HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-08 CPC Packet1
1. CALL TO ORDER
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.01 Comp Plan discussion
i
T POW OPSlILEW TE
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2009
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, February 8 2010, at 7 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning
Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City
Planning Commission meetings are open to the public.
AGENDA
2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 14, 2009 MINUTES
3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects
which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the
statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out
of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the
proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask
if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes
and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all
public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed
item.
4.01 Case No. 2010 -01. A special use permit for change of usage from commercial to
residential for the building located at 114 Chestnut St E in the CBD, Central Business
District. Tom Theis, Investment Lending Group, LLC, applicant.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
PHONE: 651 -430 -8800 WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
December 14, 2009
Present: Dave Middleton, Chair, Mike Dahlquist, Mike Kocon, John Malsam, Scott Spisak and
Charles Wolden
Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge and Community Development Director Bill Turnblad
Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Dahlquist, seconded by Mr. Kocon, moved to approve the minutes of
Nov. 9, 2009. Motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
No comments were received.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 09 -47 A special use permit transfer for the James Mulvey Inn to Teary O'Hara and
Lee Sather at 622 W. Churchill St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Teary O'Hara,
applicant.
Mr. Pogge noted this is a requested transfer from a previous owner. Currently, there are seven
total units at the Inn, five in the main home, with two being operated independently by the
previous owner in the carriage house, he said. As with all B &Bs, there are 12 conditions that
must be considered, he stated. He said this request meets all conditions and approval is
recommended; Mr. Pogge also noted no complaints have been received in the past 12 months
regarding this operation. Approval is recommended with the 16 conditions outlined in the staff
report, he concluded. Mr. Malsam asked whether the main house and carriage house would be
separate operations; Mr. Pogge stated the two are jointly marketed but will be independently
owned and operated.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Wolden moved approval of the transfer. Mr. Kocon seconded the motion with the 16
conditions of approval; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 09 -48 A special use permit for co- location of Clearwire antennas on the existing T-
Mobile tower with equipment cabinet to be located within the existing fenced compound at 523
W. March St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. David Fischer, Buell Consulting,
applicant.
Mr. Pogge reviewed the request to co- locate on a tower under construction at a site on the
Stillwater Junior High School grounds. With all towers located in the RB District, 8 conditions of
approval are considered, he said; all conditions are met, with five additional conditions of
approval recommended as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Spisak said he was in favor of co- location. Mr. Malsam agreed with Mr. Spisak's
comments and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion
passed unanimously.
Case No. 09 -49 A preliminary and final plat approval for subdivision of one lot into two lots at
12550 72 St. N. and a zoning map amendment to rezone from AP, Agricultural Preservation,
to LR, Lakeshore Residential. Bob and Janet Meisterling, applicant.
1
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
December 14, 2009
Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He spoke to issues related to the request for rezoning and
noted that the updated comprehensive plan, yet to be adopted by the Met Council, shows the
land in question as low density residential and the LR zoning is the least dense residential
zoning classification. He stated the request is compatible with the land use plan and is
compatible with neighboring land use. He also noted that the LR district was created specifically
to address concerns related to protection of Long Lake, which this property is in close proximity
to. Mr. Pogge also reviewed issues related to the preliminary and final plat, including road right
of -way, extension of utilities, park and trail dedication, and slopes. He concluded approval is
recommended with the five conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Kocon verified there would
be no access from 72 for the new lot. Mr. Pogge noted that a ghost plat was required to
preclude any future issues related to road /access for potential future development in the area.
Mr. Meisterling addressed the Commission and spoke to reason for the proposal and need to
construct a new handicapped accessible home; he said there are no plans for future
development and noted his son will be purchasing the property.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Dahlquist said this proposal seems to fit with the City's land use and moved to
approve the rezoning from AP to Lakeshore Residential and the preliminary and final plat for the
subdivision. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 09 -50 A variance request to enlarge a two -stall garage at 5 River Heights Drive in the
RA, Single Family Residential District. Janet Jezior, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad noted when the Commission first heard the variance request, the applicant was
proposing to add a single -car addition to the garage, which would have made the garage closer
to the front lot line than the existing house. He pointed out the existing house is non conforming
as the southeast corner of the house is about 17 feet from the property line. He noted the
Commission denied the initial request because it would have enlarged the non conforming
setback. He said the applicant has completely revised the proposal. Currently proposed are two
bump -out areas in the front of the house, which provide additional storage space and
change /update the appearance of the exterior facade, but do not increase the non conforming
setback; the bump -outs, he said, are actually set back farther from the front property line than
the existing garage. He said staff is supporting the request; he noted the variance essentially
recognizes what already exists through no fault of the current property owner.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Kocon noted the current proposal addresses some of the concerns reflected at the
previous meeting and moved approval of the variance. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion;
motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 09 -51 A variance request for construction of a lean -to at 641 Hidden Valley Court in
the RA, Single Family Residential District. Grant LaForce, applicant.
Mr. Turnblad reviewed the request. He noted the lean -to is attached to the existing garage and
functions as the third stall of the garage. The request is for a three -foot variance, he noted. He
reviewed the three criteria for the issuance of a variance and stated staff does not believe those
three criteria have been met. He suggested that the Commission also look at the precedence
that might be set in granting a variance for a third garage stall. Mr. Kocon asked whether the
lean -to /garage addition would meet code as constructed; Mr. Turnblad responded in the
affirmative.
2
City of Stillwater
Planning Commission
December 14, 2009
Mr. LaForce said he believes he meets all the criteria of code, noting that three -stall garages are
allowed in the City, with a maximum of 1,000 square feet; he said he is under the 1,000 square
feet maximum by about 100 feet. He explained that he works out of his home and uses one stall
of the garage for storage of his equipment. Mr. LaForce also noted he is 16 feet away from the
nearest structure on the adjacent lot, and said he had a letter from the neighbor directly affected
by the structure stating the neighbor isn't opposed. He spoke of his need for the additional
garage space and the location of an existing tree on the property which precludes construction
in another location.
Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was
closed. Mr. Kocon said he understood some of Mr. LaForce's comments regarding need but
said if he was looking at this request before the structure had been built, he would not have
approved the variance request. Mr. Kocon also suggested there are things than can be done to
change the size of the lean -to and eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Dahlquist agreed there
are alternatives and if the structure hadn't been built, the applicant would have gotten feedback
as to possible alternatives to staying within the setback. Mr. Spisak echoed the comments and
noted that getting into the 5 -foot setback could result in a life /safety issue in the future. Mr.
Malsam agreed that a variance likely wouldn't have been granted if applied for before
construction but asked about alternatives for the applicant, perhaps granting some time to figure
out possible options. Mr. Turnblad stated the City could be reasonable in giving the applicant
some time to consider alternatives. Mr. Dahlquist stated he would be uncomfortable with the
Commission getting into enforcement issues; he said the Commission needs to vote on the
issue before it the variance request. Mr. Dahlquist moved to deny the variance request; Mr.
Kocon seconded the motion. Mr. LaForce stated he has to have access to his backyard. Mr.
Kocon spoke to the reasons for setbacks. Motion for denial passed unanimously.
Mr. Malsam moved to adjourn at 8 p.m. Mr. Spisak seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
3
z
State Highway 96 /Dellwood Rd
mum no
c, Ings...
as
.p
..iii
ow. ta.
1phiptio4
malt mdb. o
o l o w
Ar
o° J
Go
Project Location Map
Case No. 10 -01. SUP V
for a residential dwelling unit
in the CBD. 114 Chestnut St E.
Tom Theis, Investment Lending
Group, LLC
DATE:
APPLICANT: Tom Theis
LOCATION: 114 Chestnut St E
ZONING: CBD Central Business District
PC DATE: February 8, 2010
REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner "VIP
Planning Commission
February 4, 2010 CASE NO.: 10
PROPERTY OWNER: Investment Lending Group, LLC
REQUEST: 1) Special Use Permit for a residential dwelling unit
2) Parking Variance
BACKGROUND
The owner of 114 Chestnut St E, would like to add a single residential unit to the
building as an interim use. The owner is currently exploring long -term options of the
building; including, selling the property. Residential Uses in the CBD are allowed
downtown by Special Use Permit.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The owner has made application for a Special Use Permit to have a single dwelling unit
in the building at 114 Chestnut St E. In addition, a parking variance is needed.
114 Chestnut St E
Residential SUP and Variance
Page 2 of 3
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Special Use Permit
Sec. 31- 207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the
Planning Commission finds that:
(1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans.
Zoning Ordinance
Parking Single family residential uses require 2 parking spaces; with one
covered. Additionally, a business will operate at the site. Based on the
square footage of an office use the site needs an additional 3 parking spaces
for a total of 5 on -site spaces. Currently the site only has 2 parking spaces on-
site and it is not practical to provide an additional 3 spaces on the site. Since
the required spaces cannot be provided on this site a variance has been
requested and is discussed below.
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
Miscellaneous
Plans for any construction will need to be approved by the fire and
building officials before the issuance of a building permit. Specifically,
required ingress /egress issues will need to be satisfied.
All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved
by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need
to go to the Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission
for review and approval.
(3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community.
Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied.
Variance
As mentioned above, the proposed residential use and office space requires 5 off street
parking spaces, 1 of which is required to be covered, to meet the Zoning Code
regulation. However, the site only has room for the existing two off street parking
spaces. Consequently, a variance from the parking requirement is needed. It has
become common in the downtown zoning district to view the re -use of existing space as
grounds for satisfying the "hardship" criteria for variance requests. Obviously, the
existing set of circumstances prevents the property owner from creating the required
number of on -site parking spaces. It is for situations such as these that Section 31 -510,
Subd. 1 (d)(1)i of the Zoning Ordinance was written. It allows for "alternative
provisions" when the property being considered is in a parking district. The City has
established a downtown parking district, which would allow for such "alternative
114 Chestnut St E
Residential SUP and Variance
Page 3 of 3
provisions Only in new construction has the City aggressively required the
construction of new parking spaces.
In this case, only one person is proposed to reside at the property with an office for his
plumbing business. Staff suggests that the two on -site parking spaces are sufficient in
this case. To cover future changes, staff suggests that a condition be made that the
property owners purchase monthly parking permits for the required number of spaces
if there is a complaint or when the use changes.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the Special Use Permit and Variance with the following conditions:
a. Plans for any new construction shall be approved by the fire and building
officials prior to the issuance of a building permit.
b. Upon complaint or a change in use, the parking situation on the site is
subject to review by the Community Development Director. If it is found
by the Community Development Director that parking is or will become
an issue the property owner shall be required to purchase three monthly
parking permits.
c. All changes to the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the
Planning Commission or Heritage Preservation Commission for review
and approval prior to issuance of any building permits.
2. Deny the Special Use Permit and Variance. If the Planning Commission decides
to deny the requests, findings of fact substantiating the denial must be provided.
3. Table the requests for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval with the conditions presented above.
Case 2010 -01
114 Chestnut St E
1/15/2010
City of Stillwater
Community Development Department
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached you will find our application for a special use permit on the property located at
114 Chestnut Street E, also known as the Brunswick Inn.
The last use was as office space for a builder, Senn Youndahl. We currently have the
property up for sale and do not know what a perspective buyer may wish to do with the
property. In the interim, we have an opportunity to rent the building to an individual as
his residential home. He would be operating his plumbing business out of this location,
but would strictly be using it for office administrative no commercial plumbing trucks
would be moving in or out of the property.
As we work through these economic times, we believe properties that are not vacant are
better kept and present a stronger market place then those left vacant.
Thank you for reviewing this application.
Warm Regards,
Thomas Theis
Asset Manager
Investment Lending Group, LLC
1900 Silver Lake Road, Suite 200
New Brighton, MN 55112
Office 651- 638 -1900
Fax 651- 287 -2471
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SIILLWATER
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET
STILLWATER MN 55082
*An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for
requested action are attached to this application.
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, F s tches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of
supporting material are required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve 2) copies of
supporting material are required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with
applications. A complete legal description of subject property is required. Any incomplete application
or supporting material will delay the application process.
After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10 -day appeal period. Once the 10 -day appeal period
has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City
to obtain the required building permits.
Address of Project E.
Zoning District
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in
all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify 1 will
comply with the permit if it is granted and used."
