HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-04 Joint Board PacketMeeting Notice
Stillwater City and Town Joint Board
City Council Chambers
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater MN 55082
7 p.m.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 2011 MINUTES
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.01 Case No. 2012 -01. Final plat and final PUD for Millbrook 6th Addition. US
Home Corp, applicant.
4.02 Case No. 2012 -07. Special use permit request for an off -leash dog park
located east of the City of Stillwater's Public Works Facility (3325 Boutwell Rd) in
the PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) District. Allison McGinnis,
President, Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, applicant.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.01 Building Permit Activity Report
5.02 Fairy Falls Road Area Annexation — Policy Discussion
Item 2
Stillwater City and Town Joint Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
April 20, 2011
Present: Dave Johnson and Linda Countryman, Stillwater Township; Ken Harycki and Jim
Roush, City of Stillwater.
Staff present: Stillwater Community Development Director Bill Turnblad.
Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.
Approval of Agenda
Mrs. Countryman moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Roush seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously.
Public Hearings
Case No. 2011 -08 A request by Joe Jablonski of Lennar for approval of Millbrook 5th Addition.
The plat would include 37 single family homes.
Mr. Turnblad summarized the planning report of April 13, 2011 written by City Planner Mike
Pogge.
Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, he closed the public
hearing.
Mrs. Countryman moved to approve the plat of Millbrook 5th Addition. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harycki and passed on a 4 -0 vote.
Case No. 2011 -04 A request by the City of Stillwater to create a new zoning district and to
rezone 403 properties in order to be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan future land
use map.
Mr. Turnblad summarized his report of April 12, 2011.
Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, he closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Harycki moved to approve the ordinance to create a new PROS (Park, Recreation or Open
Space) Zoning District, and to rezone 403 properties to be consistent with the 2030 Comp
Plan's future land use map. Mr. Roush seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
New Business
Building Permit Activity Report
Mr. Turnblad presented the 2010 permit report. 39 permits were issued in 2010 for residential
units in the Orderly Annexation Area. The total number of residential permits issued from 1996
to 2010 totals 1,201. During that time, at a rate of 120 permits allowed annual, 1,920 permits
could have been issued to date. Therefore, a positive balance of 719 permits exists.
Election of Officers
Mr. Roush moved to elect the same officers for 2011 that served in 2010. M r. Harycki seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously. Therefore, the Chairman for 2011 is Mr. Johnson and
the Vice Chair is Mr. Roush.
Adjournment
Mr. Harycki moved for adjournment. Mr. Roush seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Turnblad
Acting Recording Secretary
Item 4.01
Stillwater Township /City of Stillwater Joint Board
DATE: February 14, 2012
REQUEST: Millbrook 6th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan
APPLICANT: Joe Jablonski, U.S. Home Corporation
LOCATION: State Highway 96 west of South Twin Lake
MEETING DATE: February 22, 2012
REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner$ S
CASE NO.: 12 -01
BACKGROUND
The Preliminary Plat and Concept Planned Unit Development for Millbrook was
approved by the City in the Summer of 2006 and subsequently amended in July of
2010. The 170 acre preliminary plat includes 172 single family homes and 98
townhomes. Development of the property is planned to occur in three overall phases.
The application at hand is the third and final plat of Phase II.
This plat is known as Millbrook 6th Addition and includes a total of 10 single family
homes that are zoned Cottage Residential and 22 townhouse units that are zoned
townhouse. The roads White Pine Way and Maureen Lane will be installed
completing the loop around the townhouses. Public utilities will be installed by the
developer to support this plat as part of the site improvements.
Millbrook 6th Addition — Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan
February 14, 2012
Page 2
REQUEST AND ANALYSIS
The specific request before the City is to approve the Final Plat for MILLBROOK 6th
ADDITION and the Final PUD Site Plan.
The City Council adopted a resolution approving the preliminary plat and concept PUD
permit for MILLBROOK on August 15, 2006. On July 28, 2009, the Council adopted a resolution
approving an amendment to the preliminary plat and concept PUD permit as they apply to
the single- family homes in MILLBROOK.
Since the plans are substantially similar to the preliminary plat and concept PUD permit
approved, the final plat and final PUD permit for Millbrook 5th Addition are subject to the
pertinent conditions of both resolutions of approval. They are detailed below.
I. August 15, 2006 Resolution Conditions.
1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development application shall be substantially
similar to the following plans prepared by Sathre - Bergquist, Inc., and on file in the
Community Development Department, except as modified herein:
Site Plan dated 7/21/06
Phasing Plan dated 7/24/06
Buffer Averaging Plan (including trails) - 8 sheets dated 6/26/06
Preliminary Site Map* (Sheets SM2 - SM6) dated 1/17/06
Preliminary Plat (Sheets PP1 -7) dated 3/30/06
Final Grading Plan (Sheets GP2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6) dated 4/12/06
Final Utility Plan (Sheets 2 -5) dated 4/12/06
Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheets 1 -4) dated 2/1/06
*Except trails to be as shown in Site Plan dated 7/21/06
The final plan submittals for MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION are substantially similar
to the approved preliminary plans.
2. The developer shall complete a Lakeshore PUD worksheet and submit it to the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) Area Hydrologist prior to
submitting an application for a final plat for Phase One. If the DNR review results in
substantial changes to the Preliminary Plat or Concept PUD plans, then the developer
shall resubmit the Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat for review by the City and Joint
Planning Board.
This condition has been satisfied.
