvements and services," and although this philosophy has not been included
in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Update, I believe it is in the City's best interest to address these
issues prior to adopting the Comprehensive Plan.
_I
-
SIGN UP SHEET
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
April 25, 1995
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meetine;, please sign below. The City
Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
'Yh /~
1 jll:---~----------------------------------------
2 ~~_________l:::~J;_~~\~iI:lt.::-------------
r,7' /) , '{ j)
3 L:f~_~~___~~_JC__~_~_~~_________________
4 ~~___LZCQ~;~_______________
5 ---------------------------------------------------------
.---------------------------------------------------------
7 ~---~--~----------------
8 -~~---~~~-~----------------------------
9 ___-:r;.tIl1.______~cV..~~L_A~~iL~-------------
10 ---- .- - - ~-------------------
11 -::-------- - _4.;__ ~--------------
>~;e'.;. -
i 12 t;;;p~-- -- -- -----------------------------
13 --------~~--~~;:t--/~--------
14 _~l-~---~~~-\:~-----------------------
15 ----------------------------------------------------------
16 ___fla._.Nf2%,." _~(Q_'E:N..______________
~jA -- '
.....:....aL!e-- ____j2tCl2_~______________
ADDRESS
-~l{--j~L~91L~-~iJtfllr,.!i :~
-i--~-~-----t;)f-;~t~Tli7j;;;-;4 IE /0
_-~--i~~~----~---fj7--46=------"------ 4st ~
~19.!!!:.-~:--:--11j0.:l..fi:f:f-!L-]QYJ.h ~4 if
__Q_]_~_~______~Jff5_~_____t5!!_ti~______!Y_!_
""1 (]q It-.; ~ o~ I,. t.I. 7~t k'l_
----------------------------~~-~-----------------------~-
__L~i~_~____Qfl!_~~:l___f?{___~!~~yws/, (2
__~_~~_~~_~~~--1-~----~~-.
___~~1Zj/~~~___~kfl_t'd_.".&,P--------
-----~~~-~-~~~~-------------------------------
'~?/I V ~;:J...~ *
_,C_________________________________________________________~ ~
12~_':?7_L___Z'!z__~----~----ttJ-----~
:iii~::p~~i"i,:Z~~~~~
___[tl2.:J__4]H_d.~A(__~
1
SIGN UP SHEET
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
.
April 25, 1995
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meetinf!, please sign below.
The City Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
ADDRESS
18 ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
19 _~_~_~_~____~~~_~:Q_~__________ __~:_~~~~~_e..:C--__~i:?_~:.C:6h~---
20 _____~_~__~_____~__~~~1:_~_______________________ ___~_~~~___~u.(~~~_~~~__~(~_~___tt?!________
21 .:-1f~[k--&-~~L------------------- \<,~~~-~!}~~-~~I:':.~--------------------------
22 '-:::.rJk.!?.~---iI:L&.~-------------------- i~~f_'!..___~J'c~.J.i.b~&c______________
._~~~--,--~-~.t ~--~----------------- __~~_~~__~_~~~~~-:-----------------------------
24 --~~~~:- ~~---------------- --.:.'~---~-~----------------------------------------
25 _~tQtn.J:.~bUj_------------ __12~SQ._1tl;.ty.SLrt.--.l...tJ-.n-----------------
26 - _b:Lt__ - ;&h:~_<L_________________ ij;;t~-IA~~-~~f------------------
~ _~____~______ _________~:---- __________________________________________L____~-------_______
28 ()"l~:-::-;' ~~----~(--(j--~--- ---;~!-. ~-~~-~---if~~
29 V;;lL~; -- ---~--- L-1-----------~-7J-------------------
30 ~-~~-------------------- 1-~~-~----~~~-------1'-----------------
_~~~__~~_~_______________________ _l__\~_~______~_~~_~_~~_~~~_____________
3 __~!..__S~b._<<!$._~_~{____________________ _~'l~~_____Y.\~~~___~_~_~___~~____________
~-~-~:il~------------------------------- ___}.~_:!!?_)___::1_:J__~_!__~~___________________________
~--'l~-~~------------------- --------~~------------~~--------------------------------------
2
SIGN UP SHEET
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
.
April 25, 1995
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meetine, please sign below.
The City Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
35
36
37
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
----------------------------------------------------------
49
----------------------------------------------------------
.----------------------------------------------------------
ADDRESS
____f_~J[~____~___~~__~_________________
___Jl~_~~_~______:~~_~__~~_____________
___~1:~Q_L___iAL'l---W~11Qa-J-~-~---S~~
___2L-2_Li'~~____~----Lli.L/ ~~
__~g2::~_~_~_&rJ.(9fF,
3
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
. 15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
.
WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PUBLIC RECORD
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CITY OF STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APRIL 25, 1995
Carole Anderson, 1312 S. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082
Mike Anderson, 1312 S. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082
John Baer, 812 6th Ave. South, Stillwater, MN 55082
Gary Bagaas, 1225 S. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082
Donna Buzicky, 10777 N. Myeron Rd, Stillwater, MN 55082
Barbara Chase, Stillwater Township
John Chase, 7759 Minar Ave., Stillwater, MN 55082
Cian Chase, 7759 Minar Ave., Stillwater, MN 55082
City of Stillwater Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development & Business Mix
Committee
Goerge and Nancy Hoff, 7150 Melville Court North, Stillwater, MN 55082
Jerry and Barbara Holland, 12720 McKusick Road, Stillwater, MN 55082
Richard Huelsmann, 12610 62nd St. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
Duke Hust, President, Trout Unlimited, 820 Old Cyrstal Bay Rd, Wayzata, MN 55391
Hod and Deb Irvine, 12525 72nd St., Stillwater, MN 55082
Eric Jackson, 422 West Pine St., Stillwater, MN 55082
Diane Johnson, 9429 Stonebridge Trail, Stillwater, MN 55082
Douglas Johnson, 9429 Stonebridge Trail N., Stillwater, MN 55082
Rachel Johnson, 9429 Stonebridge, Stillwater, MN 55082
Paul and Gwen Johnson, 12510 McKusick Road N., Stillwater, MN 55082
Tom and Sandy Kelzenberg, 12550 McKusick Road N., Stillwater, MN 55082
Pat Kennedy, Stillwater Township
Gary Kriesel, 1451 Lydia Circle, Stillwater, MN 55082
Paula Newman Kroening, 12480 N. 72nd Street, Stillwater, MN 55082
Christine Larson, 2580 Interlachen Drive, Stillwater, MN 55082
Mark A. Larson, (no address listed)
Pete and Martha (Bliss) Lindberg, 808 W. Oak St., Stillwater, MN 55082
Bob Lohmer, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, 1826 Tower Drive W., Stillwater, MN 55082
Laurie Maher, 3018 Marine Circle, Stillwater, MN 55082
Barbara Medinger,8802 Stonebridge Trail, Stillwater, MN 55082 (handouts -
addressed Council at hearing)
Metropolitan Council, Tom Caswell, Planner, Office of Local Assistance, Mears Park
Centre, 230 W. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101
Lee Miller, 2962 Marine Circle, Stillwater, MN 55082
MN Department of Natural Resources, Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Rd, St. Paul, MN
55106; Molly Shodeen, Area Hydrologist.
Corey Mohan, 1112 S. 2nd St., Stillwater, MN 55082
Floyd and Judity Munkelwitz, 8270 Neal Ave. N., Stillwater, MN 55082
.
.
.
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.1st
, ~
~ \
e
!,e
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 was mentioned that according to Met Council :;tatistics
the city should grow at a rate of100 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 the 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.
Eoth 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.
\ ~
) ~
e
.e
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 l~d 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 unit, 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.
~
Carole Anders
1312 South Fourth Street
05/05/95
12:35
BENEFITS 224-2E-30
002
e
May 4~ 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 IDElSTrrxtOBJECTIVES
The starting point for evaluating the proposed Comprehensive Plan must be the proper
identification of this community's unique identities/values/objectives. These goals must be
the driving forces and ltll possible attempts must be made to meet these goals. The goals
should be 101\g term in nature and consequently focus on the end result 20 (or 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 Hppetlr to support the desires expressed by the citizens through
the sUlVey activitYt the Ward Network, and other input. It would be hard t.o argue against
the notion that Stillwater citizens, neighboring communities) and those in the Metropolitan
area identify Stillwater as a historic town with a rural surrounding and a truly unique
character. As indicated in the Comprehensive 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 typicllI suburbs
surrounding the metro area). But I would venture to say that the common reason (or
cohesive characteristic) is the smal1 town charm which comes from this historic~ rural
surrounding community. The goals expressed by the citizens stress: Small town
preservation~ historic preservation, rural character/prcservation~ 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 objective~? Before barriers~ "so called realities", etc. are
assessed, this question must be asked and answered. If the answer is no, then additional
effort must be expended and the community/citizens must be solicited to determine what
appropriate hard decisiol'ls lUuSt be made to meet these objectives.
My conclUliion 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 concerned about.
Ie
GROWTH 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,
trafficJ etc.
1
05/05/95
12:36
BENEFITS 224-2E-30
003
e
I am 1) strOm! believer in thr Gqnceot of "true" cluster development In order to
urcs<<Ye ODen SDftCe and tor the other obviolls emciencv benefits. I do DR! lee that
~nceDt beln~ utilized in the nroposed Dlan. I see some "visual" non..signiflcant 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 fashion on the maps. If you examine
the plan, you have the entire city and the expansion basically developed- exoept for a few
very small pockets-this does not seem like clustering and preservation to me. But let me
examine each issue individuatJy.
a..MAldJOWN 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 recent gl'Owth~ the migration ufthe retail stores up to the new commercial
area, an seem to erode the core sense of community for this town.
So does this plan improve, not change or damage the character of the town? I would
answer it has a sign.ificant negative impact on the character. It not only serves to
potentially take away forever liiuch untuuched areas as Long lake area, but it serves 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 oharacter we
currently possess.
IMPA(;T OF THEJ-ROPOSED GROWTH ON OPEN ~PACE
In order to answer the question of the impact uf growth on open space in this plan~ one
must look at what other communities around the Twin Cities and all over the country are
examining. Unfortunately, the realization of the loss of ope nip reserved 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
wmuliit too late for that community. Or examine tbe t!reRt foresl~ht In the St. PRul
area vears 820 with the 800 .vhU..Icre Battle Creek Dark and Dreserve area to see
)Vila, f tr~mend.ou.s inmatt. 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.
e
2
05/05/95
12:36
BENEFITS 224-2E-30
004
-
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 appea.rs 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/yearlhousehQld
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 OJlen SORce bond
bsue or o(h~r concept that specificallY addresses the open s.p8~tQUestion should ~
attempted before full scale develgnmcnt is RIJprovel!, 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 oitizens would be willing to pay "some" costs to preserve some of the
town's rural character.
Soedficallv..lwould like to see! lare:c scement (at least 100 ,Rlys acres) set aside in
the expao,ton area (alone with -txvloration of other small~r areas in the exist in:
1i!J'.:L 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 reasonable I.'iost and would allow preservation as wen as
accessibility for the community.
Unfortunately, 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. Lflt's trY to be a
attic creative an~ fullv explore this befort we .live UP. Unfortunately, I believe citizens
will be disappointed after the fact when fun development comes that this was not fully
explored.
IMPACT Ol'i TRAFFIC
Regarding the issue oftraftic, I am very pleased with the Planning Commission's
identification and recognition orrhe traffic problems in Stillwater. Several of the goals
and specific comments on the residential traffic issues demonstrate that the Commission
was listeningl Thank vou!
Ie
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. First. J believe we bave avoided tb~ kty
.8afetv Issues Identified b.Y MNDOT witb tbe current nlan to leave tbe 1ie:l1ted
exchanees on Hi2hwav 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 aU
of the 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
.e
I would Iike.9 fee the plan identify tllat (alon, wi(h the brid2e solutiqn} thettwill
be...spetific studi~s/e((or1s taken to ensure that the do'!ntown bound traffic is
eDCou.'.eell to travel on 36 tq 95.. rJltl1er than throu2b the residential are~. Plans
are being made to improve the exits at streets such as Osgood which will improve the
ability to ex.it 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 ot95/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.
GROWTH IMPACT ON TAXES
I believe that t.here 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 or direct and indirect costs that we are not seeing today that will
likely result in increased taxes and other costs for the community. I would ask that!2!!!e
"what if' scenarios and comPRrison's ttother community's' that have 3fown like
this be don~ before the "tvpical crowt.." approach to fiqancial imoact is acceJltcd.
SUMMARY ~2MMENT~
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 ~ addresses the issues of small 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 sucoumb to today's society which is often driven by short term
thinking and short tenn 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 was accomplished.
Thank you f~r listenintd
Siih~erely)
l/a~
Mike Anderson
1312 South Fourth Street
City of Stillwater
e
4
\\\
'~
~r~~
/ '
,
5- 8-55 ;10:26AM; WASHINGTON COUNTY~
612~350~56;# 2/ 3
~cO~ YY1~ ~ .