Property Owner 1
Mailing Address /0}00 cSb Iv ct-' Lik
City State Zip Nee,...) C)f13h 701, SST 2-
Telephone No.43 1c1 00
Signature 7 v.
(Signature is required)
ppO 2-0c,Jzu 00
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Assessor's Parcel No. 2 g 0 30 -2 0(--(20 i GO
(GEO Code)
Description of Project C. (NIN .e 4 S. \,tti w(
1\ o S C,/ dS k/z 1-1L-
LC- Representative 7 0rrT/ JS
Mailing Address/3a &W el" e(' K-e_
Telephone No.
City -State Zip t1e
ACTION REQUESTED
Special /Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision
Subdivision*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
Zoning Amendment*
Planning Unit Development*
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
(Signature is required)
..,mN si 2
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM
Case No:
Date Filed:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No.:
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lot Size (dimensions) SO x I 4 2-5)(5 Total Building floor area 2.200 square feet
Land Area 1 S c Existing 2- square feet
Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed 2- c7 square feet
Principal _Q`_ Paved ImperviousArea CIAO square feet
Accessory Z 2.2L.
No. of off street parking spaces 3 'i'
H: \mcnamara \sheila \PtANAPP.FRM April 9, 2008
File Number: 317988
Report prepared on: January 8,2009
Prepared for:
Investment Lending Group, LLC
Attn: Melanie
Client Ref#:
Charges: $100.00
Applicant: Brunswick Inn, LLC
Property Address: 114 Chestnut Street East
Stillwater, Minnesota
County: Washington
Property Type: Abstracat
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The West 25 feet of Lot 5; The East 50 feet of Lots 6 and 7; The East 50 feet of the South 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 24, Original Town
(now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota
APPARENT RECORD OWNER
Brunswick Inn, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
WARRANTY DEED: Brunswick Inn, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; DOCUMENT NO. 3557408; DATED
December 8, 2005; FILED December 12, 2005.
OPEN MORTGAGES AND LIENS
I. MORTGAGE, ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FINANCING
STATEMENT: Mark S. Hanson aka Mark Hanson and Lydia M. Hanson, husband and wife, to Central Bank, a Minnesota
banking corporation; Document No. 862640; Dated September 27, 1995; Filed November 14, 1995; Amount $245,000.00;
modified by Mortgage Modification Agreement; Document No. 3137231; Dated June 30, 2000; Filed January 3, 2001.
2. MORTGAGE: Brunswick Inn, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, to Investment Lending Group, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company; Document No. 3557409; Dated December 8, 2005; Filed December 12, 2005; Amount
$325,760.00; Assigned to First Commercial Bank; Document No. 3610819; Dated December 8, 2005; Filed October 13,
2006.
3. MORTGAGE: Brunswick Inn, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, to Brunswick Inn Partners, LLP; Document No.
3557410; Dated December 8, 2005; Filed December 12, 2005; Amount $39,500.00.
TAX INFORMATION
EXCEPT as follows:
NONE
PROPERTY REPORT
State: Minnesota
Tax I.D. No.: 28- 030 -20-42 -0100
Assessed in the name of: Brunswick Inn, LLC
Taxes for the year 2008: $9,016.00 are TOTAL UNPAID, PLUS PENALTY
Base Tax: $9,016.00, Non Homestead
Estimated Market Value: $329,600.00
Delinquent Taxes: 2007 $11,495.23, INCLUDES PENALTY COST AND INTEREST
2009 Taxes are Unavailable
4
LANDTITLE
service beyond the expected
NAME SEARCHES
There are no unsatisfied judgments and notices of Federal or State Tax Liens docketed in Washington County District Court,
the United States District Court and the Washington County Recorder's office appearing against the following names:
Brunswick Inn, LLC
Page 1 of 2
3
2S
10
1 G 1. e_s n /k E.
S
P'
So
t
\30
Borrower: Brunswick Inn LLC
File No.: 46891
Property Address:114 Chestnut Street E.
Case No.:
City: Stillwater
State: MN
Zip: 55082
Lender: Investment Lending Group, LLC
P 2
k,
NORTH
RAN
N •1
4
i
g
I---
k',$ 4 t ;_-,1-:
f 4
70,
OtA
:9,1 7
t
4
o
.v.m
1 ,TION T,OWNS
S 0
c
1-
`,,,o.
6
vt•
VP 4.
0 ,,,,,,,rn'''
0 I Act
-A. A---"'''
V..
c
.1-h
4-41 ,f
r
,7 4 0 '.1
7
----V-
01,- b
I
I )L1 ()\-e,54—K\da—
PLAT MAP
ve. N Minneapolis, MN 55405 612-377-7786 Fax 612-377-7818 emailvatue@capitalappraisalsmn.com
BACKGROUND
SPECIFIC REQUEST
attachment: Response Memo
iliwate
T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S O T A
DATE: February 5, 2010
RE: Met Council Review of Comp Plan Update
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
As you all know, the Metropolitan Council staff determined in July of 2009 that our
Comprehensive Plan Update was "incomplete Since they do not have statutory authority
to outright deny a Comprehensive Plan (other than specific elements that relate to
metropolitan systems), this is the process they use to encourage a municipality to submit
plans that are more acceptable to them.
Though their review letter was six pages long, the bulk of the comments were
wordsmithing, requests for additional information, or requests for clarification. The
changes will affect none of our goals, policies, objectives or programs, but they do trigger
a considerable amount of text, table, and map editing. For example, the request to include
a table in the Land Use Chapter that showed city -wide and uses staged in five -year
increments through 2030 necessitated edits and reanalysis in dozens of scattered places
throughout the Comp Plan.
City staff requests the Planning Commission to review the attached set of responses to the
Metropolitan Council's preliminary review. If they are reasonable responses, we well
incorporate them into the Comp Plan Update and resubmit it.
Notes
Met Council Comp Plan Update Review
THE B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S O T A
Met Council staff determined that the 2030 Comp Plan Update application was incomplete. Since
they do not have statutory authority to deny a Comp Plan (other than for a few met council systems),
this is their main method for not approving everything.
Below are 1) each of the comments from Met Council reviewing staff; and 2) city staff responses to
the comments.
1. Aviation
a. Reviewer: Chauncey Case (651- 602 1724).
i. Required materials
1. Needs to include text acknowledging the need to protect the region's general
airspace.