3. The trail and sidewalk system shall be constructed substantially the same as
represented in the following plan sets on file with the Community Development
Department:
a. Carnelian Marine Trails - Revised (Sheets CM -1, 2, 3) dated 6 -21 -06
b. Brown's Creek Trail - Revision 3 (Sheet BC 2b -1) dated 6 -26 -06
c. Brown's Creek Trail - Revision 2 (Sheet BC 2 -2 + 2 -3) dated 6 -22 -06
d. Revised Sidewalk Plan (Sheets SP -1, 2,3) dated 6 -21 -06
Park and trail plans for MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION are consistent with the
approved preliminary plans.
4. All trails shall be paved.
This condition has been satisfied.
Millbrook 6th Addition — Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan
February 14, 2012
Page 3
5. Prior to release of the final plat for Phase One, a blanket easement shall be provided
over the open space outlot on the south side of South Twin Lake for trail purposes.
Should the Carnelian- Marine Watershed District rules ever change and allow a trail
closer to the lake, the easement will give the City the right to construct that trail.
This condition has been satisfied.
6. Prior to release of the final plat for Phase One, the developer shall provide a 20 foot
wide general easement allowing for future use for trails and utilities on the property
along the south side of State Highway 96 right of way. The easement shall be
reviewed by the City Engineer and City Attorney and found satisfactory to them in
both form and content.
This condition has been satisfied.
7. The trail connection to State Highway 96 along Outlot F shall be allowed as shown
only if the wetland in the ditch is determined by a State licensed delineator to be an
incidental wetland. If it is not an incidental wetland, then the trail shall be realigned
westward along the rear of Lots 17 through 19. Documentation from the delineator
shall be submitted together with final plat application materials for the Phase One
final plat.
This trail connection was originally important when the regional trail
connecting Stillwater to St. Paul was identified to run along the south side of
State Highway 96. Now with the prospect that the Browns Creek State trail,
no regional trail will be constructed along State High 96. Thus this trail
connection is likely no longer needed. Additionally, staff would recommend
against installing this trail connection now since there is currently no safe
pedestrian path along State Highway 96. A trail easement was secured to
allow a future connection if it would be needed in the future.
8. Lots 129 and 149 adjacent to the trail access off of the roundabout will be restricted by
covenant to have open rail fencing and non - continuous shrubbery not exceeding four
feet in height along their side and rear lot lines abutting the trail corridor. This is to
provide for a more inviting entrance to the trail system.
This condition applies to a different phase of the project.
9. The Developer shall provide water service stubs at each park with three stubs to be
included at the large active park. A sanitary sewer stub will be provided at the large
active park at a place yet to be determined by the City of Stillwater.
This condition has been satisfied.
Millbrook 6th Addition — Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan
February 14, 2012
Page 4
10. The two active parks will be graded by the developer as part of the first phase of
development and the developer shall establish turf to the satisfaction of the city prior
to the City's assuming maintenance of same. This shall at a minimum include mowing,
fertilizing, rock picking, leveling, trimming, weed management and over seeding as
necessary. Target date for the first transfer of park land will be fall of 2007.
The park sites were transferred to the City in the Fall of 2010 and the
requirements for the final turf establishment is covered in the Millbrook Plat 4
development agreement.
11. The Brown's Creek trail link on the Millbrook property that connects to the Carlson
property to the south shall be installed by the developer at the same time that the
Carlson property trail is constructed, if prior to construction of the final phase in
Millbrook.
OK.
12. An as built easement map showing 30 foot easements where possible (minimum of 15
foot) for trails shall be completed and recorded as each section of trail is completed.
OK.
13. Final civil engineering plans shall be found satisfactory to the Stillwater Public Works
Director or they shall either be: a) revised to his satisfaction; or b) reviewed by the City
Council and approved.
The civil engineering plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Director
and were found substantially satisfactory. There are no items outstanding.
14. Prior to commencement of any grading on the subject property, the developer shall
enter into a Development Agreement that is approved by the City Council.
An addendum to the master development agreement for MILLBROOK was
signed already for the first phase. A development agreement for this plat will
be presented to the City Council with the final plat.
Millbrook 6th Addition — Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan
February 14, 2012
Page 5
II. April 17, 2007 Resolution Conditions
1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Permit applications for the
townhomes shall be substantially similar to the following plans on file in the
Community Development Department, except as modified herein:
Preliminary Plat Amendment (Sheet PP) dated 1/8/07
Preliminary Grading Plan (Sheet GPI) dated 1/12/07
Preliminary Utility Plan (Sheet UPI) dated 1/12/07
Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet LP1) dated 1/12/07
Colonial Foundation Planting Plan (Sheet L1) dated 6/8/061
Architectural elevations submitted with materials for 4/17/07 Council Meeting
This condition is satisfied.
2. Any conditions applicable to the townhome development that are found in Resolution
No. 2006 -179 (Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat and Concept PUD Permit) shall
continue to be applicable.
This condition is satisfied.
3. Evergreen trees shall be added to screen the driveways from the public streets and
shall be added along the north side of White Pine Way between the street and the
townhome pond.
The landscape plan has been revised to include these plantings.
4. Three to four architectural elevations shall be developed for the ends of the units that
face the public street and the pond.
This condition is satisfied.
5. In order to reduce the mass of the units a variety of materials and colors shall be
introduced into each building with variations amongst the buildings.
This condition is satisfied.
6. Depending on the orientation of the building, sidewalks shall be extended from the
ends of the units to either the sidewalk along the public street or to the sidewalk
surrounding the pond.
This has been included in the revised plans.
7. Material samples shall be submitted with the Final Plat and Final PUD Permit
applications to be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
This condition is satisfied.
8. All minor modifications to the Design Review Permit shall be approved in advance by
the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be approved in
advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor"
shall rest with the City Administrator.