-
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Departnl ent
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: --l OHN 'B~~
ADDRESS: 61 z. &-,,:\ A\J€ ~.
(ijB/q;)
WRlTTEN COMMENTS:
-QURIN6, ,t-\:E: 'PA:ST VEA~ -S~\J~fU\L 'R~"'"lbE.t-Ji'~: t-'\'1'~ELY \N("LU'b€.b} \-\^\JE: INV€~Te;b
6,Rl!;A\ I'J-'10uNi' DF olJR IIM~ IN ~N A,1TG.nf'T I"D ISI"!" "fIUSLI" \ tJf\.lT 1'b it,h$ fIleL!."';'.
It Vi'
P-rJt> M~N~ Ci\~E.R.S ,00\<' i'Hl! liME ID LQt1f'Le1~ ....N't> 'R'ElU~ "T+\e::. INFA.M,ou.S !.l,l.1l."~\
Iu.\ ItJl-l~~ ..,.A8uLp..it::I> -St-\cWO lI-\A-r "2-13 OF "114( RE.S'PONbe'tJT':S \,.\. \ ~,",,\!.b \'0 SEE .,.r\e::
,E,SEN\ Gr\'{ 'P,ou lJbA'R.\e~ He;;LJ:;:. 1~\4ERE: IH'E'( AV"rt. I (M~) 'r\~rI\\...lN Or TI-\-E 'fL..~N '"
~6 c.o~t-" I!;.~l oN RE.'--E.lJ"L~ GA\..I.J!~ ~"r ~ LAT2\1 ci
'I II
fro b\$-A1.TaL .Ii IS tJo SCL"~
I~T "i\-\ 't GOM ~ \ ~s I o~ I-\,o.s lT~ O~N \J \<S l (,)N Q 'F Jcl....~AT IS ttSi- fa IZ- -rr\ ~ RE;ST
us) DU(t. WA..'Rb NETv\.OR\t.. Ht:Lb NUME.fl,.OV.S MEE"t\tJbS c::::u,-yY\lI.,)~'T I ~6.
IN ~ ,ExL-E::LLE.,...rr' WonJLSH or AT. 'l1\~ 'Sp..~S. I~t: ra,'E.~v..L""'S ol==- AU.....
, 'Trh.s err r~E~ I t.Jf'UT IAA~ ?j<,1!SE.N1rEt:> lC;:l ,1..\-1:=: ?~N N 1 ~tS. CovYlMIS~)ON
A,,-,b Ve~'1 LITf1...E) IF AtJ'1" I Fout-.'lt:. rT~ lA,.."I' ltno "'irtt:.. 1)~\ ?l,...AN.
l'1-\ \ So
''''{SELF IF
~\,.. '-<(
'Be' .p... ~EL.F\S~
~'fPrto~c.~
, ~1Ar W Hel'J ~ ASv...
,
r'\'1' Fp.,K \ LIw( \A ~ LL 13cNtf fl' FROM m\S 'fL~ ,THE p..NSv;JdI.
I' 1\
\ S N.Q.' -eJ.eNN I ~ 6, "SIAFF HP\S 'P~;e.st~!) 'R'r2Jt:~U'e: F\ 6.U.ill!> \A\o.hc~
I; '. . ~ 0 ~"" /!'" '" " y:
.'
SENT ;:~
5- 8-35 ;10:26AM; WASHINGTON COUNTY~
6124330456;# 3/ 3
e ~RE. I~ \61\-\ L '1' -Sv,.~?E:6\. R~S\t:>E..NTIP.L HaLlSl ~ 6 'l>o'E:";" NOT ~J>.'1 rol't
IJ"'5.ELE \ l.1E I4A\lE: "KEt:N uNf'>13Le. "TO ~~T ]?lASt~~S~E~ lb bU~
ClAflREtJI G.oM""~\A\"') l~bllSTT2.IAI..._~l<~ " ~!oSr pF P. NEW St..,","OOL
IN "-t\4E ?I...AN"'\t-:lb. A~ \:s NE,\JE,'(L ME.~"T \ot\tEb. -me ISO' FeaT lA i'De
--rR.~ 10uFF€:{t t'Ro?oSE'b A'RowN"P IMe ~E'ST {NQTl.i~ So fD~~ or l"tfE'
'P~/IJ~ I tJL:? ~~ At-J\t)l..\NT<S JD tiCJn-\IN6t t-'\oR~ TAAN A ~6\~6. ~1t~
~o~ %A~y1. H..,L II -rr-\ \ S
II 1/
I 00 ~6t<.e._" of OPEN s?p."a LcwLh 'B~ ~
U~ED SoKE.'AH-e:(t~ ~LsE ~
\ I 1,1 --
-/HC: c.rT., of -;,-r, 1..L.\1i p.TEV1- \S 1?>lG. ef"\O\.l.b.H. Lets nAVE
..,.t-\~ Cov..Rp..~~ of 'j'He:. f'~OPI..(:. Or: Plp.RINe o~ '51. Gllol)<. ~t-Jb
G~lo( 1't\P'\ ~ou,u~ \$ E.~()lA6~ ~b S HoIA ~E\JE.\...ot>e)2.c;. 1l"TA-T
,rlE: LITIUr-3S I.JILL t"\p..\l.( ""'l4-~, bE,.(:..\'50l0N'S ON How T\-WJ\1'- e\l\"
~\L..L LooK.,. 'Py..iT\N6 A 6i2D'-'E[~~ 'S.TO:g& BAc:...1L })OWNiowtJ
~Lb-gf. A ~CCd) 'S'TAi4T .{, TI'\etJ c..O~O!:NT{2.,4r-re DN Tt-\t:
F~\\,...ltJ~ \~r:-e:;~-s rF'...v...G-\l..A\<~ ..
I Pl~N\L ~ au .
e
.1r
-
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 "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, Drovidina 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.., V ~
Gary Bagaas
e
e
\)~ In'
p ~ - \[00 Wj -k. ~ ~J:U
o.U- ~ j;l\\)~O_ ~ ~ _00S1tDE0[LOrrn{~l
~ :.- Jt. ~0-- ~ AN::JJ JW- ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-,^-.e/v~~
~~~~Jx~.~~~
'JAf Cl ~ ~I
ctt M~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ J ~ ~~
~~n~~~JL~~
~~dl.J~c&Q~~~~1
~. Ctt.- ~ ~ ~ ~L0~
'~,~ ~~~~~~,~.
v~ ~. ~ ~~, ~ o-J). 0olE- \(~ou
~~ ~~. ~-w-WJL~,~~
:4~~~~~~~
; ~ ~ ~ lDo-DD~ufL~ Or-\L O~\LC~lL ~
. "\~ h~3:h k~ I, ~~'
1'0 0 w~
(t~
z~ (99S-
/
e
April 27, 1995
Mr. May~;r and members of the Stillwater City Council;
I grew up in the St. 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 opposition 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!
e
Barbara Chase
Stillwater Township
~: T~k~ P ~rO- \ \Uos\t\. eo. &n(Q
'0 ,
..
, ~
.I,
.. ,,'
i
~.
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
e
.'
.'
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME: '-:r-;ifJ J.j. (' 4q.{e
ADDRESS: 7/)1 //JitJ'i'}' j<Jv-e. S-6l1/tr/~f..r 1-111/
WRITIEN COMMENTS:
Si:;//t./ '1f,,)- ,zi#/!{/IJ'
e
/~~;r (.~~.AJ~/ .h.../~ jZ ~~/k /~~
., L....N.ou ..-/ ~,';,rt. ,,-.I~ r' ./ dHJ . ,&"p fA<< AL4?
(' ~ {./J?~~ ~/.t:1 (~ ....d.4'/.J7 ~~ :::.r~ ~
c::f
",/_.7- r ~rl"- (djr~'...<<1 r _/?
(/?,,/?-~ (~,;rl. q,,, A<;,~~
~ ____ AI ~-"Y" ?r/", dfUR .d r-1f ,-d...;;
~~ A ~/~ fA, . r'.ZaPdJJ: ~y1~ ~-#
.d A"~ .-..;! rN"r,~. ./ /'/'?; ~ ~-7
, ~
~ ~ -<.,o'~ (r#~-?,4./. '7 A'"L~ - /_d--;4
~ / L;yd "",., '.?--&ff -d blf' .1Jg<<r.
~~/.-/~~.d,A'~
L /_J~ .....,_. J:W.,,:d .~......+ (.~./ ~ ~:'A
o ~
&iY~ .A p"-,, .4/ &1" h~ AI ~ ~.b.-Z;::;, ~
:..~ ..
l
it
, .
~ /Zr./nv "
e
.~ ~~ ~ ~ -A'~;r7AAA ~ ~ ~ _.;6-
; _A--;4'~.M>.A ,Z;;. U'~. Cbd j ~P~A ~
--/.A~;//_~~ _ ~. ~~f~ ~O<M ~-'
. /.
.~~ r ~ ./4/'.A'./~ A'A-,./l .A~~\
~.~~~ C~ ~/?/~-#~~./J
/~- /~~ ./;' ~. /:/?H'~~"~' U/~
.fi..-~ y~ .,d/.p~ ,?~A ./~
#~ ~# / zfL ~ ,;2..rL.& d;/~ ~.
7~.-<'~~ ~//W.", ~A'
. ~.d..i r~~ .-~../~~ ~ /..<0/
A~J~d~~' 7~~
"d. ~'-"'~;7~ r/'~.vp ~ an A'~~
-'Y ,~ fd~ At""- _"*--1 ~ A ~~ ~..u-
/~'d;"7~' .
/S-?f~~~ .:- :?t::'cJO ~ r/.rp.<1~~././flt!~Y.4~
r/'/p,? J//,~6/#",.er.5 /. 74u> ~ ~ f
~~~.
0h~ uU#/-7 ~~"7' oZP /" ~ r.~):.d
~/_/p"flLN, ~~a-i'~~~~4
~~7~ft~. :/A-..-<< ~4~~
~/9rJ ;r:.P-~' . .
/.w6~"" ......r..L~~ ~~
~ ~ ~:-d ~ A ffi~:./;' j"~
p-~-r~~- ~~A~~~
~~r' . ,
/~?1: ~ ..
e
..
....
..
.: 1
\
'.
I ~ :
~, ,
,1* .'
;:- ..
i
"
Mailing AddresS:
Community Development
Department
clo Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 5.5082
t
.'
.'
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:.c la(LLV C hase agel1Y~
ADDRESS: 7 7 ~q Mif.M1.1\V, it i L-tw(),-ter
Tl"J/?
ie.
JlRITTEN coMMENTS:
J)eu Mt: Mrt.o('e
t-I erir5 f y).PJ lLeO-L - t fr>S P --
tit-iS ~~~t- ~t ~(1-V~ fa
c __ do ___. ~_ _f _0 fA" ffl d l&
) '"
we n-f!ed 4Lif' +1> hvea.I:i';,
o h S't>Lr0-- w!d. W' i It sf/(t,
~~a~(e TCC civelli-Lvd-
~~;;:' c~t~:Z;( :;ill~~~~~se
for t h /I) 9 '> ( ; P-f'./ ~o_y
a -t r-e e Ix/U$e. I h a V-f'~ CL
ffeehI)USe'thCl.f mlj
d./J_- d jf4, '; t h V.i.' r a- fJ rt -
r2r fJr1intJr -(t>rf f~et.-+ mg
~ >
" \,..'" .
. 4"."'_ .
'I .
e
,.
....
~
, ..
. .
,
I. ';
'..
ie
(0
;
Cia /J'}y . r.tz. M~.r
e
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..."We 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,
"Commercia1-Community" and "Business &/or Commercial Parks." Both of
these land uses have a common 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 Sti11wate~ 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-tab1e" for
these uses, such that we are assured that the desired outcomes of "Quality
Development" are ultimately realized.
Ie
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,
.
,j~
2.
e
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 initial steps in the development of this very
formidable task.
Respectfully,
Committee
cc: Committee members
..
ie
,
,.....
.
.
.
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 point 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 670/0 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 MendinQ
w.a.u.. "...good fences make good neighbors."
Thank you.
pc: David Johnson, Town Board Chair
'~o.eT~ ~~~-;-L-~_>;:~~';_L' ~~~~:.:~t; v ~,-0-s;.~ - v .... ....~ ~.J 8
. t;.... ~ c? ...V(......... oJ' ' r -W ',. 0
... (0) 177/~ ~"'~~'1" ..:.: .... , 'l: ....