2. Needs to include a "notification" element for MnDOT and FAA review of
projects that could present obstructions to air navigation.
ii. Staff suggests adding the following language on Page 9 -27, which has been
reviewed and approved by Chauncey Case:
1. The City of Stillwater recognizes the need to protect navigable air
space both in terms of flight path and communications interference.
The city's existing zoning regulations accomplish the task of
protecting the flight paths through the establishment of maximum
structure height. Even in the most liberal instance, structure height
would not pose a problem for the safe operation of aircraft, since the
highest building permitted in the city is a 50 foot tall agricultural
building. And, if approved through the Special Use Permit process,
the tallest tower allowed would be 100 feet. Should a project be
proposed with the potential to interfere with air traffic, the city will
notify the Federal Aviation Agency according to the requirements
found in Federal Regulation Title 14, Part 77 using FAA form 7460.
2. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
a. Reviewer: Jim Larsen (651- 602 -1159)
i. Required materials
1. Update needs to include our best estimate of the actual number of ISTS in
operation in the city today.
ii. Staff suggests revising the language on Page 10 -9 to read as follows:
1. As of December 31, 2008 about 44 scattered individual on -site septic
systems still existed in Stillwater. The city is committed to the proper
design, location, installation and ongoing maintenance of these
systems. The Stillwater City Code requires that all new individual on-
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 2 of 22
site septic systems be installed according to Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) rule 7080 permit requirements. Groundwater
conditions, soil borings, distance to surface water, percolation tests,
and design and type of system are further factors included in the
developer's site evaluation. Permitting and maintenance is handled by
Washington County due to the small number of on -site systems in the
city.
3. Forecasts
a. Reviewer: Dennis Farmer (651- 602 -1552)
i. Required materials
1. Missing allocation of 2030 forecasts by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ).
The Update needs to include the allocation of its 2030 population,
households, and employment for each TAZ. This allocation, when totaled for
all TAZs needs to match the City's total forecasts.
2. There is an inconsistency with sewered /unsewered forecasts in Chapter 10.
ii. Staff suggestion:
1. TAZ allocations of 2030 population, households and employment will
be provided as below. The attached TAZ map will also be included.
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 3 of 22
6.116.A.A
D C
A
C Z-7
CI I g
e
riwt..na
e r
gitt ii opv A l k
0 0
'a— 1
2 v•• —Li—. r e 1
iii, 1041 S
ISPIII
L9.1 1
i
t o 1 s I
Lo
is iss s
i
9 IPA' 4 HH 5 in i
CI Z
41 ,W ,.............7
.1•1 6
unISIMS IS IIIMSSI 1
I
00 t
sissiiPss.
.14
51$ A I '1
mr1
Psi° ApisinsA
esip unnAPPsvPS
Year
Sewered
Population
Total
Population
Sewered
Households
Total
Households
Total
Employment
2010
18,250
18,400
7,150
7,200
11,600
2020
21,170
21,300
8,050
8,100
12,500
2030
19,780
19,900
8,550
8,600
13,600
Year
Sewered
Population
Total
Population
Sewered
Households
Total
Households
Total
Employment
2010
18,300
19,100
7,250
7,500
11,600
2020
20,550
21,300
7,800
8,100
12,500
2030
19,200
19,900
8,300
8,600
13,600
TAZ
2008
Households
2030
Households
2008
Population
2030
Population
2005
Retail
Employment
2005
Non retail
Employment
2030
Retail
Employment
2030
Non retail
Employment
1133
10
12
25
25
333
162
100
130
1134
482
550
1,219
1,227
234
900
147
1,500
1135
1042
1,173
2,636
2,619
426
853
190
2,450
1136
211
215
534
480
1,029
4,492
1,516
2,380
1137
860
860
2,176
1,920
57
0
0
345
1138
1760
2,040
4,453
4,555
27
412
40
500
1139
1189
2,100
3,008
4,689
59
853
40
299
1140
1495
1,552
3,782
3,465
282
1,021
720
2,635
1141
98
98
248
219
137
452
260
350
1151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
City Total
7,147
8,600
18,082
19,200
2,584
9,145
3,013
10,589
Total employ
11,729
13,602
M.C. Forecast
8,600
19,200
13,600
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 4 of 22
Employment numbers based upon Washington County's TAZ modeling in 2007 -8
2. Tables 10.3A and 10.2B failed to differentiate between sewered and
unsewered properties. Though the table headings are labeled
"sewered..." not all of the columns actually included ONLY sewered
properties. Some of the data ALSO included unsewered properties.
Both tables will be revised to correctly account for sewered and
unsewered properties. The two tables will now look like this:
Table 10.2A Met Council Projections
Table 10.2B City preferred Projections
The city agrees with Met Council's 2030 total household and total
population numbers. However, with the completion of the North Hill
and Old Athletic Field Neighborhood sanitary sewer projects, the
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 5of22
number of households on an ISTS is considerably less than Met
Council figures show. Also, given the fact that over the last several
years the housing market has fallen apart and with it the economy,
the city does not believe that by 2010 the total household count will
reach 7,500 as forecasted by the Met Council prior to collapse of the
housing market. The city believes that a total housing count of 7,200
by 2010 is more realistic. Consequently, rather than a total population
of 19,100 as forecast by the Met Council, the city feels that a total
population of 18,400 is more likely.
4. Housing
a. Reviewer: Linda Milashius (651- 602 -1541)
i. Required materials
1. Based upon the growth projections shown in the Update, the number of
affordable housing units should be 156, not 142.
2. The housing chapter needs to include a future land use table that shows the
amount of land available for phased residential development especially during
the time period 2010 -2020. The table also has to show proposed residential
land use designations and density ranges. This is intended to show that
sufficient and is available to address the city's share of the region's affordable
housing needs.
ii. Staff suggestions
1. As explained above in 3, ii, 2 there was an error in the sewered
household numbers which affected the total household count. The
total household count after correction is consistent with the
Metropolitan Council's forecasted 2020 total household count and the
original number of 142 affordable housing units.
2. The requested table is below.
Residential Land Availability and New Units through 2030
Net acreage is gross minus steep slopes and wetlands.
2 3 units /acre for 51.1 net undeveloped acres, plus 136 currently available vacant LDR lots, plus
40 new in -fill units in the Minar Ave large lot neighborhood.