' Augmented by foundation planting plan submitted together with materials for 4/17/07 City Council meeting
Millbrook 6th Addition — Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan
February 14, 2012
Page 6
III. July 28, 2009 Resolution Conditions
1. The Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development application shall be
substantially similar to the plans prepared by Sathre - Bergquist, Inc., and on file
in the Community Development Department as listed in Stillwater City Council
Resolution Number 2006 -179 except as amended by the revised concept sketch
dated May 8, 2009.
This condition is satisfied.
2. The developer shall complete a Lakeshore PUD worksheet and submit it to the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) Area Hydrologist prior to
submitting an application for a final plat approval for the lots being revised
with this amendment. If the DNR review results in substantial changes to the
PUD Amendment, then the developer shall resubmit the PUD amendment or
review by the City and Joint Planning Board.
This condition is satisfied.
3. The proposed traffic calming median in White Pine Way shall align with the
proposed trail between Lots 7 and 8 on the north side of White Pine Way as
shown on Area B. Additionally, the trail north of lots 7 and 8 on the north side
of White Pine Way as shown on Area B shall be adjusted to remove the multiple
90- degree turns.
This condition applies to an area not included in this plat.
4. Conditions 3 through 14 in Stillwater City Council Resolution Number 2006 -179
shall remain in effect with this PUD Amendment.
This condition is satisfied as noted above.
5. Changes to the lots sizes are approved for Area A and C. The lot sizes for Area
B shall remain unchanged.
This condition is satisfied.
6. The new house plans shall only be used on the CR lots.
This condition is satisfied.
CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the Final Plat and Final PUD request at their February
13, 2012 meeting. They recommended Stillwater City Council approve Millbrook 6th Addition
Final Plat and Final PUD Site Plan subject to the following conditions:
1. An as -built easement map showing 30 -foot easements where possible (minimum of 15
foot) for trails shall be completed and recorded as each section of trail is completed.
2. Per the original development approvals and landscaping plans, evergreen trees shall
be added to screen the driveways from the public streets and shall be added along the
north side of White Pine Way between the street and the townhome pond
CITY OF STILLWATER STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Joint Planning Board review the proposed plat and provide
comments to the Stillwater City Council to consider.
cc: Joe Jablonski
Millbrook 6th Addition
•
1
6th Addition
•
W
yb
Z
y_ r
-R1 U
CO
6th Addition
iv;^`'��_�N LANE
DR 10,rn >w >r
PRIV [:c 0o do
DR. 11
�/ Q O� \`p
` Q \ N.-,
�/0 QUO >\�
v� 4 $
�
XI)
a_
co
0
0
In
Cd
0
0
PRi,.
DR. 2
`� MAUREE
C� LAS
0
PRIV.
DR. 4
PRIV.
DR. 3'..
Legend
Zoning
A -P, Agricultural Preservation
RA- Single Family Residential
RB - Two Family
TR, Traditional Residential
LR, Lakeshore Residential
CR, Cottage Residential
CTR, Cove Traditional Residential
CCR, Cove Cottage Residential
CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential
TH, Townhouse
RCM - Medium Density Residential
RCH - High Density Residential
VC, Village Commercial
CA- General Commercial
CBD - Central Business District
BP -C, Business Park - Commercial
IN BP -O, Business Park- Office
BP -I, Business Park - Industrial
IB- Heavy Industrial
CRD - Campus Research Development
IN PA- Public Administration
as PROS - Park, Rec or Open Space
22 Public Works Facility
ROAD
WATER
MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That U.S. Home Corporation, a Delaware cotperuion, fee owner of the
following described property situated in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota to wit:
Outlots A and C, MILLBROOK 4TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County,
Minnesota
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION and does hereby dedicate the lases,
ways, and drainage and utility casemate as shown on this plat.
In witness whereof said U.S. Home Corporation, a Delaware corporation has caused these presents to be signed by its
proper officer this day of , 2012.
Signed: U.S. Home Corporation
Jon Aune, Division Vice President
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2012 by Jon Aune, Division
Vice President of U.S. Home Corporation, a Delaware corporation on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota Printed Name
My Commission Expires
I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted or directly supervised the survey and plat preparation of the property
described on this plat as MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION; that this plat is a carat representation of the boundary
survey; that all mathanatical data and labels are correctly designated oa the plat; that all monuments depicted on the
plat have been or will be correctly set within one year as indicated on the plat; that all water boundaries and wet lands as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subdivision 3 existing ea of the date of this certification are shown and
labeled on the plat; and that all public ways are shown and labeled on the plat_
Daniel L. Schmidt
Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 26147
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this day of 2012, by
Daniel L. Schmidt, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 26147.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
1 SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
b
.
Printed Name
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
This plat of MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION was approved by the City Council of the City of Stillwater. Minnesota this day of
2012, and hereby certifies compliance with all requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.
Signed: CITY OF STILL WATER
By:
Mayor
By:
Clerk
Approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, this day of
By
Planning Commission Chairman
2012.
By:
Planning Commission Secretary
COUNTY SURVEYOR
Washington County, Minnesota
Pursuant to Chapter 820, Laws of Minnesota, 1971, this plat her been approved this day of , 2012.
By: By:
Washington County Surveyor Avestan County Surveyor
COUNTY AUDITORITREASURER
Washington County. Minnesota
There are no delinquent taxes, the current taxes due and payable for the year 20 have been paid, and transfer has been entered this day of
,2012.
By:
Washington County Auditor /Treasurer
COUNTY RECORDER
Washington County, Minnesota
Document Number
By:
Deputy
I hereby certify that this instrument was recorded in this Office of the County Recorder for record on this
o'clock _. M. and was duly recorded in Washington County Records.