:. ~ ~ 'r>1o')yfCJP;1"1 ~ ~f):~:: :;:;; :::::. <;:!lJ ~ .,..~ \0
';:..:.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.; . '.. Vi, 0 r .J- ~
.~. .;:::A':::::~!IA"A l/"ntJ .~~~] .~:::': ~~~, ~~. -:i>
i~tI~~~~: .'//;17 lz:)\HH\~..'!~;~:~~ '\ VA. If ~~"".~1-
;., ~1.;;:::t~: W} ~~/~? ........ NI.~""~ ~:;;~~. v'" .... 0 ..., ~
.I~ ~ 1-1. :::~~Ill'f~~::::::::ll'~q.::::::: I:l ,,\tj ... "m . ~:. v.
I~~"';~ : :::~~~s:::';';::::S:iHrii3H: If. .. .~ t~I~~S.i.:. ," /4
().Q .:- "<.~1;~':\,;~''''''''":I:o:nn;'' ~~ l"" n'","::.. ~ f' / A ~~- ~
i::::;::~: ~j.)~~jL~jj~:rj>~; l:"~' ~ ~~ ;fjllSL~] t:. ~~~:::~' _ \' /. ~'~..~.A...~ ~_:J~ '7
p~~~~: :L~~:::~:::~:~::~~:~~:~ ~~~. ~ ~ l1)1, ~~t i ~ .~"'~~ .~ ~ ~./ / Y~c@"' <f
':~a~:: ::: ::: I~ .!N.6L....!;! ~ ~ ~ I :::~::.j:~:'::::. - -~~ __ .~./,~ /.I ~Atr~'. ~ 0
:z~o:: :;::::.: 1../0570 titt :It "1:1 "l 'I ':;f<i:::.~ '~,,/{ T ~ ." ( 0
:~~~:: ~<::::.. V/./O;D~ :.~.:j ~ ' I~ ::z: (:::'!:. ~ ~\~ -, co ./ ~".~~,~.;:..; ... ....'.'"1. 1t! 0
:~~~:~~: 1):;;;;;).;.:.\.;.;.:::~f.r.:.f.;.;. ;.;.;.:.;. ":~; :.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.;. :.:~.;~;.;.;.:.:.::!h::.. ~ _ _ _ -.F ~~~ . .., fi\\~"; JlliL f ~
""... ~;' 'Ill ~ ~ t~ 0 b'S~~ ~~\ - ~~~Cl') ...... i-
1" ~ tl" ., I:) ~.., ~ ~\) Eiijlt.? ~~ ~( . ..~ - .... =
~i ~ ~ ~t 0) ~ ~ ~-t ~ '<> ~~ t~ 9.. ~ ~ "'. L"(~" ~ ~ ""'- /'..AIfI' ~ l .'1'. 1-2 .=
.. d Il'" ..,.._~ t ,-I; 0) ~'1.: ~l1) Q \:I'N';""~"''''.:.. -'J <: ~ I"):::+:;;: ;
t~ L:1 a ~ '" ~ ~ · 5"1 t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ct Q ~ 77 ;MMO.' ..,. ~~ ~ .,.../ .. . ~ I' C\I II\\\\\\::\\\\\\\II\::\\>\\\Y\\\\\\';
~") l!I ~ .).<.... I:I~ .. ~ ~ \S3.)"j 0) ~ ~ "'Q..~~ ~.t}J.6J...g & ....
'1. " ...., \j~ ]I ~J ..,) . I~ ~.' :l: ..."" 1" "'f/J~~, 0 l() \ ,::
V ~. ~le::- ';.1" :~~~~-?~l!: ::w~: ') ~; . r::n'n\\,\.\m:;;\;
J ~ .~~! ~ ~ ~ ~~ I~~l\~\\m D.:~ ~ f1l~~ ~ I~~~~I' i 5 r~r: ~:~~
...~~. ~ ~~. ...~.~~~IO" .:.:::....:::...4.. !! l\(~ ~\v. ... · co '.
"~,, l;) ~~r:;; l "'!l:~ .... .. ......, " ...1 . ;~. ,:...,., ~ ..
3", "~11.'o ~ "o~~L.>::..:::::;:~~lrs~~'~.li.::I~~Jl1"''1n/.Jh;P'/(70'7~ .' ../:'.., .~ ......
" ~ " r.r "C )... .....,. ................<.J~ '>1.. ." .J~/n/W/I'/,~ ~ ..../j ......, J.$('IfJNJ
\J to' .. lar I N J ~ · <I> ................ .,.. ... . 1 ,. I~ -.J ..:
. q. : . ....... ....~~ :Oqlo!::'~:lll~l()!'l,.t I/~~r..: rAd, C\I lj....
~ lo~'Illill" ~ t' 'Ill .S..M~'~~.~ 1 ;31-':::> ...Gil U .,d" " ....., 11./ -
~o"'. ~Tl !i:~ III ~\l\l. '~ <\f ~ ~<J III J '.~ I.... "'-.,. /~ t'j ....
~ ~:~.~~. ~Q~ I6'L L': 7' Sg' ~\~~~~;;; i'!'~1~"CO, ~~j~ _ :' '." ~.'... l() ~ j ...") ~ c:\ 'fA" ....
::::~~:~I::~Q~'O.,lS"r::>3Lt: O)oQ.1~Cll;;,.~~\!~~J ~7~ ~\ -.J '> ;dr ~~~...,< .. ~
III ~ .~ 6_(.... / ,UU:;1L1'.J '1l \l ....;: :J"'~ ..0 ~... . Ii. V > f......J.I ~~ c~. \,)
., ~ . _.... ..,. ~ ...inJ~<:) u' '11'1'1 ~ It ~:>: ~,:: Ill.:'. c., <::l U:l ~ C"" .----____~..... ~ .-L.. Vj' 1".: .......'. ~
.~''l. ~ ~ Ii It)RiI"~J~ · 11[/ ':iA~ ~ V HF :~i~~j ~ ~ .~q~ ..".m , . ~ /. J~f,t?:'1.., ~ 0 .-J:it '.. ... ~.. ... ~ CJ
~.. ~ ..., ~ ~ ~ ~\J -\ · ~ ~ ~ : ~ !':..;,~~ :: ~~ ~ ...........,y/', , ,. "I'~T' ~/ .... .'II-~""'" ~~
l"'j · '? ~...~~ Q !:l \I ';)ll'.. .....N..~ .... -J....... I F"7r~'.s -'2 -... < ' ..> '.. ~I,
Il_'_ 't! .,""...... ~.5).... ~.~!\ ~L. o~ ;J....'M3N ". ..YH . ~':~;;.' ';"j/~/:' .' '>...~ III ... .... ~ 0
.:..~.'-l\~ ~ . . Cl( ~ '). ~ ~ ~pL 5/';:;1 7 ~ '.' Q ,~,. . r,;;- ~-~ IM;7. I- " .: ~ 0
; :>;\~. :;" ~ If.b.~~~ ~ UOS'l/'fC?n: ~>rf{~, ,IJ-~ ;:'''' J; '.1.1" 1t~~~ I!~~ 1- f':':~~~ ..... ~ 0
l:-tilh- fI-:/.;//';::'''- Vi/&, I I I ~~~" "l . St.l./qLb- (/) HlHU\.. ..::~: R:~ .~ ~
'U.]~.'~ ""-\:!iO ":"J"'A~"")oJ~ ....i...~~~,r L"k::J"l"'''J~L1I'&''''/~~\.;~~\'li'.Tl ..J~M ;~-'i>;,:T _.",:"~'liot. ~~
. ~ t~ AJt:.,.~..Cl J,'...J ~P1I~r~ ... .. i ~. ~ 'X_~ :!\(:\ ~ ~, ~
, .~/ ~ _ Q II llfll:.. ' /. '0" -1I I vO ~~ ~~unl "'...... ~ ~ .2 -~. ........ U~2:". ....~ t.: .
~""/ ~ ~. l.). ~ !')~ -. .;>J-.Y: ;;,.",,~J.J~ iJ'~ ~""'rl ~I, .i ~.~:::;:::).irj:: ~-:T;~ J ...... .. I \1~!tl ~ i~. I 'W
:d :l:I\J ,~~ ~ t \;. ZZE~/,... "t\\.I~~:_I-,-~~ ~'1_~ 1:: n.... crm:~~~.. .;n"t'" ." I,: lCW."IV~:1I ~ oS ~
"'.1 <\) d<:i"l ~'::\.~ ,,~u · t< i ~r-.l"'I: .11FT. :...:: 6Z~ ':11 ') .... ~~'\::l-iloljill: ~1" ~..; - 'q-~ ~ ~.~ 1:;,<;)
t "J l~"i \)o,..j~ .~,,~~ q~ ~...-! i)1~~'(ti .....J:;1WIZb'~::. ~ pO/~-i8h ::~~:1~: ~J"~loloo.: ) _ "l'!.:'f~ ..::: ~
Il ~ ~ ~,,~ " 1:1 I:: .... "i ~ ,l ~F no,"), ..f I:S '! . HJ :;JI/ Lc ~ C;J 7} ,_ ~g :: ~. . . . . - Qlr'1 03 ~ 0 ~ ~ \J
~t . .'f~.H~~~"~'();.!t "; ~',;. H~~ ~~ H~G"" ~ .~~~. ~' . ~2'i~~~ ~ ~~~~.~ l- ~'G'Ol ~~Ij~ ~;'~ ~:.L~, ~~
~~1~~~~~~;G~~~:~~;~ ~~ ~~ .I~! ~~J ~~~ t/~ 0).,1 ~l~. ~~ 1i1.;;:Udfl~, ~ . . ')~ .~ ~-: ~(c-..72~ J~ U~~~I ~Q ~ ~
'W"':"~.l~~~H:~-'oIII"~ ~~ ~ ~:H1 ..."lIV-l( i"II,j)" ~l: II~ _.T~ T:Hrl.,~ "l ~ 1.;~1r)1 Q~~~";J""'. :it ~..,. Vl./~Cb' '/l~ ~~ 6 0
,~y~. : ~ -":> .t ~~t "'f~''7 ~%" "':1 CO l:!~d~9" ~ ~... ~1-1 ~ ,..;~ '" ~ b' ;Y I lit 'A \0) 0
- :~ ~"<~. '.' :::]:::1 l'l~~ ~r~~ ~ ~ ~~ a~~ 1/~;>t?H'f-ml ~~h~. !;. - ~'l... ~i::ii__ ~.'TTT". Ill!':: .;~" . ~ ~~'111 ~i ~;I ", ICt-;. .,J;-J..;t~;tr I'S irE' III 'DJ ~ 0
. t ~ ..:::~~~ ~ ~.JI~- ~ 68.[\~>'~ h' IU!J. 7~~1..." ~r'~~ l'J111:p;:r~' or... a"llr,,',. -.- l/J. 9NINN""''' I C\I
t:J~ '" . ~ :::: '1 . lo';}!;c -o~"c Cii':~c 66 €'c U" cr r. lI) ~ · ........ .
.. DC"}C" o'J ... . " r.ri III ~ ~ ro ..... III ~
"( L:.I 'N 'il 19l"cJ .:3.:3~ '-- '"
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 ~o~
12720 McKusick Road
Stillwater, MN 55082
~
,- ,- ,...
e Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
D PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:-tJ ,rJq-J. L. 1-/ fA. el011L 11 VI
ADDRESS: l'Va (0 /p'L"v.-(J srlrc-c.d- ;!o~
WRITTEN!:;QMMENTS: g {..7{~(/\-'1 1M N sWf2--
~1- #Jr~~
e
.. I .."
RICHARD 1. HUELSMANN
12610 62ND STREET NORlH
e 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 returns--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 "small lot" (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 2 1/2 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.
e
(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.
... .
e
Page 2
Apri121, 1995
(5) Adopt a provision that prohibits developers from forming" 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 "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" . . . families with two or three children
dominate recent (area) growth. . . " - 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,
e Attachments
e
Ie
I
I
Analysis and Commentary
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" developmenl
The growth the area has experienced since the 19505 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 Avenue and south of Highway 96,
hereinafter referred to as the "Township 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.
e
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 density
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 already
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 4,000-5,000 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.
Ie
2
e
I.
I
. ,
· 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 increasing
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 problems. 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 SCH:alled "power malls" -the
giant Cub/Target type complexes.
· 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 l50th
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
e
The II orderly annexation" of the area bounded by Highway 36, 15 and 96 west of the current
City (hereinafter referred to as the II 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 Areall 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 II . . . families with two or three children dominate recent
growth . . . II - 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 II recent" experience and significantly understate the likely impact
on needs for services, schools, 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 II Area"; these should be first approved..
· The entire liT ownship Area" should not be allowed. to have II 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 StreetlJackson Farm
parcels north and northwest of Long Lake, Parkwood Lane and the 62nd Street area
Ie
4
e
e
,
. .
(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 includinS 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.
· It 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 184Os-1860s, 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
, .
e
· The Township Area just isn't large enough to provide for large lots and small lot densities
in such close proximity. In particular, the "small lots" (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 residents 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
e work of the landowners and their developers?
6
"
e
:e
, .