3 4.4 units /acre for 111.8 net undeveloped acres, plus 326 currently available vacant lots.
6 units /acre for 32.1 net undeveloped acres, plus vacant developed sites for 78 MDR units.
5. Land Use
a. Reviewer: Lisa Barajas (651.602 -1895)
b. Met Council reviewer comments below in italics; city staff suggested responses in bold.
i. Include a table showing land uses staged in five -year increment
Net
acres
Density
range
Assumed
density
Total potential
units
Existing
units
Total Net
units
New
2010
-20
New
2020-
30
LDR
115.1
1 4.4
3
329
14
315
190
125
LMDR
185.8
4.4 9.7
4.4
818
13
805
480
325
MDR
45.1
6 —14.5
6
349
0
349
210
139
TOTAL
346
1,496
1,469
880
589
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 5of22
number of households on an ISTS is considerably less than Met
Council figures show. Also, given the fact that over the last several
years the housing market has fallen apart and with it the economy,
the city does not believe that by 2010 the total household count will
reach 7,500 as forecasted by the Met Council prior to collapse of the
housing market. The city believes that a total housing count of 7,200
by 2010 is more realistic. Consequently, rather than a total population
of 19,100 as forecast by the Met Council, the city feels that a total
population of 18,400 is more likely.
4. Housing
a. Reviewer: Linda Milashius (651- 602 -1541)
i. Required materials
1. Based upon the growth projections shown in the Update, the number of
affordable housing units should be 156, not 142.
2. The housing chapter needs to include a future land use table that shows the
amount of land available for phased residential development especially during
the time period 2010 -2020. The table also has to show proposed residential
land use designations and density ranges. This is intended to show that
sufficient and is available to address the city's share of the region's affordable
housing needs.
ii. Staff suggestions
1. As explained above in 3, ii, 2 there was an error in the sewered
household numbers which affected the total household count. The
total household count after correction is consistent with the
Metropolitan Council's forecasted 2020 total household count and the
original number of 142 affordable housing units.
2. The requested table is below.
Residential Land Availability and New Units through 2030
Net acreage is gross minus steep slopes and wetlands.
2 3 units /acre for 51.1 net undeveloped acres, plus 136 currently available vacant LDR lots, plus
40 new in -fill units in the Minar Ave large lot neighborhood.
3 4.4 units /acre for 111.8 net undeveloped acres, plus 326 currently available vacant lots.
6 units /acre for 32.1 net undeveloped acres, plus vacant developed sites for 78 MDR units.
5. Land Use
a. Reviewer: Lisa Barajas (651.602 -1895)
b. Met Council reviewer comments below in italics; city staff suggested responses in bold.
i. Include a table showing land uses staged in five -year increment
2000 FLU
Density
(Units /ac)
2000
Acres
2030 FLU
Density
(Units /ac)
2010 Acres
2015 Acres
2020 Acres
2025 Acres
2030 Acres
Change
2000 2030
RESIDENTIAL
SFLL
Upto2
1,236.4
LDR
1 -4.4
1.251.4
1,335.4
1,419.4
1,515.8
1,612.2
375.8
SFSL
Up to 4
727.5
LMDR
4.4 9.7
810.5
845.4
880.3
908.4
936.6
209.1
ASF
Up to 6
140.0
MDR
6 14.5
105.5
108.3
111.0
113.8
116.5
-23.5
MF
Up to 15
HDR
12+
69.6
69.6
69.6
69.6
69.6
69.6
SUB -TOTAL
2,103.9
SUB -TOTAL
2,237.0
2,358.7
2,480.3
2,607.6
2,734.9
631.0
COMMERCIAL
2000 est.
Employees
Est. Employ /Ac
CN
150
13.7
NC
15
8.4 acres
126 employees
7.7 acres
115 employees
7.0 acres
105 employees
6.6 acres
99 employees
6.2 acres
80 employees
-7.5 acres
-70 employees
CC
4,400
160.9
COM
30
156.8 acres
4,703 employees
154.3 acres
4,600 employees
151.8 acres
4,500 employees
153.9 acres
4,400 em to employees
P Y
147.6 acres
4,275 employees
-13.3 acres
-125 em employees
P Y ees
BPC
CC
1,550
48.8
DMU
25
56.3 acres
1,408 employees
56.3 acres
1,400 employees
56.3 acres
1,350 employees
56.3 acres
1,300 employees
56.3 acres
1,186 employees
7.5 acres
-364 employees
SUB TOTAL
6,100
223.4
SUB TOTAL
221.5 acres
6,237 employees
218.3 acres
6,115 employees
215.1 acres
5,955 employees
216.8 acres
5,799 employees
210.1 acres
5,541 employees
13.3 acres
559 employees
INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH
Est. Employees
Est. Employ /Ac
BPI
3,100
1 18.3
BPI
30
107.1 acres
3,213 employees
110.0 acres
3,300 employees
112.9 acres
3,388 employees
115.8 acres
3,475 employees
118.7 acres
3,562 employees
0.4 acres
462 employees
58.3 acres
2,518 employees
RDP
50
28.1
RDP
30
14.6 acres
439 employees
31.1 acres
932 employees
47.5 acres
1,424 employees
63.9 acres
1,917 employees
86.4 acres
2,568 employees
SUB TOTAL
3,150
146.4
SUB TOTAL
121.7 acres
3,652 employees
141.1 acres
4,232 employees
160.4 acres
4,812 employees
179.7 acres
5,392 employees
205.1 acres
6,130 employees
58.7 acres
2,980 employees
INSTITUTIONAL
A/O
1,500
180.2
INST
15
107.1 ac
1,605 employees
112.5 ac
1,687 employees
117.9 ac
1,768 employees
123.3 ac
1,850 em to employees
P Y
128.7 ac
1,931 employees
-51.5 ac
431 em employees
P Y ees
CEM
SUB TOTAL
1,500
180.2
SUB TOTAL
107.0 acres
1,605 employees
112.5 acres
1,687 employees
117.9 acres
1,768 employees
123.3 acres
1,850 employees
128.7 acres
1,931 employees
51.5 acres
431 employees
PARK AND OPEN SPACE
PN
551.4
PR
908.8
912.8
916.8
924.3
931.8
380.4
PC
PG
OPS
RAIL
PM
17.3
M
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
0.0
SUB -TOTAL
568.7
SUB TOTAL
926.1
930.1
934.1
941.6
949.1
380.4
WATER BASINS
WATER
WETLANDS
671.4
WATER
WETLANDS
691.8
712.0
732.1
752.2
772.4
101.0
ROADS
ROW
705.3
ROW
814.4
821.1
827.7
834.4
841.0
135.7
TOTAL
10,750
employees
4,599.3
acres
TOTAL
5,119.5 acres
11,494 employees
5,293.8 acres
12,034 employees
5,467.6 acres
12,535 employees
5,655.6 acres
13,041 employees
5,841.3 acres
13,602 employees
1,242.0 acres
2,852 employees
Met Council
Estimate
10,719
employees
Met Council
Estimate
11,600 employees
12 500 employees
13 600 em to ees
P Y
2 881 employees
P Y ees
Land Use Changes Through 2030
Notes for Land Use Change table:
Key to abbreviations: SFLL Single Family Large Lot; LDR Low Density Residential; SFSL Single Family
Small Lot; LMDR Low /Medium Density Residential; ASF Attached Single Family; MDR Medium Density
Residential; MF Multiple Family; HDR High Density Residential; CN Commercial, Neighborhood; NC
Neighborhood Commercial; CC Commercial, Community; COM Commercial; DMU Downtown Mixed Use;
BPC Business Park Commercial; BPO Business Park Office; BPI Business Park Industrial; RDP Research
Development Park; A/O Administrative /Office; INST Institutional; CEM Cemetery; ES Elementary
School; SS Secondary School; PM Park, Marina; PN Park, Neighborhood; PC Park, Community; PG
Park, Golf; PR Park, Recreation Open Space; OPS Open Space; M Marina
1. 2030 Future Land Use classifications changed to be more consistent with Met Council classification
suggestions. Consequently, direct acreage comparisons with the land use classifications of 2000 are not very useful,
since the densities for each residential classification also changed. The density change makes sense given zoning
district density ranges, but it makes comparison to 2000 more or less meaningless.
2. In the 2030 FLU classification system, schools and churches are classified as residential rather than
institutional uses as in 2000. This creates a 2030 increase in both LDR and LMDR properties and reduces the INST
properties.
2. The acreages shown in this table are not consistent with Table 1.6. That is intentional. Table 1.6
identifies actual existing land use acres. This table shows the number of acres guided in the Future Land Use Map
for the specified uses. In some instances actual existing land uses are different from the use guided for the
property. Therefore, the two tables do not have consistent acreages.
ii. Table 2.3 needs to be edited because the land use categories with the
higher densities are not clear.
This was a clerical error. Edited Table 2.3 is shown here.
Table 2.3: Development Potential- Residential Land Availability
Low Density Residential
Low /Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Total
Pi pi
159.44
149.98
46.03
355.45
3
4.4
6
478
660
276
1,414
iii. Appendix B in Land Use Chapter is a vacant site analysis. This section
needs to be revised to include the guiding and acreages in those
categories for each site.
Appendix B of the Land Use Chapter will be revised to add the
following to each site analysis.
Site A Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site A
consists of: 54.5 RDP acres; 1.9 open water acres; and 8.0
acres of steep slopes and wetlands.
Site B Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site B
consists of 7.3 LMDR acres; 15.2 MDR acres; 1.0 acres of
open water; 6.0 acres of high quality natural area; and 1.5
acres of additional right of way for Manning Avenue.
[Note: It was discovered that the FLU map and Site B are
inconsistent. The FLU map should be changed as shown
here]
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 8 of 22
Site C Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site C
consists of 12.0 LDR acres. [Note: There is a typographical
error in Site C. The last sentence reads "low /medium
density It should read "low density residential
Site D Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site D
consists of 2.9 NC acres; and 9.6 acres of wetland.
Site E Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site E
consists of 38.0 LDR acres; 33.0 LMDR acres; 8.0 acres of
creek, wetlands and steep slopes; and 1.0 acres of
additional right of way for Boutwell Road.
Site G Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site G
consists of 6.0 LMDR acres; 17.0 MDR acres; 16.0 acres of
wetlands; 5.0 acres of high quality natural area; and 2.0
acres of additional right of way for Boutwell Road.
Site H Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site H
consists of 16.8 LMDR acres; and 1.6 acres of additional
right of way for Manning Avenue.
Site I Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site I consists
of 223 LMDR acres; 4.5 acres of open water; 1.1 acres of
wetland; and 1.1 acres of additional right of way for Neal
Avenue.
Site J Add a final paragraph, which would read: Site J consists
of 8.0 LMDR acres; 4.3 acres of creek, wetlands and steep
slopes; and 1.2 acres of isolated natural area.
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 9 of 22
'o m
y
N
O
O.
OC
O
a_1
at el
O
L O
O N
1
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 10 of 22
iv. Page 2 -10 of the Update discusses phasing of the OAA area. However,
Figure 2.1 does not contain phasing, it only shows existing Land Use. The
Update needs to include a map showing phasing of the remaining land
within the area of the OAA.
In an email sent on 9/16/09 to the reviewer for this section of the
Update, staff stated the following:
Our development staging is regulated by the terms of an
Orderly Annexation Agreement with Stillwater Township and an
AUAR. The agreement and AUAR apply to all land that lies within the
2030 future municipal boundary. These documents limit the right for
the City to issue building permits to a maximum of 125 housing units
per year. It does not mandate or suggest geographical limitations on
where those 125 units may be located, other than that annexations
can only be approved for properties that are immediately contiguous
with land already located within the city. All annexation petitions
are reviewed by a Joint Planning Board composed of two City council
members and two Town Board members.
Another development staging consideration is that the City of
Stillwater's trunk sewer, water, and collector street infrastructure
has already been extended to service all of the remaining annexable
land through 2030. In effect, development of the remaining
annexation properties will be "in- fill" projects within the skeleton of
our existing infrastructure. Consequently, rather than prescribe
which in -fill developments will occur during specific 5 year
increments, the city prefers to allow the in -fill projects to proceed on
a first come, first served basis limited to 125 total housing units per
year.