Washington County Recorder
By: , qty
day of
2012, at
PRELIMINARY
COPY
November 28, 2011
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
MILLBROOK 6TH ADDITION
PRELIMINARY
COPY
November 28, 2011
f . A SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC.
575 °16411E 458.52
2611.94
I All I 21C7/1/11i
IVIIL.L-L.1 \VVI\
WM OF WV LAND
MAUREEN LANE nil
117.47
g1 S75.15.411
51.26
I
A s
I 1 1
575 °15.40 E 311.16
149.97 �"'— X161.19 R a -
\ p p•69°12' 'a$1� 1
-- '.- --"- ---. -- .ti:A,
,\\ \�L. Wk.—.,� +E 155.77 J
\ N \ 1 OLA 3°95
�C� -�o.ay 5 ;o:�`P�7^
* %$
•< 5 itr:'
v !!> 2 , ��� 1 y 111, U,
rod 4/ S- pit
�1
V \
7M !6D
23.77 OO
X90°721. •
S75 °36.00 E 11
el CE'l
.c.
•5� / •
�8
0
0o
if
at
• 6
bl 5
va
0
.4
I Aft IF �•••�
1. 1 r L: w ,') I 41C-
1
trw
IYL• y4 ,
1^r1 • .J
�JJ\
1\
rs
1�
e J
-1.4
w� °R 4Fgp
L �7eJ l 2
' J
°•14'41 E 4 .1y8 " I)
\\
OUTL3'11M1�'"'
aaMtu7
13
� T.
/� n.
/
-_ . . \ -1
�._.�•�. \ �• /
S380.34.41.
5.1 -
� 1` J
1
1.6
\ 1
N68 °18'08"W
98.29
562°55241
680.92
�._ per 4,44/0
so
"0
No0 8
The boob Oa the beating system h to norm
00.0(Oudot C. MILLBROOK, Wahiogm°
County,M®maota. Mhtob h °utmod to
bear S7513'4011.
60 30 0 30 60
120
I INCH EQUALS 60 FEET
SCALE IN FEET
O Dow*. IR inch by 14 lob ton pipe
with a robs alp oaaibed by Liana
No. 26147, which hoboes* M the
pound or will be set be the ground in
accords= with MS 505.021, Sob& 10.
• Denotes a Found IQ loch by 14 iadt
icon marked by License No. 24764.
tThe locator lot canto Mme multi- lob are
I locoed wiWapmposed building *mCUmk thud=
no m°mmlmr will be o* at ibex lot carom.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
NOT TO SCALE 1
Being 5 rod in width and adjoining lot lira, oleo atomise
iodicatod, sad 10 fed In width and adjoining right away How,
unless othawwe indicated, as &own on Anglia
VICINITY MAP
SECTIONS 18 & 19, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH OF
RANCE 20 WEST OF THE 4TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
Item 4.02
e 9' N?. m 1 E 0$ M 4 4 1$ S O 1 P
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: March 29, 2012
CASE NO.: 2012 -07
APPLICANT: Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc.
Allison McGinnis, President
LANDOWNER: City of Stillwater
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Off -Leash Dog Park
LOCATION: 3111- 80th Street North
ZONING: PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space
PUBLIC HEARING:April 4, 2012 (Joint Board Meeting)
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director, City of Stillwater
SPECIFIC REQUEST
Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc. is requesting the Joint Board to approve a Special Use
Permit for an off -leash dog park at 3111 80th Street North (Boutwell Road).
BACKGROUND
The Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park, Inc. (FSADP) would like to develop and operate an
off -leash dog park on City owned property just east of the public works facility on Boutwell
Road. Use of the park would be open to the general public. The site is zoned PROS - Park,
Recreation or Open Space and is currently used for a natural surface trail loop and the historical
cemetery of the Boutwell Family.
Dog Parks are allowed by Special Use Permit in the PROS Zoning District.
FSADP proposes to install a five foot tall chain link fence around a 1.55 acre portion of the site.
(See attached site plan.) Entrance to the off -leash fenced area would be through a triple gated
area that allows dogs to be taken off their leash without running at large. The gated entry area
would be connected by a bituminous walkway to a ten space parking lot. The driveway to the
Dog Park SUP
Page 2
parking lot would access Boutwell Road about 145 feet west of the current driveway to
Boutwell Cemetery. A rain garden would be constructed to treat surface water runoff from the
parking lot. Any needed restroom facilities would be provided by portable toilets. No lights
are to be installed.
All of the improvement costs will be the responsibility of FSADP. In addition the group would:
1) maintain the rain garden, 2) perform basic repairs on the fencing and signage, 3) perform
basic maintenance of Boutwell Cemetery together with the Washington County Historical
Society, and 4) keep the area clean of litter and dog waste.
The City is being asked by FSADP to help with "soft costs" of the park, namely: 1) assist with
the installation of the parking lot and path connecting it to the gated area, 2) assist with
installation of the fence, 3) remove snow from the lot and connecting path, 4) empty waste
receptacles, 5) continue to mow the natural pathway around the fenced off -leash area, and 6)
assist with maintenance of the rain garden.
The City's Public Works Director believes the necessary personnel resources are available to
assist with some of the requested soft costs, but not all. The specific items that Public Works
agrees to help with from the above list are: 3) remove snow from the lot (but not from the path
connecting the lot to the gated area), 4) empty waste receptacles, 5) continue to mow the natural
pathway around the fenced off -leash area.
The Park Commission considered the Boutwell Cemetery request on January 30, 2012. With a
split 4 -2 vote they approved the concept of an off -leash dog park on the property. However,
they requested the FSADP to discuss an alternate location with the Stillwater Township Board
of Supervisors.