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 women's), 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
p - ----
"'1JiP -if"'
, .. .
V k' /') LlO rJ <" -.\ I '- . . '.ii'" '
_,_~.,JJ::..L..L.-.6..J": ' -t ~,k :'
, L6.'f'j ~ l (] r - - ~ i+G'('e.~ r ll.G.-h (Ih.c-/tMI,s SCJYYleex"..llrnr) ,
~y i. - - I I~t\-t- 2a.c..h
J...A r - nO \'Y\H ~- tho.,,- 2.. loh u ctCtre..
_ /1
2,.....,. /1
.-'~ ,J
1 ~:~ ;>.~O
...~../ v,,/
o ,Ii
/' ~
/7 U {
;:::; \j/ ~ ./
~.......... J / /' ,/ ,I
\. \ Ii'./ /t" /
'-' "_/~/})I
~j {/ 6/
il \
/( J
-_.: 'j
~/
U /
! /
\ ( (v'
\...' i
..
/:=-KA,1)I'-f I
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Proposed Land Use Map
Ph8ae 1 . 2010 . Alternative B · (F-3)
~ LAND tISB <at,):
.... lluDIIy UIp Lat
I.... .....,. s-I Lat
AII8dlelI .... .....,
M1aIII-lIIaIIIr '
. ~"''1 dood ~
('~Iftlly C '~r'
....... 1'* c-'
I"'*- 1'* 0tIIl>>
~1Ib U ....I....JOmce
gg~ .. n-IDpment Plat
m..... 1'* .........
. Rat1wq
.......
. SealIIday School
I~~
~Puk
. c-uNly PuIc
~=o-
!'Clf~
'lOTAL:
ACRIIS: .. rl aI'Y
101\32 2'TA6"
SU1 16.16..
71.21 2.lI7-.
69.56 1WIo
us G.CM"
G.32 us..
UO.!l2 3.lIZ..
~91 ll.6I..
4MI1 LU"
2~ llO6..
11:12.9 2.79..
2U5 OM"
1236 Cl.S5..
"-'5 1.22..
a.!5 132..
st.ll 1.06..
.... D.26..
t49.61 ~..
1OU1 2.a"
2!'1.52 6.....
167'.21 LID"
716.4B lU2..
36lI9.9 :KIll..
LAND US]! ~ AIR):
Senllbal
SqIt .....,. UIp Lat
.... lluDIIy Small Lot
", AIIaMI.... ....,
c' NeJshllomood c.o--'
a-da .. DneJopmeIIl !'Ilk
=::.
NldgI~ PIS
c-unJty Padt
WIliIr
'lOTAL:
ACRIIS: .. rl AlUlA
us lUl6..
263.92 25M..
3tU 31.13"
6QI2 5.91..
!J.21 0.51..
lI1.16 ....
L52 OJI&..
2" G.23..
15AI6 1A6"
18 1136..
13UZ 13.1..
a~ 1bwnIbIp):
. Golf eo-
~~-Wq
'lOTAL: .
ACRIIS: .. rl AlUlA
71.U9 13.63..
7.8 6.91..
7117 &21..
WI8 1.17..
4UI 53..
85U "",..
P Pm .. ltide Lat
;r, 1'IaII StIpts Na.
W l'aIl:eJI 0uIIIdt Study "-
IV ftIal1louru:llllW
Ii,~ Land U. IoundadeI
Il, IbdItInI ae,. LImttI
IY A-aon A.a LImttI
~
~
IliIIIII __ .... 1"' . uw
f .... ... 1IW JaW -,
. W 1M . 1IlIam.
aty 01 ~ - r~ ~ Deputmai
PboDe (IU) 45NW
~~~_'e~_~.~~.aa.lnc- Pko!!l!'~
~
~, 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 thing 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
e
Sincerely,
J)wfif ~- . < /
Duke. Hust <2--.-j;) / I i- / /I,... ~ /r~/ 8~?J Ic;/
Pres1dent UAC/ VIC! C 75 '7, /
tJl1]3~f4 /l/jN
DH: j lh
!;S ~ II
America's Leading Coldwater Fisheries Conservation Organization
Washington, D.C. Headquarters: 501 Church Street, Northeast. Vienna, Virginia 22180 . 703-281-1100
If
....
e
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: 1101 r J)e~ Iro/ruG
ADDRESS: /2525 7;2welSL
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
2P ~~ +ti(~ ?m--~ b 0->"'- :~
eta (Q? - w;i ~. i'ie~~ ~
~ Ctvt(1 ~ - · . LD-(~'0'u.J"'df ~
k-- ~Ptd' ~ & ~ "?lq>1V\I~Y
1/ 7 ' I
~ ,
, ~
~i
*
~I
S i
~
~
~
\S
/5) UJ ~
C:>V\~
-
bv I- N-O
frr
II
..
e
~
~I~{l
k~~
C!:)-= .( ~ '-
d~~~
Ie- 1P',~ff'. =", ~lA<;l3?
~ ~. AF Sf!,er{:'-. be~ (il1t1.~~
~ep 2.5 ac~ ~1 rl,Q.V1.sty .
ie
e
Community Development Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
~r
0$
~$
..
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 oftelling 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 of Stillwater
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 URTPA. 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.
e
..
.,
....
e
As you go through the Plan, the objectives stated at the beginning of each 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. AIl
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 never 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
e
J
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
(.
..
). .
"to
e
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: 1A~e J~f15u--n
ADDRESS: q 4 2.. ? ( )+0 (11l1ar,' cL;J2 7A.J
WRITTEN COMMENTS: ,....~
. '\
S-h'\~~l~ ~r~~ fl~ ~l(
Se~~ ~\uy~ In ~ 'b
:iSl-dA~ ~ Jk; ~u...-r~ i'1A"-M--.
, - ~-- S ~tl /N~ .4~- ~ ..~ ~ an
5hll~. J11~ ~~+'~~h- ~
+01- f4f6 1o}-i.ltl?U55 ~---tt... (~-tte-
\~.J ~k.~ ~~/ 5~1 ~ /
~ /LO ~d- rdcTJ)-f;;;.. ,
- 1ne 1~D~ Slf-w..hf)1 wll ~y)-\~
I .
iMtMu-o-fole . WIth (fVW~llvJd,':) I
--(r~ IAAtJ, ~ a. ~M-~~,
1k ~oJ'J2J hljh ~~ .~y\Jth IMII
{J.'S1A:l f ~ S ~1l1V~ lae-c-o rn I ~ ~ ~ iJ:ut
.. ~W-'<1l::' e.YltA.I'J lub~ Vn<-vJ~ I d"'S, ~
-.
,
e
Ie
.
)
r
.:/:he: rL5 ~ 1 51-' fClAA-1 s;;;u.~bia. ~Y'QM;+-~
ttlC1-VQ. w d l!o~ .s 0Yn C2. 91"0 W tt, b ~ J e)- 1:1
.!0w.p :ct: ~nIYD({d.. - 2}h aaQ.. leis trr-rf.e
WiAliVt5 t- -to CYd )~ ().,vv1 ~(ev--.
Jtw~ 3b ~cl1'h I~~~oev-.~ 1"Y )1i.~
Ja/rtd (') wY1LV5 -I:> vraJ( e- c.L f (7)~-d:-' ·
;neLSe tLh,k krita- WI'5k5 ~t~
~ovrto. J7:~ Vh()M~ tJ.41l NJd- Vn
-ir<< 1 rJ;\,..s f'~ I "
~....
J ·
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: J)o~ ~it.. j (. ~~,JJ' u#'
ADDRESS: ~ l{.;L'l ~rfd lV~b r : J 1 ~ -r rt fIIo
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
~~-~
.::::k, ~ ~ ~-tjlv,,~; ~~~ pL,
0".-<. ~ ~ ~ :ZU---';7f-:{-. ~.~
~ <&~Jry~.~ ~J ."', ~ ~ ~
~---tk ~L,. LJ~ "' :1=~ ~ ~.
~ --p;u--~ ~ ~ -y, ~1 ~
~ ~ ~ =r~:Jf~ f:i!1"r .
~~~~ Olf?J>04- ~
u:t~~~~. .
(~J~ ~~ st-~~
-1h- ~. ~ P1l ~ ~ -fL. ~
. ~ J t J r ,-/J- ~
...........
e
~~
}~~
L
, ~"
I r
I.
,
.' 9-~ ~~ v~ ~Th~
ttr~~~~ ~~f
IY'1) /? ~ ~
. ~ (9Y;T
~ ~ ~ Jf~ ~~r;J
C-. ~. ~" iU. 4- ~ ~ ~J
~ h,J;"", ~ ~ ~~h:..
CZ~~ ~ ~
~ '~k~ 0'
~'^"~~~~m
,... J (j '" 1L
{~ ,~r
,~ ~h
~~-;tk~~.~~
~~ J "'f ~ ~~'{7
Cw.-~ M-- ~r
I
Ie
MAY 05 '95 02:27PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS P.l/2
~#4e-v'tf~ rfrv ~f'reAeY1$I;.e cP/~ tp/'ll~~~
mr. .S;' /97'5-
... ct1uf IlRt/ .6'?Yi!'v.r JohP7..r~
.. /J.-:.?/o Mc~?a-;c~ ~~..
p' .......$"~//L~4;k I &/2
, G~~ ~ d 4M~ ~. (7U/l ~
,~. .Ib. Mo/ /f?f, !t/e +1Ad~ ~
..~ -&C/{y1/ .5h/~",,~,,- wAe... <-.r~
L. .;';vec/ -:t:v-/S'"yegrS, /Jr /3'/0 ..~~ ~U~ SQ<<ft~
?U~/~;-:Ch.~:s.e.f' (7<<r /r~'#I'~ I~ .5h I/Ul4-h-y
'f;..~ sA ~/2.. i?eC:~t:d $~~&rqrd(/47&Y ~/;
are:~ ..$''''''Pl4;1 r .Crf(k/'47.N ~ /J.~a1'~
.. b4.r.-/:- 1'~ /r?J/~r!t,~/d;~eo/7 AC"'d~S
fj,-qz.vn J' G-~t'~ /$ .fAe.. t:ir/ t1'i/~~r jRr'Yeylt,.it;IkI1~
OW? t?~ ..~ ~ ...~ '
~~~ ~ .~4./~~. ~
~. ~ JU/ 1',ih...~ .~ ~
.~1/t:I, ..~ 1rhc;~~ .~....t:Ut,t:l ~ ~
td/.~. ~~ ;;.......~,... .~.. ~if
.. ,.,~h~~(~_ .~. AZae....._~..~..?--~.~~,
W~ .~. ..~~...6T~n.~
f.~ ~. .~~n..~_ ~...&t., ~.
.. ~..~.~~.~~~
,.~~&~~7~
..~~.~.~~r' .
~.~~~ ~1~~
e
I
MA~ 05 '95 02:27PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
, ,
~ ;
P.2/2
~ ~:?d.~~-~
~- .~ ~_d..:t:J'~~ ~
~_....._.~...._.._~,.~ ~ .C:lA-e
/:~...__~.~ ".'~.'_'~d ..~.~
,._..~._-~..~
-, '~"~'.'~~'~r~
"~ ~ O~ ~L.~ ~
/I-'M~dVe~ ~. . 0' _,
-,_.~ ~ -;4..........~. -.u>. .~~ ;5;~'~
c.. ~_~CJKa d/.51 ~.~ ...~,~.
-,~. ~~. ~-~ ~
.:;-~~.~. .-
~,._~...,~~..~~.~.
"'~~=,..;: ~~~
,- .....~~ A""~'" .~ ..~.. L-?V2 ~ ~ ~
;_.~..~....~.~..~~
.~
~/4ha~~~
~,~.~ ...~_..~ _.~ ~ ~
. .~... .~U.~,....C/h ~~. ~
~-- ~.. 1:4~, '._.._ _m._
C<<uLd~ . .
/.;; S"/ P /$?,e; ~~ .R..f ~
~ ~ :>~e>rz.
<-/51... 17Y'.5
I
Ie
.. ..,
.
"',
e'
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: 9l):;}? xP~
WRITTEN COMMENTS: "'.-~
S+,'llw~.Ift9- jJ~
cku~~~~~
/k.~ ~ JVd ~
~ ~. ~{j ~~ ""-' ~
~ ~ n---.' ~ ;t;;-~':..
. ,. I { --()F--;
_/f~.~~.~~
. " r~A-o~~
.~~~~
- .
~~~~
~~h~.~~~
, .
:;/1J~/I~~~ ~~~
. ~~ o....~ fr6 A~ ~.~~
)t;(e ~?!