In a 9/21/09 email from the reviewer, she stated the following:
You do have a unique situation with the limit on building
permits within your community. In lieu of completing a staging table
as we requested, please include a discussion of that limitation as
detailed in your OAA and the AUAR in your comprehensive plan.
That will ensure that it is clear to any future reviewers or staff
members the provisions to govern "staging" in the city and why a
table was not included.
The paragraph in the Update draft following the section entitled
"Residential Growth Accommodation" could be rewritten as follows.
Residential Growth Accommodation
The City and Township of Stillwater entered into an Orderly Annexation
Agreement in 1996. The agreement includes phasing for annexation of
township properties into the city. Figure 2.1a, Orderly Annexation Area
Phasing, illustrates the annexation and development timing for all of the
original annexation areas. Most of the areas within Phases I III have
already been annexed and developed. However, there are a few
properties in Phases I III that are located in Stillwater Township yet. In
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 11 of 22
addition, the majority of Phase IV properties have not been annexed or
developed. These "unannexed" areas are the focus of the following
growth analysis. It should be noted, that in addition to the phasing map,
the Orderly Annexation Agreement stipulates that no more than 120
building permits may be issued within the Annexation Area in any one
year. Therefore the potential residential growth in the Orderly
Annexation Area would be the limited to 120 homes per year through
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 12 of 22
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 13 of 22
v. The Update needs to define the allowable density range for residential
development downtown. For planning purposes, the Update also
needs to estimate the percentage of the acreage in the DMU land use
category that would be allotted to residential uses (ex. 20%
residential, 60% commercial, 20% offices).
The update intentionally does not establish a residential
density range for the DMU area. This is consistent with the
CBD Zoning District. Density in the DMU CBD area is
completely site dependant (e.g. maximum building height,
parking availability, etc.). Moreover, neither the Update nor
the Zoning Ordinance allocates a specific percentage of the
downtown acreage to various land use categories (e.g. 20%
residential, 60% commercial, 20% offices). If this information
is important to the Metropolitan Council for planning
purposes, then the City could provide an estimate of current
land use percentages. This would be an estimate of what
percentage each of the main land uses occupy within the
current total built out square footage downtown.
vi. Chapter 6 of the Update indicates that the downtown area in the City
is capable of supporting up to 250 housing units over the next 10
years.
In addition, this chapter indicates areas where infill
development may be possible. These land use changes need to be
incorporated into the Land Use Chapter and parcels identified for
potential infill or redevelopment need to be illustrated on a map as
well as included in the 5 year staging table.
Page 6 -67 does say that within the downtown DMU area 250
units could be developed in the next 10 years. But, it should
probably state that these units could be developed over the
next 20 years. Since more specific plans need to be developed
through the public process for the three city owned surface
lots that would contribute toward these estimated 250 units, it
was assumed that these sites will NOT be redeveloped within
the planning horizon of this Update. In fact, the 250 units are
not included in any of the other chapters of the Update,
including the "Residential Land Availability and New Units
through 2030" table found in the Housing Chapter. Therefore,
this paragraph on Page 6 -67 is unintentionally misleading. It
should be rewritten as follows:
2030 Land Use
Acres
Percent of
Total
Low Density Residential
1,612.2
27.6%
Low /Medium Density Residential
936.6
16.0%
Medium Density Residential
116.5
2.0%
High Density Residential
69.6
1.2%
Neighborhood Commercial
6.2
0.1
Commercial
147.6
2.5%
Downtown Mixed Use
56.3
1.0%
Industrial
118.7
2.1%
Research and Development Park
86.4
1.5%
Institutional
128.7
2.2%
Park, Recreation or Open Space
949.1
16.2%
Road Right -of -Way
841.0
14.4%
Open Water Wetland
772.4
13.2%
Total City
5,841.3
100.0%
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 14 of 22
Housing Development Potential
It is estimated that Downtown Stillwater could support up to 250 new housing
units over the next 20 years. All of these units would be in mixed use buildings
(owned or rented residential units). A significant proportion (between 25 -50
could be age restricted. Because of current conditions in the housing market,
most of these units will not likely be developed for eight or ten years, though
there is some immediate demand for rental housing. The primary potential sites
for these mixed use buildings are three surface parking lots currently owned by
the city. These parking lots are located on 2n Street across from Teddy Bear
Park, on 2n Street between Olive and Myrtle Street, and on 2 Street at
Mulberry Street. Since each of these city owned sites will require more detailed
planning and public consideration, the 250 potential new housing units are not
included in any of the development staging or residential growth figures included
in any of the other chapters of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
The Downtown Chapter indicates that there are potential
infill /redevelopment sites downtown. It is requested that these
changes be accounted for in the development staging table, and
that the sites be identified on a map in the Update. Identifying the
sites can be done. They are already shown on several maps in the
Chapter as potential parking ramps with commercial use
components. These can easily be relabeled to call them out as
redevelopment sites with public parking ramp components.
However, for purposes of the development staging table,
redevelopment is not a change in land use. The potential city
owned redevelopment properties are currently surface lots and
therefore are included within the DMU category of Commercial land
use found in the staging table. Whether the DMU acreage is used
as surface parking lot or mixed use development, it is still considered
DMU in the table and therefore the acreage would not change.
Table 2.4: 2030 Future Land Use Plan Acreages
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 15 of 22
6. Parks
a. Reviewer: Jan Youngquist (651- 602 1029).
i. Required materials
1. The White Bear Lake Stillwater Regional Trail (aka Zephyr Trail
and Browns Creek State Trail) and the Washington County
Greenway Regional Trail need to be acknowledged in the
Update.
a. The following language could be added:
Regional Trails
Loop Trail
In conjunction with the new St. Croix River Crossing, a
continuous 4.8 mile loop trail is proposed to connect
Minnesota with Wisconsin. This project was planned
and agreed to as a mitigation item in the 2005
Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
(SFEIS) for the St. Croix River Crossing Project. The
Federal Highway Administration, both Minnesota and
Wisconsin Departments of Transportation, and eleven
cooperating agencies were party to the 2005 SFEIS for
the St. Croix River Crossing Project. The trail will be
constructed by the Minnesota and Wisconsin
Departments of Transportation as part of the St. Croix
River Crossing project. Per a September 8, 2006
memorandum of understanding between the City of
Stillwater and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, following construction of the loop trail,
the City of Stillwater will own the portion of the trail
within the City Limits. Additionally, under terms of the
same MOU, the City will operate and maintain the
portion of the trail outside of city limits but within the
State of Minnesota.