On February 2, 2012 the Stillwater Township's Board of Supervisors considered an FSADP
request for use of land near Otto Berg Park. The Town Board did not support use of that
particular property for a dog park.
If the Special Use Permit is approved by the Joint Board, City Planning Commission and the
City Councils, then FSADP will raise the funds necessary to make the dog park improvements.
The starting date for construction will depend upon how quickly funds can be raised.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The Zoning Chapter of the City Code states that a Dog Park is allowed by Special Use Permit in
the PROS Zoning District.2 Since the proposed Boutwell Cemetery site is zoned PROS, a Special
Use Permit may be granted for an off -leash dog park as long as the following standards can be
satisfied .3
' The proposed dog park requires an amendment to the adopted Master Plan for the Boutwell Cemetery Park. The
amendment requires approval by the City Council.
2 City Code Ch 31, Sec 31 -325
3 City Code Ch 31, Sec. 31- 207(d) lists the SUP review standards.
Dog Park SUP
Page 3
(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
The City's Zoning Code recognizes special uses as those that have the potential to
create greater land use conflict within a neighborhood than uses that are simply
permitted by right of land ownership. These types of uses are required to go
through a public hearing process to determine the impact and potential mitigating
measures. If those mitigating measures can be implemented, the Special Use Permit
could be approved with related conditions. If they cannot be satisfactorily mitigated,
the specific use could be considered incompatible with surrounding land uses, and
the City may deny the requested Special Use Permit.
Items that may cause negative impact by an off -leash dog park include (but are not
necessarily limited to):
1. Noise of barking dogs
a. The noise issue causes the greatest concern amongst immediately
abutting neighbors that have spoken with City staff.
b. Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park representatives will need to
satisfy the Joint Board, City Planning Commission and City Council
that barking can be controlled satisfactorily in this large lot residential
neighborhood.
c. The attached neighborhood map shows proximity of the proposed
dog park to surrounding homes.
d. At very least, the hours of operation should be used as a regulator of
quiet hours for neighbors. The City's Public Works Department
recommends that the hours of operation should be 8 am to sunset.
e. City Code provides for review of Special Use Permits if substantive
complaints are received. Typically this would trigger another public
hearing and potential revisions or additional conditions. Under
extreme circumstances, the review could result in the revocation of
the Special Use Permit.
2. Dogs running at large
a. This likely will not become a problem.
b. Dogs are required by the FSADP to be on a leash between the parked
car and the triple gated entrance to the fenced off -leash area. Details
of the gated entrance are attached.
c. The leash rule, and all others associated with the park use (see
attached rule sheet) will be posted by the FSADP on metal signs.
3. Cleaning up dog waste
a. The City will empty the dog waste receptacles several times a week,
but placing the waste in the waste cans will be the responsibility of
the dog park users and the FSADP.
4. Facility maintenance
Dog Park SUP
Page 4
a. Except for mowing the grass trail around the outside of the fenced off -
leash area, removal of snow from the parking lot, and emptying the
dog waste receptacles, maintenance of the facility will be the
responsibility of the FSADP.
5. Parking
a. No parking is allowed on Boutwell Road (80th Street North). So all
parking for the dog park will have to be on the site.
b. A ten space parking lot is planned by the FSADP. The group would
be responsible for financing the construction.
c. Overflow parking is available a quarter mile to the west in the City
Park next to the Public Works Building.
6. Aggressive dogs
a. This is not an issue of concern for neighbors if leash rules are
observed. It can be an issue for other users of the dog park.
Therefore, the FSADP rules address proper handling of dogs
exhibiting aggressive behavior.
7. Lights
a. There will be no installed lights for the dog park.
Comprehensive Plan
The future land use map of the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the use of the City
property as PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space. The proposed dog park is an
allowed use within the PROS classification.
The Park Chapter within the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject site as a
future park. A Master Plan for the future park was approved by the City Council on
November 1, 2005 (Resolution 2005 -246). That Master Plan called for a "very passive
park ", which is to say that the park was envisioned to be used for walking along
natural paths in a setting of natural grasses and plants. The site plan for this
planned park is attached.
The dog park plans are not consistent with the Master Plan. Certainly any adopted
plan can be changed. And since the City Council adopted the Master Plan, the City
Council can change the plan. But quite clearly a dog park is not a "very passive
park ". So, if the Joint Board and City approve the use permit for the dog park, the
City Council will also have to approve a change to the approved Master Plan for the
park.
(2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed.
A. Immediately south of the proposed off -leash area lies the fenced cemetery of
the Boutwell Family. It can be seen in the attached site plan. This cemetery
has suffered from lack of maintenance over the years, especially since
purchased from the Washington County Historical Society. (As a side note,
the Board of the Historical society sold the land to the City based upon the
plan to use the property as a passive park.) If the dog park is approved, the
Dog Park SUP
Page 5
FSADP and the Washington County Historical Society have agreed to help
each other improve the care that this cemetery receives.
B. If the dog park is approved, one of the recommended conditions of approval
would be that if the dog park falls into disuse, misuse or disrepair, the
Special Use Permit would become null and void.
(3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of
the community.
City staff is not aware of issues other than are addressed earlier in this report.
JOINT BOARD JURISDICTION
The Orderly Annexation Agreement states in Section 8.04(b) that in annexed areas the Joint
Board has the power to "approve the initial adoption of ... official controls relating to the
Orderly Annexation Area ". Moreover, the City Attorney advises City staff to consider a Special
Use Permit to be an "official control" for purposes of the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
Therefore, the Joint Board has the authority in this land use case to approve or deny the
requested Special Use Permit.