I
. I
,
~
I:
e
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:~n... , ~v-dy kr::/ZF nbr "3
ADDRESS: I~S9J hv-!::u<;, 'ck Pd r)
e
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Ai L~ AR~"'.d -PP C"'>r.d.~ t?I.-.... .tU,~
~P~OAR ~r:I~~ gf L>P~_dL~~~'
~ LA~/!/ ~ :i-1 ~J .t-/ZJ ~~~ ~ ~~
~;tk- 'I .:a 9"'A4 rr/ ~ ;.. _WA.I~ h~
'<r"'" "-~:~ ~~"/- a .:/;;,..~ . (7k~~ 0/
~ ~ ,~JJ~~ ~ /~~ iF .io//h.MJJ ~~ ,
~ Jd nkY kn~ 7.1~ ~.h.f~ .;tL
~~~~~~A~~~A~~do
~Lty 4 q, ~ i*}fi~P7~'
4 ~ 440.... ;u~f)_.;:I't~ ~~d~~ I ~~~
#~PJJ. ~~ ~~. ~k~, k~ d~, k1~
, . .I
~: v~f/~' Jh~ h;~~rpk~
dJ.~M b;/jJ~r.O~~ rd~ ~.~
~,hJ~ .I.dPh~d-&~~
~,!~~dd~~ ;tt.0.
~ . .f)daU ;tL~-.Q c->?~ ;:6& ~
A ~~ ~~~?!
e.
e
J./p ~;tJ; ApCJ-4Jd/- ~ ~~;e ~
Jtp~ ~ ~'7 /Wt~~ ;'~rL !f-. 4.J) ~ :d.t ~t?~
4icd lJjn-, ,fA /h-7A;__~~ );t-YL:~~-~ ~ ~~ .
~~ -a .y. 161_.1 /.L;-,-'2.-,~~ .
7,fe. r~.-..,~~ ~--LA nI~~~7:~ C:/' ~~/'~ J
~ ~/J~~~~~_ ~ 'I J~r-' ~ ~
Af!/~~/- ~ O~ _~J-'~ All-A./fd4 In--
~~~AA~cLd ~-zA .~~CL~
-~. ~,tI4'~~~J ~~r~-/~~~
d4J~ ~ .:.~ ;M ~-'I~ d~'~~ 0/ r2A
~~ ~ -V ltP~ ? :%L4 L.h7~~~
1Aa/lc r"~~~~ ~jL,L~ ~d ~>>I ~}-
I /
r~r;7~~7:r:;~'~ .ffi7!t ~
~ " d:j ~57~ dy /hdf..~.~ ~.
:Jk~~.~~.- ~
~~ ~~::I- :th ~ d/ ~,
jd~ Mfii.~ ~:!~ ~7
Mt~.
j~~.~~ ;tIuk-Bd ~
~~~ ~;todrr~#Z,
~ J~.~.~ ~'Z*
~ U4 ;ii} ~ ~ ~~;J!-I-~ ~~~-j- 11__,,-1-&
~~~:r d/or;~~'f-
j)p;L'4 ~.;;f ~.' ~----~;J'
?YAw ,we ~ ~ ~ 4 ;Ii!; ..f;:I;iP~~ ,
--#()u ~ ~ ,f~' ~ /V-A~' _AH:-."_'-r- -dd ..~
~~'f_ 4-MR~~~/~
cb~~ ~.~~,tt.-? .
JdaJ.g(p V~~/~
~Ma~~'~~~,
j)(7~~~ ~7r~h a~
~.~L'i~?
8-~,,- ~ ~ CL ~.~
~ 0>- ~. U-/ ~ p;w :taU ok;/-
~~~~~ .
:;;;:J: 'S. ffi~ ~ I~ ~
~~af--a~ ofCJ.~
c1~/ t2nd~ ~~ 1
. &y~~~"",-~~,
f)(}F~~~'~~~
4~~0,;;...j~~~
I:;?co ~ ~ ~ ~.? )
.~ /~ l-'(?~~~J~
~/~ ~~/~~/
~j}Arf . ~~~
'~ ~~ 4<1
LA h-~~~~~
JJ.t~ ~.
J~~
j~-IY~Y~ .
fr. ,; ."
I ..
e
e
to
",
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Deparanent
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater'. MN 55082
.'
APRIL 25, 1995
STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:
ADDRESS:
yTTEN;&S:
J"- ~1.I, b
- ..........
I ) ~f-€-
fPt&'- 4JJ/lIrA/;/JA /.
MAY-04-9S THU 08:02
WHITE BEAR LAKE
FAX NO, 6127793139
P, 02
e
May 3, 1995
Dear Mayor Kimble,
Please consider the following items in your consideration of
the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan.
1. Open space
Stillwater Township's policy of 2 1/2 acre lots has
essentially eliminated open space. 200 homes in the Highland
Development is insignificant compared to the urban blight of what
200 homes on 2 1/2 - 5 acre lots have done to our farming/open
space area. Ask any farmer 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.
Don't 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 Plan as proposed is
better that having Stillwater surrounded by 2 1/2 acre lots housing
people that want all the benefits this area has to offer,
especially the parks & services the City of Stillwater 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 of all environmentalists. There is no doubt that 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 Stillwater's Comp Plan allows for
it should hopefully provide this area
opportunities.
lot requirement,
the Business's irt
commercial growth
with employment
5. Cooperation
e
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 Cur
neighbors intimidating and condescending attitude. The work and
.'
rlAY-04-9S THU 08:03
WHITE BEAR LAKE
FAX NO. 6127793139
P.03
effort put forth by the city in developing this comprehensive plan
benefits all of the communities in this area. This plan is
recognized by other professionals representing many other
communities as well planned and best use of land for preserving the
future of this community and surrounding area. '
6. Preservation of small town stillwater.
I
I
I
e:
I
I
I believe that preserving Stillwater mear-s focusing on
downtown & the older neigliliorhoods that make this such a beautiful
community. 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 community. Where is Downtown Woodbury?
Presently Stillwater Township resembles Woodbury.
Growth will OCCur in the Township surrounding our community with
many using and abusing our parks I creating more traffic and not
contributing to the maintenance cost. The Comprehensive plan allows
Stillwater to grow its commercial tax base which will help fund the
preservation of Old Stillwater. Those of us that are fortunate to
live in property a~~exed to Stillwater appreciate The Old Community
and will support its p~eservation.
Therefore, I would encourage you to adopt the Comprehensive Plan as
proposed by your professional staff.
ary Kriesel
1451 Lydia Circle
e
~
~.
.
.
.
~- :LS - C{ s-
I_~ ~.".~ ~ ~
-~-~-~~
~\C\\.,,~~
~~~ ,~
~~~~~~
~ ~. ~,~""
~,' ~ ~.' ~
~~~~~~~
~ . " .~; '-0~ ~
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~ ~'~ ~~~
~~~ .'.
~~~'~~~
~~~~~~
~-~ " .~"~
~,~-~.<l~~_' ~~
~~~~~
~~~~ -"' ,."~
~~,~~~~~~
~, ~,~~~~~~
~ ~~
I .'"
- '-
~
I.
.
.
I
~~~~~~~
. ~t . ~~.~~~
i~-'. ~~~
I.~' ,,~ ~ ~ ~
1""'"'-- ~ ~~ _
I ~ ~"- ''''~~~
j ~~ ~~~
i ~'\~~~~
I
I ~"-~~ 'f
,~~~~
~~~~~~
~~~~:~>---,
'- ~ ~~~~~
~~~S"' ~ ~~"'~,
'-0..51- ~ ~ ~ ' ,
I
~~~~
~~~~>-..~
~' .~~
~~~~
i <Q~,~ ~~6
\~~~c::.-"'l~~~ ~ ~
...
_
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NAME .~ ~ )'UBLICHEARING
ADDRESS: i51J ~~.4
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
1_
-/~
1~
~ .J ~
,." '--AuJL ~7% ;f ~
~cJ2~~~~
. . ~p~ It fLj ~
-FJ' ~u!I ttnJ~. ~ ~~
_rJl'd~ p'. ~
~~ ~.~~
ytzJ '
,
e
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
YUBLIC HEARING
NAME
ADDRESS:
e
,
~";?em ~~-E~ dJ ~
';;S.!Z ~~~J,
~ ~.AUYI-~tb~,. g~lJ.-ni
~. , .
_;,. .".. ~.. ....",', ,... , . .. .,..
s
.
e
en
m~ Q) /qgS
ITa; m~~~
W ~oL;L. C~- CGu~
! -~ <J
;
i
i
OJ SL (1f\fL UJ-Iu:L.n ~ ;lo ~ Yf>> )en <Sl0
r ,CVll1. ~ U'\ J 0J.}tY) "t CU\J\QAG(^&
~~ .J\J
1 ~J\Up.. --
!
Ip~'~iD&~%w,
(Y\~.-Db ^.Q~~vth if\ ~~
bn~)f\ ufNL-tnv.rY\D~. We- ~UL {,,-at V\
. fucurQ"\ en ~d~ ~ p~ a~ QA
~ Qd -fu-, {l\~ ~^ ~.- ~. AL> ~ctd
r ..~ ihd- .o-uCh an ~~~.
..~.~~ ;Jr~~~~~
{~. . } orO ~... k ~. l7I\(JL.tk..a.
~ ".' -~^-\-O ~ ~ (~ ..
I.. ~.w ffir,\VllL. -., cpj' ... ... ..... u:s CA.
.~~~t-~::~
~~ ~-~-m.. ......~~
~~~. If.. L\<"dk~Y\~Gee 1'>\.,,,1
Z 02:, lJJ. Chk: Sd-. s+a1J~ 'rNV SS()&~
Y30 -'3731
".
e
April 28, 1995
Carlson
Wagonlit
TravefM
~
Mayor 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." My 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
1. . " . 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 1 00% 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
e
Local Presence, Global Power""
Carlson Wagonlit Travel- 1826 Tower Drive West - Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-7513 - (612) 439-3522 - Fax (612) 439-1446
Owned and Operated by: Thbby Lohmer's Travel
\
Carlson
Wagonlit
TravefM
e
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 CRITICISM COMES AT THE SCARY FISCAL IMPACT 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% build out. 100% !!
Rose tinted glasses?? Alice in Wonderland? What is the reality between lets go! and were finally
here! ??? You cannot base revenues 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.
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.
Bob Lohmer ~ (#~
'e
Local Presence, Global Powe(M
Carlson Wagonlit Travel- 1826 Tower Drive West - Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-7513 - (612) 439-3522 - Fax (612) 439-1446
Owned and Operated by: Thbby Lohmer's Travel
.
\
t
'f
:'
e
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: L~. lJ!~
-,
ADDRESS: 3olJ? J71~ ~
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
e
~ ~ak Y4/.
~~~
)dIndf~ j ~~/~~
~~~ ~ ~~. a.dJ0~
t7
~i ~~~/.~~
.~~ ~I YuI ($-?( ~ ~~
~ M-<: ~~~e--~~~~~,
~ aJ--( ~ ~ ~ c:R~~
,dJ4~~J~/~~k.:I-~
OJ (~ ~ ~, ~ )J(P'I!- ~.&L~
~~1J~~~ /idf.d-~/'~~
M-' ~WMt--~.'~
~IJ~
~ fkL- J~ 5#/7' ~ dLI.~~
~M .9-11Yr~~~
~~ ~I{. ~fl1Cu.-~~ ~ ~
,
,
.
10
f
. ' ~1~~' ~(;:;:MW/~
~~~,;G ~ dUr~d~
~~J.~ .~~~'J-
~t<4L@A.~/~/~
~ , ~~. ~ .,~ tf?t- .~ tuk;
1c~~~Ww;d4~.~
if ~~ ~Hl7J -./ tA ::h~~
~~~~~!L-hdLf ~~~.
. -'" / c
~~~~~~~~M~.~
~~ tu<-I C{ ~ ~~?{. ---~~_
~~~ A !!f~ ~ r .adl)~/~
~1M-ud-oil-ldd!4-~~~) ~~
~~~~~/ r~~
~~.~/--..( ~.~~z
~fn:~' ~~~~
~ ~fl ~~~~
o;M~7'. >~~.//(
e
1
&w,ctAA) ~
e
;....-..,
. ---- .
(~I~~I\! Minnesota Transportation Museum, Inc.
\. I .I P.O. Box 1796, Pioneer Station, St. Paul, MN 55101-0796
'. ." Accredited by the Minnesota Historical Society
'._.~ .
October 10,1991
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.
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)
e
t
e
:~I~~We'",:;;;:~::~,J
tourist niilroads nationwide: "It would also be expensive, at least $30-40,000. We
really can't afford it.
!%~'Mj'kw:,~h~~8'ry'el~~J.' .0 US . e1r~'
on weekend trips would kill the Minnesota Zephyr immediately, which would cost us
$35,000 a year in lost rent.
~.~~~e:~.~f%r~.:clJ~~~m.
MTM will retalnownersHtp of the track and all other improvements. In exchange for this
valuable asset, the city will give MTM the perpetual use of the property so long as it is
owned by the city. This is more permanent than our contract with the Minneapolis Park
Board for the use of the Lake Harriet right of way.