The trail would start and cross into Wisconsin at the
Stillwater lift bridge. The trail will then run south from
the lift bridge in Wisconsin and connect to the new St.
Croix River Crossing, then the trail will run north along
Trunk Highway 95 through the former Aiple barge site
and the city's South Main Street public parking lot, then
continue through downtown along the former railway
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 16 of 22
to Chestnut Street, where it would turn eastward and
return to the historic lift bridge.
2. The White Bear Lake Stillwater Regional Trail should be called
the Brown's Creek State Trail on the trail map and in the test
(Page 8 -16).
a. The following language could be added:
Browns Creek State Trail, formally known as the White
Bear Lake Stillwater Regional Trail (Future): With the
recent closure of the Minnesota Zephyr dinner train, a
partnership amongst Parks Trails Council of Minnesota,
The Minnesota Department of Minnesota, and Washington
County are looking to purchase the Minnesota Zephyr
right -of -way from the current owner. To support this
move, the Minnesota Legislature recently approved plans
to add the Minnesota Zephyr right -of -way to the State trail
system and as such the trail has been renamed and has
become a state trail rather than a regional trail. The trail
would begin at the Zephyr Depot and follow the rail
alignment northward into the Brown's Creek valley. From
here it would head westward and join the Gateway Trail.
Future local trails in Downtown Stillwater will also
connect this trail to the proposed loop trail that is part of
the new St. Croix River Crossing project. This trail is also
part of the Lakes Links Trail Master Plan.
3. References on Page 6 -52 to the "Zephyr Trail" should be
changed to "Browns Creek State Trail
a. The following language could be added:
Browns Creek State Trail
With the recent closure of the Minnesota Zephyr dinner
train, a partnership amongst Parks Trails Council of
Minnesota, The Minnesota Department of Minnesota, and
Washington County are looking to purchase the Minnesota
Zephyr right -of -way from the current owner. To support
this move, the Minnesota Legislature recently approved
plans to add the Minnesota Zephyr right -of -way to the
State trail system and as such the trail has been renamed
and has become a state trail rather than a regional trail.
The trail would begin at the Zephyr Depot and follow the
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 17 of 22
rail alignment northward into the Brown's Creek valley.
From here it would head westward and join the Gateway
Trail. Future local trails in Downtown Stillwater will also
connect this trail to the proposed loop trail that is part of
the new St. Croix River Crossing project. This trail is also
part of the Lakes Links Trail Master Plan.
4. —The Browns Creek State Trail and the Washington County
Greenway Regional Trail need to be labeled on the parks and
trails map and the Park Facility Level of Service Map.
a. This has been done as can be seen in the map below.
5. Information regarding the agencies involved in planning and
development of the loop trail (Page 6 -52) needs to be added.
a. This is included in la above.
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 18 of 22
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 19 of 22
7 Transportation
a. Reviewer: Ann Braden (651- 602 -1705)
TAZ allocation: The Update needs to contain a table of forecasts
allocated to the TAZs in the community. While the text on page 9 -8 alludes
to the socio- economic forecasts, none are provided.
See TAZ allocation on Page 4 of this response memo.
ii. Transit Market Area: The Update needs to include the required
statement that the City is within Transit Market Area 3.
Staff response
Page 9 -24, paragraph 4 was revised by added the following
after the first sentence: "Stillwater is within Market Area III.
Service options for Market Area III include peak -only express,
small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, special needs
paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Dial -a -ride services
are provided by Human Services Inc. and St. Croix Valley
Circulator."
8. Advisor Comments
a. Figure 9.10 shows a "park and ride" at Manning and Highway 36. The
facility needs to be listed as a "park and pool" lot. This lot is not served by transit.
Staff response
Figure 9.10 was revised to address this comment.
b. Figure 9.10 "Future Express Commuter Bus Route" needs to be shown as
originating at the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center Park and Ride lot instead of the
intersection of Highway 36 and Highway 95.
Staff response
City Staff talked to Ann Braden who referred the City to Scott
Thompson (Senior Transit Planner. Metro Transit. 612 -349-
7774). In discussions with Mr. Thompson, he agreed to have
the current St. Croix Valley Recreation Center Park and Ride lot
shown as Option "A" and the intersection of Highway 36 and
Highway 95 as Option "B Figure 9.10 was changed to reflect
this.
Additionally, Page 9 -24, paragraph 4, last sentence was deleted
the following new paragraph was added after paragraph 4:
"Metropolitan Council's 2030 Transportation Policy Plan
identified TH 36 as a future express commuter bus service
thoroughfare. The route will originate at either the existing St.
Croix Valley Recreation Center Park and Ride lot (Option A
Figure 9 -10) or, after completion of the St. Croix River Crossing
project, the route will originate at the intersection of Highway
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 20 of 22
36 and Highway 95 (Option B Figure 9 -10). Final
determination will be made by the Metropolitan Council and
Metro Transit after completion of the Transit Feasibility Study
as outlined in the St. Croix River Crossing Project Supplemental
Final EIS dated July 2005."
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 21 of 22
2030 Comp Plan Update
Responses to Met Council Comments
Page 22 of 22
9. Wastewater
a. Reviewer: Roger Janzig (651-602-1119).
The Update needs to include a flood related I/I study and
implementation program for the elimination of flood related flow from its
sanitary sewer system.
Staff response
Due to the proximity of the St. Croix River to the city's trunk
sanitary sewer main, flood related 1/I reduction needs to be
addressed. To that end, the city is replacing all vented sanitary
manhole lids with closed sanitary manhole lids and is also
sealing the manholes in low lying areas impacted by flood
related I /1. Within the next three years the city plans to
undertake a slip lining project of the sanitary sewer main
adjacent to the St. Croix River. This work will likely be
completed in conjunction with the Phase III Downtown
Stillwater levy project being completed by the US Army Corps
of Engineering. It is currently estimated that the sewer lining
project will cost $600,000.
During remodeling and construction projects, the city will
continue to inspect and require property owners to disconnect
drain tiles, roof leaders, and other non sanitary water sources
so they do not discharge into the sanitary sewer system.