ALTERNATIVES
The Joint Board has the following options:
1. Approve the Special Use Permit with at least the following conditions:
a. Rules of operation shall be posted and maintained in good order and visibility by
the Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park.
b. Hours of operation shall be between 8 am and sunset. The hours of operation
shall be clearly posted.
c. The off -leash area shall not be used until after a ten space parking lot is funded
and constructed by the Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park and found
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
d. The City will be responsible for mowing the grass trail around the outside of the
fenced off -leash area, removal of snow from the parking lot, and emptying the
dog waste receptacles. All other maintenance of the facility will be the
responsibility of the Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park.
e. Dogs on the site are required to be on a leash whenever they are not within the
fenced area of the dog park.
f. Though the dog park is to be improved and maintained by the Friends of the
Stillwater Area Dog Park, the facility shall be open for use by the general public.
g. Upon receipt of verified complaints of substance, the City would schedule a
public hearing to review the Special Use Permit. The Friends of Stillwater Area
Dog Park and neighboring property owners would be notified of the review
Dog Park SUP
Page 6
hearing, and upon cause conditions could be modified or added, or the Special
Use Permit could be revoked by the City.
h. Should the dog park fall into disrepair, lack of use, or misuse, in the City's sole
opinion, the Special Use Permit would become null and void.
2. Deny the Special Use Permit. If the Joint Board finds that the proposed use is
incompatible with surrounding uses and cannot be made compatible through mitigating
conditions, it could deny the request. Findings of fact substantiating the denial must be
provided.
3. Table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Park Commission
The Stillwater Park Commission recommended conceptual approval of the dog park on a 4 -2
vote.
City Staff
If the Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park can demonstrate to the Joint Board that barking can
be satisfactorily controlled, and the City Council amends the Master Plan for Boutwell
Cemetery Park, then staff would recommend approval of the SUP with the conditions listed
above. If not, staff would recommend denial of the SUP.
Attachments: Zoning & Location map
Neighborhood Air Photo
Site plan
Future park plans
Dog Park Rules
Application Materials
cc: Allison McGinnis
flhIW!!!r
The 8.fth DIeae 01 Minna
le'
Proposed Dog Park
Neighborhood Map
w
10 parking spaces
pMowed grass path
Chain link
fence
va ter
m—■1■;;■11;"'
ThC a rth D:: a' 'Aiii:sata,
Proposed Dog Park
Site plan
CONTINUE
TO REGIONAL
TRAIL
Pr 14
FUTURE TRAIL ON BOUTILSLL
889
—
X88
INTERPRETATIVE
MARKER
888
CONTINUE TRAIL
TO PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY
ALTERNATE
BOARDWALK
LARD --E SUGAR
71IAPLE
`•-•_' AREA WITH
PLAY STRUCTURES
SUCH AS TREE HOUSE
OR "ANIMAL PLAY
STRUCTURES"
0
0
0
WILD FLOWER
PLANTING-5
MD.LN PATH -
A:4 EX ;STING
CREATE
TL AND
BANK
WETLAND- REGULAR BURNS TO
RESTORE QUALITY. OPPORTUNITY
FOR ANNUAL CELEBRATION
SAVANNA RESTORATI-
SCATERED OAK. TREES
i / ■/
/ ,, STONE PATH-
.-
...- , ' PIONEERS
PRAIRIE STONE SEATING, / FOOTSTEPS
WILDFLOIIE:R PLANTINGS, AND ooi
INTERPRETATIVE SIGNAGE
-- PERGOLA
SEATING/
PICNIC AREA
SCALE: , •
• r rrrrl • ® 19 ••
r ■1somme NNsaarmss` ■ ammo NN rrrrl■■ ■rrsa■rw■■rr■
r r•• ■ ■ r■ 0r�e11•11/
BUFFER PLANTING -
WETLAND 54 -IRUB5
Dt
0 00
PRAIRIE RESTORATION -
FIRST PRIORITY
EXISTING
SPRUCE
BLPFER
0
0
ONO
0
0
C
ONO
AIM
Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park Proposal
Mission
Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park (FSADP) is an organization
open to all dog lovers and is guided by the fact that well- exercised dogs
are less likely to engage in nuisance behaviors such as constant
barking, are calmer, and tend to have better social manners.
Focus
Our focus is to create and sustain a fenced, off-leash dog park in
the Stillwater area and to promote responsible dog ownership through
community based recreation and education.
After the park is established, our long-range goals include hosting
educational and recreational events that benefit all animals and the
community.
Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park organized in April 2009 and
collected hundreds of signatures supporting the creation of a dog
recreation area. Support has also been demonstrated via an online
survey at our website,
http://sites.google.com/site/friendsofstillwaterdogpark
In August 2009, we registered as a not-for-profit organization in
the state of Minnesota. Early in 2011, we gained our 501(c) (3) status.
What is a dog park/off leash recreation area (OLRA)?
The ideal size for a dog park is three acres, but any fenced acreage
with accessible parking is acceptable. A double gated entry allows safe
entrance to and exit from the park.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011
Page 1
Designs range from simple fenced area, with a minimum fence height
of five feet, to elaborate parks with many amenities such as watering
sites and playground equipment for dogs.
The park surface depends on usage and overall size of site. Surfaces
can be natural, for example grass, or man-made, such as decomposed
granite.
The site should be designed for handicapped accessibility per 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act, allowing elderly and disabled dog
owners an accessible place to exercise and socialize their dogs.
Community benefits
OLRAs provide people with places to socialize, build a sense of
community, and exercise dogs in a safe environment. In addition, they
can promote responsible pet ownership via pet education, and behavior
training, Also, they promote disease control through proper vaccination,
and licensing.