Is it risky? Yes. Sometime in the future the city could ch
thecounty.has ,done. 6 w.hat pther .choice.go.,Wf3 ,have?'
wi nnex ....~.. . ood chance.........,. .,;;
...)r.~~.. '...J_,Y ... ~g...,,-
'19Q;..~ .. "J
,_ '",.., """,',;,~~..JIJ...J.l~.f..;~ .-....
'; w.~nthi""B&i1a7fi" .' .' T '&ec;ffiTrOV .'
There was too milch' a 'ks. Please belleve"'(nat our
save the railroad.
. rl~_tjl
prf6i-iiY'Was'slw'ays beerl"to <.~
Thank you for your support.
e
'~
\ .-'"
e
e
jU, flU
DA VlD T. MAGNUSON
".TTORNEY AT LA'vV
SUITE #203
THE GRAND GARAGE
324 SOUTH MAIN STREET
STILLWATER. MINNl!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:iil
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
MT,M~racks t~" the ~# ty of stillwater, a copy of which is enclosed
Ifor your reference: '
This letter has caused both the staff and the stillwater City
Council a giei~ deal'of embarrassment since you;implythat the,
"!I:ol~ ma~~e~'. Q~ the ~nnexatiQn 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.
Jlhen.S~eyeJl<gus~eJ..,l~I:ld,;.+;:met"w~th you in early Qct9ier, 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. ~~n~r.~mplication tna~",tJ:legi ty c:ouncil
does business in secret is....:Lfar "fetched and unfair to all ;'
'involved!
Yours very truly,
DTM/sls
cc: Wally Abrahamson, Mayor
steve Russell
Nile Kriesel
e
~il ~ate~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~
~\n~05
.';t'
__:. .'~o
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 Burl ington Northern right-of-way and the area south of
the railroad right-of-way. Also to determine the appropriate process for City
Counci 1 considerati on 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.
'!
"'. .
Access to the site does not appear to be a problem with the existing road
S ys tell\.
,
-.
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)
e
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
~;~_Jwate\
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 5, 1992
SUBJECT: AN N EXA T ION OF 158 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN CITY
BOUNDARY AND HIGHWAY' 96
Of... _
The Planning Commission reviews annexation ,requests for
consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This was
discussed in the Staff report for consideration of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (Case No. CPA/92-1)
Before expanding to the northwest toward Coun y
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
'planted trees. -Lands along Brown.ls Creek are mostly natural
with some re~idential intrusion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation of annexation to the City Council as
consistent with the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan and a
logical extension of the City boundary.
e
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
, . '
_._--...-......;.,----
..
e
"
1:
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
Date
l,;/.)..q?--
(. &cP.-
Resolution No.
~/qJ-/ I
Motion by
Seconded 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 /l7tt.A ~ , 1992.
e
A1~:Q __0.
(/ aN (~
P~t Bantli, Clerk
BY:
...
.....
~- -- ,'")..,(' .~.
,,~.\ .
,
If
n
April 8, 1992 'i
Ii
.,
The Honorable Wally Abrahamson .' .
216 North 4th Street:
Stillwater City Hall !I
Stillwater, MN 550SZ
Ii
II
,l
Mayor Abrahamson :and City Council Members:
il,
I would like to take; this opportunity to reiterate the importance of annexing the property proposed for
incorporation into the City of Stillwater. .
II
The Minnesota ZepHyr has a substantial vested interest over the past five (5) yea~s and at the current time
planning a $1.1 mill~bn investment in a depot museum and 58,000 square feet of property.
W. h wll. Co ' , h M' Ze h .
It the current ~shmgton unty restnctlons on t e mnesota p yr operal1ons we cannot generate
enough trips to ope~~te profitably.
II
Consider the MinnJ~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.
,.
Ii
Since y, / A
~~~~
aVid L. Pa a au il
President II
II
I,
'I
I.
'I
I!
I
.!
I'
J1
e
n
il
'I
I
l!
II
601 NqRTH MAIN, P.O. BOX 573, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 / 612-430-39,00
SENT BV: ~
4-25-95 ; 5:25PM ;
METRO COUNCIL""
'e
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Regton, Planning for the Future
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612291-6359 IDD 612 291.0904
DATE: April 25, 1995
TO: Steve Russell
FROM: Tom Caswell, Planner ~,
Office of Looal Assistance
SUBJECI': Draft Comprehensive Plan 1995 - 2020, Dated March 30,1995
6124390456;# 2/ 2
I apologize for the lateness of these comments on the draft plan. It was my understanding that the
city was requesting an informal review of all the technical intbrmation and projections con. .oed in
the plan. Based on a discussion with Ann Terwed() late this afternoon, the primal'}' 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 ( '.Ctives 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 expansiont and the city's interest
in pursuing orderly annexation agreementst as well as innovative approaches like development
agreements, the potential exploration of transfers of development rights, and joint planning with the
Township.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 291~6319.
-
e
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 I Remove your egos from involvement, better explain the
benefits, and then let the people decide. Seems pretty straightforward to mel
.
.
.
.
SinCereIY,~
~r
e
~[NJ[g~@'jj'~
Wlt.LRDES~:T;T:ENT 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.
e
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
(WHO) 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 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.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. steve Russell
April 25, 1995
Page 2
e
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
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 WHO 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,
.-\\ \:)l (~. & h. e C~
Molly Shodeen
Area Hydrologist
MCS/cds
c: Mayor Jay Kimble I
Dale E. Homuth
Duane Shodeen
Dave Zappetillo
Dave Ford
Brian Rongitsch
Sharon Pfeifer
stillwater Township
Brown's Creek Water Management Organization
Washington county Soil and Water Conservation District
Clayton Eckles
e
, 1~.,
~_.............
e
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/ /'1IJh6trl
/
ADDRESS: /) I?
5- ~",,) 5-/ ~:lJJ) w?l.r
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
~~ pr tJ r7
~ I
-;;'0.." "> ,()(.J -- -/
I
4 pVI'-' I, "'~1
cic-o/~ ~-i--
~ //l is
JI 2, '3
b.. f (U~
60~Jc -
hl/ ~ J ;:;,-J.
{/)vlJ. '.-1.~luh
/7 c. td"" ..J,w(
~ ~ rt I ,-i./ /{.ir
{/ p
<:; ..)..-u.... -}. \ I ~ t ? r A
..;~ ~
~Y"'l
1.1 .{ t.. , ~. J,.. v ... c. '" : 11
If) ItA. ';;t." L e VI-t-"
,
as
Co"...., Vl./ vi C; b-. -i /O~ ·
/ J
{OV't s/k~ -I,,;:' tf
h " v ~ V t\. ...,,( t9V'1 " r-f (J '"
r--LU",-r (]' "'v""
itJ,-,~ t ;~-i <:,jr-"U ts.
j & lo~ fft5 $tJ"'-' ?I.---I +Arovj ~ .s~~+~
Vu.~,^e.. .1';)(' fU..........~..... -}- ,6A <:;{ .-?b dl:. co\.! -I -{ C v+ -Ikl'v'I ...,
I I V \j
l '',,,;'''''.It?-r -It:> M~J~ S'th..tt. ~ /~/t +~~s-I ~
",., IA -teT (!)r(;>..~ A._J
1" e ~Jl. hOv-l''\()oJ -I-re-1 j,~
(JV
~"/n,i~ ~ ~.
,
e
T tv~ /0 nj l....~ c../)""L~;n-<;. a.,hoo+ i'V ik-- Jht:rS-h.& nV\'~
,'-e) ("o.f>~t-t hvAr.p~ 1 Lv i<'L d"'-"~ ~ ,n,ru, ~J con.~ G;II(J~
AJ;-t~h t1.. c.DVV\..L~ /J>~L(L o..l.,rCS5 ...f- U ~s S..h Uwe;;{....r hu"".-isS' -f t::lo,^,,,,,,,+O\,VVl_
(j~otA 60'" b,l5,lrlc;(' h&'L.J..~... ~ t:'S\d..,,^--l-s} ~r"t.s.SVN +0 ("'C.I~'L Lu~lc..t ~\o~...
~{)f'I'\,~.t'\-eV'\+ r..h.d... ~ ...ehlJ'(Ji, 6f"1~ l~ 1'\.e~~~o",hooJ~ ~i' J~-I I~
tf'Uv--o..~ f'o.~S ~0f\C.~...t of. It:i'or'-~' -Io\N~S '.o~'^'J
)"f{,o,,* \ <. 3 S- 6 if +""5 f',+" .j.,;..,
e
"
l-!ous '':1 ;
hL-t.. J... ~
50 fJf D r-( 6-0 c.. \
-tv VV't ""- t L, 4
1 JL
.5
..
-!-0 ;t 6 (U ,\ ~ IJJ.
.s hc.N. ,..; -fhcJ
512-<
G G '-' \ ~ \A.c..., '--<.
Co YI.-1 """'~+
I Vl ,-r<c...~; vLoA.... (} (U""~~
L {. -t.s V1 (.)-1 {'Crt. (-e'~
tv c."...w-ev( It- ~OL., .!...J ouu-V1.> ~f4. c e. <
~ ,^,^\?> T "~il $ e w V"' -CoV\-t- S '" r fc:.r-t ~H 6 c t..t~
~
t-ft ~+o~~c ~..s:, O\; rc-e f.
c~
,^vus~nj" !ftl yJ0~h()~ hooJj sAov/,j
j 6 v-I- ' J0 l,."<.. ~ k.t to ~S b LM ~ c. C l.. -+-e-.. "VI
VV'-lL..., el",L.c..~ )1"0 0' ~..f~/ '^~ lAOUS"J +
\:... ~..'^ h ~ ~ kH~'" u V\"*J ~ N \ooV c.....).~.
v66 ()"" 4. c.. Lvl h..o u s S ~ "\ /) '^' 0 II' + l..v 0 (J.. rt..&~ S .
~6 C...{ .e COr> 0-
Hi k-.V\. 'C
SLFf' A
\~')l V\-
I V\.. ~u s -t f> ok ^ \<:.
166'<::::"
()lv,^S)
::Tt ~ 6 Ct. G-k.c;lr-\ -r~ L.ua s-+,Aus c u fj'"t.~i
:'6 d ~ k~ --r ~ if lru ~ r p' ~f(;tVb. 6crr
......
C6vt v..e......S fa M'_
76lt> 'ie.. -F~l,l-}:+"~ 5 ~rp(jV'-~
ru.- "'- (., 'if ~ <-II :-L-IUJ '"
!e
Ai ..e e J.. -+0
\~(kjs.
c:.... -\ 0. \ ~ pG.. ~k:.
(O~~.... (:~ U<;.R c..~
60/0) ;::;~drSG
6GlAl> - L'-.Hl"lu\ ld6 ~ ~U'(Y'-IM ~boct
)
.
..
?a,,,,J USL' . S'l'ff,)(.-l
). L6ft~-+ Ui~iOA ~
r1 v 6~ PLVtoul
66c....1
I
("J. "",d
~
A fI'..A &t
e
d-
.
f)D'" ~D c'7' ~-C)~ 1A.i~ etO":-\ lA-,,",_-l -+G.
/ ~ ~,
C:'b +0 ~.o..,... 5hwf.l.. h.- -I e/,rlr) ~ u- 60110....'1' 'b v<'f,,;.., .:.La
PJ2.11 ~ \..1..1 u. '^'.\-.:> -Iv ~ houc....l.S b VI -te...- U f{ '"'t>7 A ^ '^ .e cr a '/2
(a~..r1~ bL~lJ.~Uo '0+. It., a.-~&U-LJ' ~ ^D ,...l">LJlf) Mos..1 i'~ kc.,~
~~ ~ h 0...<;' 0-<., \l ~ T ~ l-.LoA;( l ) ~ /A..... ~'V v-J. '\ r~~ ..-+t 0'-' ~ lc.."" Arc.",
~{)v\d ~ ~~...-\. -\:hgt l'.d\.,J. ~lA\~~"2...-0~~ ~~l~~ ""^-''^--\ ~Sl~.-ch
h'-lLt <:..fct....J. ~ \..vc...""+--Plijy......J.d -l-t....v. (;)c.'U.. nr--IIl'Sr.:>6.ee i'lJvcJ. L~.)
(j' I,. 0--
j,.,IU,.. /'L.Vl~'a- 20r11~ h"co- <koo c:Jor U f? I:' P 11 tA.~+~
~ du~r C>("tA.\tIl~V\~.t' ~-\ Lvov\ul. fd<;"/i"v..-l /o....cY"" '/rb-c..+s.. Dre"'Sf""<""
$> . .
6,0'D ), ( Vll M..J.. t.t --Iv ~I"\ l. DUd -' h~ '01- )4-..J. D w V\.t r 3. ~ ~,....t. (. . r c:..~ .