Dog parks enable dogs to legally run off-leash, making them less
likely to run free through parks, farms, fields, neighborhoods, wildlife
reserves, and other natural areas. The controlled environment in a dog
park reduces the risk of person/dog conflicts and automobile collisions
by keeping dogs and other recreationists separate.
OLRAs can improve public health by confining dog waste to a
designated area and self-policing waste cleanup. Moreover, socialized
dogs are less aggressive and better mannered than dogs that remain
isolated in yards or on chains. Lastly, the license requirement would
bring in additional money to city; after the park is built and
maintenance costs are determined, funds obtained from potential fees
could go towards other city purposes.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011 Page 2
Statistics
According to the Humane Society of the United States, on average,
39% of the households in any given community include dogs.
Therefore, per the 2009 census information in Stillwater, 2,823
households out of 7,240 own dogs. This amounts to 4,799 dogs or
roughly 39% of Stillwater households (the actual number of dogs is
estimated to be higher than reported). According to city records, only
about 260 of these dogs were licensed in 2010, and per the 2009 census
information, only 34.4% of households in Stillwater include children
under the age of eighteen.
To exercise and socialize dogs in a safe and regulated area, the
nearly 40% of Stillwater residents who own dogs currently have to
travel outside the city of Stillwater. This takes business away from
local merchants rather than bringing in more visitors to our city.
In the Twin Cities metro area, 43 dog parks are currently in
operation (www.minnehahamedia.com). Nationwide, the number of
OLRAs is over 4,000, an increase from only 700 in the U.S. five years
ago. The creation of OLRAs is a growing trend in the United States.
Management of dog park/OLRA
After the completion of construction of a Stillwater Area dog park,
the FSADP will continue to play a significant role in park maintenance
and management. However, OLRAs are typically self-policed.
Patrons of the park would be alerted to rules and etiquette by posted
signs, and waivers of responsibility would relieve the City of any legal
responsibility for the actions of individuals and dogs using the park.
City laws and ordinances would apply and be enforced by peace officers
as needed.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011
Page 3
A fee and permit system could be enacted sometime in the future and
would supplement funds raised by FSADP for maintenance of the park.
Any surplus created by the fee system could be put back into the city's
general fund.
Common Concerns
• Waste /Smell
By providing a central area for dogs and owners to congregate,
waste will be confined to the park area rather than on public
streets or walking trails; OLRA users will keep the park clean so
as to enjoy its use. Also, those who do not pick up their pet's
waste will be subject to city fines.
• Barking
Most dogs using the park will be too busy playing to bark. The
exercise they will enjoy at the OLRA also will make them less
likely to bark at home.
• Fighting
Park design is meant to reduce the likelihood of fights among
dogs. The position of the gate as well as the double gated entry
make the OLRA seem "neutral" to dogs, so territorial disputes are
unlikely. Dogs deemed "aggressive" will be prohibited from using
the park per posted rules.
• Dereliction
A "Sunset" clause can be included in the initial charter so that the
land can be repurposed in the event that the OLRA is not
managed properly or used sufficiently.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011 Page 4
As in all new ventures, unforeseen problems can be dealt with as
they arise.
FSADP's Commitment
After the successful completion of the OLRA, FSADP will continue to
work with the community to maintain the dog park.
As a not-for-profit organization, we will continue to raise funds for
amenities and maintenance. Volunteers from our group will also
monitor and police grounds to ensure waste clean-up on a scheduled
basis, perform basic repairs (e.g. fencing), and enforce rules, including
permit use and license when and if implemented. As with other metro
area OLRA's, law enforcement will be called if/when there are users
that do not comply with the rules.
In addition, we will promote "Canines for Clean Water" and other
environmental stewardship practices, and will host educational and
recreational events that benefit all animals and the community such as
rescue organization presentations, training seminars, wildlife
demonstrations, and Humane Society functions.
City's Role
While FSADP will continue to shoulder the majority of management
responsibilities, we do ask a minimal commitment from the city of
Stillwater and the Parks Commission.
The city would-be responsible for snow removal and trail/path
maintenance if needed. As expected at any city park, enforcement of
city laws and codes would fall on the community peace officers.
Sanitation, trash removal, and the processing of permits and licenses
would also continue to be handled by the city.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011 Page 5
Potential Sites
Our wish is to concentrate all of our efforts on a single site with
the blessing of the City Council so we can facilitate fundraising and
support with a clear goal.
The sites attached to this proposal (except Lily Lake) were
suggested by Tim Moore, Assistant Public Works Superintendent for
the city of Stillwater, for FSADP to explore as a home of the OLRA.
While we have explored the positives and negatives of these sites, we
would like to focus our efforts on the Boutwell Avenue site.
Boutwell Avenue Site: Boutwell Ave. /80th Street North
The site is a rectangular field, approximately 1.5 to 2 acres, with
native and non-native plants, few trees, and a mowed grass trail
surrounding the area. At the South end of the field, a historic cemetery
is fenced in separate from the proposed OLRA.
Positives
• Good location; accessible to Stillwater residents
• No major adjoining residential housing
• Reduces conflict with other recreational trail users
• Diminishes negative impact on wildlife such as nesting game
birds
• Easy to fence due to existing dimensions of field
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011
Page 6
• Lawn maintenance within OLRA most likely unnecessary
• Cemetery is already fenced and protected
• No setback requirement per Brown's Creek Watershed (Karen
Kill)
• Containment and clean-up of waste at designated locale will
reduce waste on trails and lessen levels of phosphorous in area
water supply
Challenges
• Development of paved parking lot needed; Brown's Creek
Watershed District will need to approve surface and run off design
Proposal
With the collaboration between the city and FSADP and utilizing
funds donated to FSADP, we would like to combine an OLRA with the
historic Boutwell Cemetery and natural area. We will enhance and
maintain all aspects of the three components of this site.