~ t.fOO .:.- ). \ ~oo+ 61-\6 li:, -to v:.,JJ.. A.~.r k ,.~
~ l \200 -t ~ ll..tv7 \..vo",'-\ e (-LM I'A:' ~n:...c1 ditr!j Dr -!-DL-vV\g. h.:p
Tl;,'J-..-rl" '-" '^'- -t :ra _ l-v"'~: L <i -G 4 ~ .; ~"'''.L... ~
\~ (".U.A~"'J... d..vu( ~,,+t. f"lf.1c.te",,;- S.I~ -+ J.cJ ~ f<+' +t()~ r l~ PJ ~,~
{ ~ Ie;. f~i:A -\-&: '" ~ (C\:.e.s. -h ') '16 -tJ w:.. '" t'\A-U. -\ 0 0'" 3 0 ~,~
.:r ~kt...--. ~ ~ c.\ \ ~ t)A.. ~ V'" '-v \~ .J. \t.> l..I >,~. s..s i 'B..c. 0 ..-.. Co. ~.s
a.-A Go..cA'~-'1-1 .s~o,-lJ. b..e.. 5<--ppo;'L..J I -e,^€-uuOJ I V\.~ 2.0~ ,
b \A 0 b bus, ";'!>S . ~ a.rt '" ES ra.... Vul-l u..~ "'-0-1 -l '-' sf- I o~ ",-<4 , <
/1150, /~.t~ f",-t ,.:., --tG. 'fLC4Vl wOJ\ c-l'3 +~~ I<+~ vlt~L\rlr.:S 1r-t?jh~i~1
\L..V\.O\A..- ~ vvt:.. "'- "\~ -10 . .,..(:4 ,'v. \ f \.)./' ':. v-.<. pc. ,,-L / c> r VI ~1'-1-(;.e..
prtu.r ue",..ho"",, > ~su,L""i '5 u~(f J q, vrro4 ..f~~~'
e
C5w." "\
e
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. WE STILL HAVE COUNTRY AND WILD LIFE IN (OUR BACK
YARD. THE RESIDENCES OF STILLWATER TOWNSHIP AND THE WILD LIFE
WOULD BE BEITER SERVED STAYING WITH 2 1/2 ACRES LOTS.
SINCERELY
FLOYD AND JUDITHMUNKELWITZ
~~o/~~
CC. STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL
MA~OR JAY KIMBLE
. NILE KRIESEL
I.
\.~':."
'\ .
>
e
e
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 ~ leO\ ~ Q.;l~Df\
ADDRESS: l~l 0 ~4-t( \'-0. I~O .
,<
.f
, ~p
e
Ie
,
, (jJ~
'~
11. doDd.
+~~
, , CA#~~
L&Ul
May 1, 1995
_ Community Development Department
_ c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 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
Ie
e
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
APRIL 25, 1995
NAME:
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
P LIC HEARING
ADDRESS:
:e
~
-40----
c'J - - IS
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
e
APRIL 25, 1995
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
_PUBLIC HEARING
NAME fV)QV'l~ Pl\OvL+-e-k
ADDRESS: J 91 Meu"j [.(vU) JJ ()('/ue
S-h' II \/V c\.+-e;r') fVlAJ
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
J ~A~ fJj~
I
C~2-<1 ~/G ~ ~/
'Vt~e f j
e
~l ~ [)
eN ~ J~ ~~~ ~ \M~ ~~~
-J- '- 1 ~~ ~ ~-R AA ~ :i:. I
vf)J tr ~ CVV\. ~. ~v --~ (J -'--. --~r; .
J fR2:;f;tw ~ J~ ~ ~ c<M
"~~~~~~
. ~IJ ~ -<1~A~ U >4~JM. ~J
JKw~ ~ ~~~.~.
J ~i ~ p~ r~~, ~AL<'1
'"\1 ::jQ~~ '1:~ ~j ~W<1 J&
V<RfA~ ~ ~ ~ tW CA. J!~
~ ~ (~~~~f-(yAC~
tLc~ <~t 'fA.~'
~Of~
,~
"'"
-..' . ,,~
;,\
..,.
i
",
Mailing Address:
Community Development
Department
c/o Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
e
.'
.'
APRIL 25, 1995
-
STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
NAME:.-t1 o..~ k -+- ~.. e ^ fp..! e r
ADDRESS: (N'(f4- tJred rAve. Afo .
c::9--li/1 wa. r 1e;-;V/}-.jA/p
ylRITIEN coMMENTS:
. ~J ~L~.7 j.A-<~~~ -;t,t,
j? A 0/'....... p.J . 12.Mh\ p~ / ,.,"*~ dAJ -<> -"" ~ ~ ~ "'" :/:
IdJ ~ d,,;' '4' #~ I j=t ~A t:i ff: ";d,, j. .v-;ff'tJ .
J~ .,aA~Jo/Q ad y;j~JY\. . ~ //~~ Y ,
~r 7/,"" A q-l-t: c-'AL, nAAd t/ Eer
~r," o.MJfc"y ! ffk ..L~1f ~..qA -L,pJ
~ ~ ~~~ ~:~~a ~~~ d~ n~ ~J-
. AAtt47/ : xlt:.tf6AA~
j;~ tu(An, <'HA;" Il' L~~.J~ ~~.
~ ;:~.AUA~ ~ ~ /mA~~~i .. Ii:
./:j Il/7A~ A' .
CL - ---. ' , '
. -d./r,tlu-'l.IL- ~ A A '-'7/. ~~ ,P.k-: ~..(~~ "
.A 'f; /J" 1? /V>rl .0, J A AJ' ~ a.A.I ,a Iq 'tf"~ -' . ..
" t'df..J.. ...nll ". / d~:I::I ~ ,",,,,./1 'oJ'.h.J. An /,.J 'i,,..& ~ ):
...~., l.:"-
..
e
,
, "
"
. .
,
i ';
Ie
'.
(l
~ ..I. &lA "zf- ~ . l,v" ~ft~
~. T.."u _ ~, _ _ _. ~
-~-, /a..-.IJ~~ J
. ..i.P /....... p >--' ~ . - . 17.d.,
~~./ '0'" ~ 1', -6J..LA f
' Itfl-. ~~ _ "
A-- FYI J .<A..l ........ . ___ // . . -:: I >< """'" ,..0 ..J
~ 11.z a/ . L4..P &.Ll....L
' ~. ~;I:p~ "'-'1 L-J' . ~::6f./
- . . MP~.,-o/~ '-
'4=./.L -yo~ / /.lrk ~_o_~ a.
-4.~r, APflLA.o-h-~.J '~/2;~;~.J/i~
g ~'~,{.e nA,n...._ ~
-<n'u~. )1./~ / q..t~:t-~) A /
"'-<l.- L.I:. / J'o I!-V,VE>fiTI/OtJ.
/l~J f2-. l1li:
+~~,,;~ ~
e
s
a
e
d
c
~
-~
- -,
I\.
,
,
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 commercial! industrial property in
the community. We are extremely supportive of the city's efforts to increase land holdings that could
provide for commercial!industrial 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 ~ 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 of a $100,000 assessed valuation each.
lbis 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
retail 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
e
423 SOUTH MAIN STREET. STillWATER, MN 55082. (612) 439-4544
~
e
14790 119th St.
Stillv.later, Mn. 55082
4 Mav 1 qql:)
i ----
To tile Honorable Mav'or and Citv Council of Still,\qater:
. .
I >;Nisll to (:ofnfnent on the plan to annex portions of Stillv-la.ter
To>;,vtlship as proposed in tlle revised cotYlprehensive plan of the city
of Still'Y\rater. I attended the tYleeting on Tuesday April 25.. 1995. At
tllat tYleeting it seetYled very clear that a rnajority' of tile citizens
speaking also opposed the plan. I, too, am opposed to the plan as it is
proposed.
1\.1:y opposition has sU-Emgtl1ened after I have studied the plan in
sonle detail, I do not believe the development proposal meets the
policy and progranl objectives 'Yvllich are outlined in the
cornprehensive plan. Specifically policies and programs outline on
page 3-5 and ~~-6 under the heading of ""Conlmunity Size, Shape,
Separation.. and buffering Objectives>> are not met.
Policy :# I calls for maintenance of open space bet\^leen Still-water and
the surrounding area, discouraging of urban spra'Yv'l and preservation
of open space. Furthernlore the plan calls for the encouraging of ""use
of tile new development concepts . . . such as mixed use development
and cluster housing to . . . rninirnize the need for and use of the
automobile, protect natural resources and maintain open space.>> The
proposal for land use does none of these.
I see inadequate pat-ks and open spaces and virtually no buffer
betvJ'een tile area to be annexed and the surrounding rural area. No
park in the plan ,,,",ould even be large enough for a baseball diamond,
to say nothing of some open space or .......rildlife areas. There are no
connecting links between neighborhoods except by car. The scenic
railroad, now a boorn to our local economy, would soon be a ride
through a few suburban neighborhoods. The greenbelt proposed on
the plan is too narrow to provide the type of separation desired.
There are no community, corner stores. I don't believe you could
walk any,.vhere. Zoning puts multifamil}T accomnlodations next to
farm fields. Preservation of small town character is lost.
e
".
I,
e
e
Put simply, the plan proposed does not rneet its ovvn goals.
Rather than preserve the charm of tlle area, the proposed land use
plan appear? to pack the most housing into tl1e area that \^lould
reasonably be possit.le. This appears to be an opportunity for a feVol
land o'Y....'!lers to sell out to large developers insuring large profits for
both parties. This is very unfortunate.
You have the opportunity with a plan for the next t'Y\lO decades to do
sornething vvonderful for the future of this cornmunity.: to preserve
tlle rural character of the StillvoJater area and our wonderful open
spaces; to accommodate gro'Y....1:ll in vvays that others >;/Vould envy and
etYlulate. I hope you will have the courage and forethought to reject
this land use proposal. In doing so ;lOU will have tnade a hard
decision. r.....lost importantly, you \.\1ill give back to Stillvvater's future
generations the opportunity to preserve the unique and beautiful
rural character Volhicl1 'Y....Te have enjoyed.
Respectfully submitted..
~
Jeffrey S. Schiff
...
;
\!
OJ!!' 3 0 /9 5
17: 50
FAX 6124394705
STILLWATER TWP
~001
J
.~
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
Box 117
Stillwater, Minne50ta 55OB2
April 25, 1995
Phone #
Fax #
The Stillwater Town Board, representing the citizens of
Stillwater Township, has taken the following position with
respect to the City of Stillwater I s Draft Comprehensive Pl,"ifJ:
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 abaence 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.
u
'-
David John
~~to
. ;:,
';, 04f/30/95 17:50 FAX 6124394705
d.
: i .
.'
STILLWATER TWP
III 002
STILLWATER TOWNSmP
IMPACT ON ROADS
CAUSED BY STILLWATER PLANT F3
4.25-95
Louise I. Bergeron, Supt. of Public Works
BOUTWELL:
* Currently average road count at Co. 15 is 431 /DA Y.
CO. 12 is 1506 Iday
**
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
tripsl dayl
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 FAX 6124394705
}. ~ .
.. (
STILLWATER TWP
~003
II
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.
.
1
I
.
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
for 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
t
f
Page Two
,
,
5. PEACE OFFICER REPORT - General discussion about the state of the
Township - speeding fines, sign needs, trailer parking and 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.
.~ 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 in agreement for a 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
.
.
'\
.
.
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
Box 117
Stillwater, Minnesota 550B2
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. '
c;/~~.. '.~.' II
~
David Francis
~#~
v/
Jack Takemoto
* Printed on Recycled Paper
..
"
.
.
~,
===
~ EVENSEN DODGE INC
FINANCIAl CONSUITANIS
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 public 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. W orthingt
Vice President
/ss
Attachment
cc:
Donald Johnson,Chairm~, Still~ater Township Board of Supervisors
Mike Gair, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. . .
Albuquerque + Atlanta + Boston + Columbus + Cosla Mesa + Dallas + Des Moines + Detroit + Fargo
Minneapolis + New York + Orlando + Portland + San Francisco + Seattle + Washington D.C.
BWI7ss4
601 Second Avenue South, Suite 5100, Minneapolis, MN 55402
612/338-3535 800/328-8200 FAX 612/338-7264
I
""
,
EVENSEN DODGE, INC.
Robert A. Worthington, Vice President
STILL WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ANNEXATION ISSUES]
.
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 1 0
. .
, .
.J, <t
t. .
,
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?
bw9wlO
.b.SJjfw"tCI LI/ ~/z Ct'!
J 4:.,., tV fl,!"') 'yo ,fA If" 5. l J/U
.. j; e )( / re 55 in):, ~ ~ .f~' It -." ~ rl e'
... ci 1t? J1 e;c cr7" a '-1. 7 c~ h 'I': Js'rl ~ 0 )0 W 1~ LJ{ '-
.. It w ; J/ cLCctJ 1Htf'!t j J j e C::d u J e I ) a 1/ C-
lue' '" ~ /0".7 Ij e 3dM c. t Ii 'h:J e/ 7 . f j €.
171 ee L' -"J ~Y'y e ""[ f d/"" J ?U jilt Cl II~ 6 f
- Inl mHel) lborS.
. ~ ru c Q' ., )" 0 u C. Q '1 j;, Yo '< e- 4/ / /j d
/,/0'''' li,'/ 99':% + eJ If..c feotf"/e /'1
. Ii e q; recr d. >>ect~,/ "'/.l:tJ fed !a ->t ,
~;tj,jetl:e-.~"-J:J;Lt-~"L..I;~l'e1a ./<-
.jLt--......--u.pLif~p. .............~/~ J/~e I> .. I ....yO u..
........ ., Q[~ ........2.?f .0.5.e./... . ..0 /; re)l e ~~.t'~e_..5.m. I
_ _iL u_. .- .IL'Lz{)~- .J L.KjLu"'CJll~mt_
~...__ ____" --1 '- L_~..tJ-e./.Jt'I~. .._.--L~, _,.~q_G_.e...=._ .11L-~HT~L1'1.
~..___,.._~ ___ J .JI "'_JUL___ dr- .L""J ..-- __d.e r!.L f..1"-1>1.La1. ...
i---------.-..~ j h e )0> n j---I-~"Yl--w-~,5-~/ _.t& .---<;1.-.......------.
L_____~,_, Jet(} / '" nL_'2..<<LL<_L0..~g" I..t h ~.!.:,L __e! "-1/~~..!li'J..,____
... ._.___._JL~~__.!:?'.t.;.__r:z.__!j.---..L~-c..k.-.-..JLr~-...t2.~..I4....L-~.. -.-..... the. /' ?V_c;?__ V' _e.. -
'. .......__ ___ _ ';]1.' .ve.bo___A.V_tl-4fl :3--bJ-d'[J- 4d~'tJ L:1f._ck.;Jelo.j7P1 rll1
--.-~,-~~=------,~.-.~ -- . 4~cL;;t;;;z~-7J.--
--.--__ ~_____.~_.. ___j.2..4.2__CZ .j1~3~",P_io!.....__4 .-~.--
______,___.______~____ .--_ __JlL!~.d.tLr.. -..JQ.C<J-L'..s..J;;:z-------..
___~_.___"_____,~____._~.._~_4____.__."._._____~._..._______.._____..______.____..__....._...___.__ ---.-,-,-.----. .----...,--.-..- .------..-..-.-..-..--..--~---_..-----,---+.----..- ,..----.--.--+-.-...,..-". ..-,-,-----,.-----------~
e
\.
\
."
.
James and Shcila~l\1arie Untiedt
14540 119th Street North
Stillwater, M N 55082
612A39-6476. El\ 439,6589
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 figu,res 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
.."
,
..
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
James and Sheila-Maric Untiedt
14540 119th Street North
612-439-6476' Fax 439-6589
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~VvL-__._~__
Sheila-Marie Untiedt
.
Ie
<!. <!..I S'l :i>) ., )
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
204 NORTH THIRD STREET
STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
e
BOARD MEMBERS:
DON JAHNKE, President
JOHN L. JEWELL
JAMES WEAVER
DENNIS McKEAN
Secretary/Manager
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 \ower 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,
~7&~
Dennis McKean
cc: Nile Kriesel, City Coordinator
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
e
PRINCfrRL1ST_PRUL_2297022
"
i~
TEL No.
00 Rpr 25,95 14:12
P.02
TO:
Steve Russell. Stillwater City Council
FROM:
Dan & Susan Whalen
1180 Nightingale Boulevard
351-7230
DATE:
Apri125~ 1995
We are currently Stillwater Township residents and have a working sept
system. Because we live between the city and some proposed developt;~
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 lines 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 fman:
I would hope some of these costs will be paid by them. It seems some \,
unfair that we would be assessed costs for someone else's benefit.
e
e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR:
Klayton Eckles, City Engineer
~ t\!! /~
DA: April 21, 1995
RE: HIRING OF TEMPORARY HELP FOR THE STREET DEPARTMENT
Discussion
Every year the public works department hires temporary workers to help in the streets and public
works. These temporary workers assist in patching streets and crack filling and other
miscellaneous activities. We would like to hire a temporary worker as soon as possible to help in
the early season street patching.
Mike Asmus of Stillwater has worked as a temporary summer street laborer for the last two
seasons. Mr. Asmus is a college student and available during the summer months. The
experience that Mr. Asmus has acquired during the past two years would be an asset to the public
works department.
Recommendation
I recommend council pass a resolution approving the hiring of Mike Asmus as a temporary
laborer beginning April 26, 1995 at a hourly of$6.75.
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
APPROVING TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT OF
MIKE ASMUS AS LABORER
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the temporary
employment of Mike Asmus as Laborer, from April 26, 1995, for a period of 100 days, is hereby
approved; and that as compensation for services the said Mike Asmus shall receive the sum of
$6.75 per hour.
Adopted by the Council this 25th day of April, 1995.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
Attest:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
e
Ie
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City Coordinator
RE:
Employment of New Secretary
DATE:
April 21, 1995
During the past two weeks the Finance Director, City Clerk and myself have conducted
interviews for the Secretary position that became vacant when Cindy Geis was appointed
Assistant Building Inspector. We interviewed three (3) candidates, who all appear to be highly
qualified for the position. However, we did not complete the "scoring" of the tests that were
administered and were not able to provide you with a written recommendation for the packet.
We would like to bring this matter to the Council Tuesday night if possible. We would provide
you with further information at the meeting. Thanks for your consideration.
?(~
~ MEMORANDUM
.
.
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: City Coordinator
SUBJECT: Employment of New Secretary
DATE: April 25, 1995
Diane, Morli, and I interviewed three candidates for the secretarial position that became available
when Cindy Geis was appointed to the Asst. Bldg. Inspector position. The three candidates had
excellent employment backgrounds and experience. Staff is recommending th~uncil
approve the employment of Sue Thorn for the secretary position by adopting the so ution
(start date would be May 15, 1995). Ms. Thorn appears to be very qualified for the position.
e
e
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City Coordinator
RE:
Public Works Facility
DATE:
April 21, 1995
On Wednesday, April 19th, I asked Pete Smith ofBWBR to prepare a proposal for conducting a
feasibility study regarding replacing/relocating the public works facility. BWBR has been
working with the City on the City Hall remodeling/expansion issue and would be a logical choice
to do such a study. Further, BWBR has also been working with ISD 834 on their bus garage and
vehicle maintenance/storage situation.
In regards to the City Hall facility and the public works facility, I am requesting that the Council
set aside one of the following dates to conduct a workshop on the facilities issue: May 9, 16 or
23. I can discuss this further with you Tuesday night.
'l!~
e
e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Klayton Eckles, City Engineer (: HE: /
DA: April 21, 1995
RE: APPRAISALS OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEVEE PROJECT
Discussion
One of the significant obligations of the city as part of the levee wall project is the appraisal and
acquisition of all necessary easements and properties in the construction area. Because of the
tight time line on this project, it is important that the city move forward with the appraisal
process immediately. In order to begin this process, we must chose a certified appraiser
approved by the Corp of Engineers. Ray Kirchner and Associates of Stillwater has been
approved by the Corp and has been used by the city successfully on a number of different
projects.
In the past, Mr. Kirchner has worked with the city at a rate of$100 per hour. In this case, Mr.
Kirchner has agreed to work for the city at a rate of $75 per hour because there may be up to
eight properties involved.
It is impossible to know at this time what the final cost will be due to the unknowns involved in
the appraisal process. If condemnations are necessary, Mr. Kirchner would also be available for
those.
Recommendation
I recommend that the city council pass a resolution designating Mr. Ray Kirchner and Associates
as the appraiser for the levee wall project at an hourly rate of $75
".
'.
SIGN UP SHEET
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
April 25, 1995
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meetine:, please sign below. The City
Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
1 ~Lc4Mm____________
2~!::---------~~~-~~'(?~-------------
3 ~~-~-~~~:-~-~-~~-----------------
4 CaL.c.."crmb?,-CQ~-i1.;h..l"-------------
5 ---------------------------------------------------------
6 ----------------------------------------------------------
7 ~---~--~----------------
8 --~---~~~-~----------------------------
9 ___-JJ.v1.1.______~t1/..{~_LA-~JL~--------------
10 ----~- - - ~------m----------
11 ~~_41J__ ~~--------------
12 ~-- -- j -- -----------------------------
13 --------~---~~;2--L~~---------
14 _gL/L.0__L1P..:-_~'fL___________m_______m
15 ----------------------------------------------------------
16 ---flLJA-J!o./!fl1;lJ-dta-7J:P.:Lm"-----m-
17 ia'<<&._~j0C!2_~m________m
ADDRESS
_~2{___id_~_Qlt_~_~{/Jt!L0!.i1;; /YJ IV
_~Q_L~m__h)_____~J:L_~:_r7i--m----~-J o~
-.fJ.-td-1!L--=--.f.-'?~5];:41~~~-~ !?;' ~ ~
~i9.'J'!() ~1 \ {' /_ ~' I
~l~E1:-~-~-----T.:L--U-:1.Lfth-c.------~llih \StIj ; f'
ol5~ N.81L A;ut;. Nt
-------------------------------------------------------------
.., (]rJ JL..; Jl.. 0 ~ I _ _ . tJ'l ~ t k,,__
____________________________-l~_~_______________________~_
1441{ DfJ/WDCd f?cI 5t(//~/Wshr2
--------------------------------------------------------------
__~_~~~_~~_~~~--I-~-----~~-.
___~5.7Lfltu..~:.&?!~___"'Z2t&_~_';)..~,p--------
? 86 S' /J1a.""""'/jl 'i
-----------------------------~-------------------------------
.~rll ,1/ ~;;..~ 4-
-,{---------------------------------------------------------~^ ~
__L'2~_2E______Z72_/:=4----~----(b-----~,
~~::Jj~~~!i:~Z~~~;~:%
__jd____j___(lmciik_~A!.__~
1
.~,
SIGN UP SHEET
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
April 25, 1995
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meeting, please sign below.
The City Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
ADDRESS
18 ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
19 _~~_~____~j!~::(~:tL~__________ --~~-~~~~~-~----~-9-\=\.:t~hW---
20 _____~_~__~_____~__~~_1:_~_______________________ ___~_~~!?___~utt'~~.?_r:~~_~(~_~~___tt?!________
21 ~~--~-~~(-:-------------------- ~~~~!!~2_!l~~--~~~~--------------------------
22 -___________~----~-(-~-~-------------------- .(~~_€:~___~__~~~~Jl>~!i;C______________
23 __~~~-----~JZJ! - ~~-------------------- --~~-'!~--~-~-':-~-~:;~-~-----------------------------
:: --~~~~:{i;_;~:::::~::~: ::~;:;td::~~:--;;.~::::::::::::::-
26 - _k,..'::L~:t__ - ~t~=_a_~C_________________ __L"?._V.L'::___M._':j~~J:_J..__\;~J_j:.L__________________
@) ---!J1-Y--- -Q!:.t1:!ffJ;:---- ~-?-L~--!l_~--t.~---~t.----~--------------
28 nl~ ------1!t.(.-&~--- ___1J.!!___~_____~5__--~fI/l~_~~
29 ~lffL?J4; -- -:-~---- 1.~11.Q_t!1~-f!f!.:__~_!0:.(__
'.~/1 u V:-~ j 22/3 ~~-{- I\J .
30 -~--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------;--------------ir-----------------
. _~~~__~~_~_______________________ _l__\~_~_____~_~~_~_~~_~~__~_____________
3 __~_~__Ss__l~_~s__~_~{____________________ _1J.~~_____v.\.~~~___.1j_~_~___~~____________
~-~-~jil~------------------------------- ___}.~_~!?_~___::z_:Jl_~_!__!\l:?___________________________
, ~--:t~-~~------------------- --------~:------------~~--------------------------------------
2
...
SIGN UP SHEET
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
April 25, 1995
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meeting, please sign below.
The City Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
35
36
37
38
\
39 --'\---- - -- ---- --- -- - -
/7) \.~ff- &\6\k--
~-----------------------------------------------------
41
42
----------------------------------------------------------
43
----------------------------------------------------------
44
45
----------------------------------------------------------
46
47
48
----------------------------------------------------------
49
----------------------------------------------------------
50
----------------------------------------------------------
ADDRESS
____~_~~Sl____~___~~__~~_________________
___L'?:_?_~_?______:Z.g_~__~f_____________
___~~_Q_L___W_~---L1.t;..11Qd_(~L~_i---S~~~
__J./..2_/Jd~__~-2ii:,e----~L.1 ~~
__gE2:~_52_~_&J~^t2(9t? l1Jj
3