• Install a five foot discrete fence with a double gated entry around
the OLRA
• Provide historical and natural interpretive sign and benches at
the cemetery
• Set up two waste receptacles near parking area
• Post OLRA signage with rules
• Provide benches and a small structure for shade within the OLRA
• Perform routine maintainance of the cemetery under guidance of
the Washington Co. Historical Society.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011
Page 7
Future potential goals
In the future, we would like to provide a paved path from the
parking area to the OLRA gate consistent with Americans with
Disabilities requirements. We also anticipate starting a permit /fee
system for OLRA patrons to assist with ongoing costs. We propose to
include small native gardens along the perimeter of the area with
subtle informational signs about this unique native ecosystem. We
would like to plant trees for an oak savanna at the South East corner of
the site and provide an observation dock that would extend into the
wetland. Our website includes a forum in which OLRA patrons can
discuss concerns and praise.
In conclusion...
It is our vision that we will maintain and promote a historic, natural,
and recreational site that can be enjoyed by patrons and their pets.
FSADP is dedicated to making an OLRA a reality for Stillwater
residents and their dogs. We ask the city for a commitment to the
Boutwell Avenue Site so that we may focus our efforts and support on
an attainable goal.
If the city has other land to recommend or pledge to OLRA use,
FSDAP will be happy to review it with council members and the parks
commission.
Thank you.
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011 Page 8
References
Formula for dog ownership from Humane Society of the united States.
Stillwater population numbers provided by Mike Pogge.
Allen, L. (2007). Dog Parks: Benefits and Liabilities (Master's thesis).
Retrieved fromhttp : / /repositorv.upenn.edu/mes capstone /18/
www.DogPark.com
"Supervised free-roaming dogs aren't a threat to public
safety; unsocialized ones are"
Ted Kerasote, author of Merle's Door — Lessons from a
Freethinking Dog
FSDAP Proposal to City Council, 2011 Page 9
LEAGUE oI
Mr NN ESOTA
CITIES
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
OFF LEASH DOG PARKS
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?
Definition
The tenn "dog park" is generally used where• the purpose and design of the park is such as to invite
dogs, often in an unleashed environment. Some dog parks require membership or charge fees;
others are free and open to the public. In general, private parks tend to be those that require fees to
assist in the costs of operating the park.
Why have Dog Parks?
Dogs are popular and:people want a safe place to socialize and exercise their dogs..Off- -leash parks
offer substantial benefits as a way for dogand owner to get exercise and meet new. friends. Dog
parks are relatively ine - ensive to-maintain, have no significant history of claims; and have .
generally been thou " t to be success w ere thhey h ve been created.
•
Features
Dog parks vary in size and amenities,.but the following represent some things to-consider.
Bafflers
Consideration should be given to manmade or natural barriers to encourage the dogs to stay within
the designated area:. Small areas -in busy neighborhoods.may necessitate a fence around the park
with a gated access: Larger areas may allow for natural buffer zones.Nearby propertyowners and
• traffic should be considered to =determine what -level of bather might be necessary.
Rules
Rules should be posted at the - entrance. to the dog park. Indicate the purpose of the park, the hours
of operation, and a phone number to report problems and emergencies. General rules include:
• • • Picking up feces:
• Keeping control of aggressive dogs.
• Leash requirements, if any.
Off-leash parks should emphasize that dogs kept on leashes within the off -leash boundary will
cause tension-and should be avoided. Cities should require that dogs be licensed and vaccinated to
be allowed in the dog. park. Children should be supervised while in the dog park because playing
dogs can run into children and. running children may trigger the dog's instinct to chase prey. Any
specialinfonnation about the use of the dog-park should be displayed at the entrance.
This material is provided as general information and Is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice ooncemingspedflc situbtions.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
INSURANCE TRUST
145 UNLVERSITYAVE. WEST PHON5 (651) 281 -1200 PAIL: (651) 281 -1298
ST. PAUL MN 55103 -2044 TOLL FREE (800) 925 -1122 wikwwwittcoio
Trash Containers
It may take some time to cultivate good habits, particularly for picking up feces. By providing
containers and even bags, if possible, compliance will improve. Dog owners must be reminded that
good stewardship will ensure the continued availability of the facility.
Parking
Adequate parking will be necessary to prevent clogging streets or the parking lots of others with
dog park patrons. Some cities have found that use of the park greatly exceeded their original
estimates; extra parking had to be added. The location of parking should minimize any detours
from the most direct route into the park. In general it is a good idea to require the use of a leash in
parking areas until entering the off-leash area. Parking leading to a gated entrance provides an
opportunity for placing advisory signs that are hard to miss.
Water Source
Dogs drink plenty of water during play, and some dogs enjoy swimming. Therefore natural ponds
or streams may be desirable. On the other hand, if there is mud around, a.dog.will find it. Some
owners prefer to avoid this problem. Owners should be encouraged to-bring plenty of water with
them if none exists at the park.
Design .
Some parks are specifically designed for smaller dogs. I. do do not usually attack small
dogs, but small dogs may be injured engaging in play wi much larger dogs. In most cases, dogs
properly supervised 'will socialize_ easily in the neutral turf of an off leash exercise area.
Maintenance .
Primary maintenance issues include trash removal, snow removal, grass cutting, and wear and tear
to. walkways. Parks with enough area can fence off portions to allow for vegetation to reestablish
itself in over -worn areas, Wood mulch be applied to walkways to reduce erosion and
improve traction.
Other Items
Some parks have bulletin boards to provide feedback
on park use and to report problems. Many parks also
have picnic tables, benches, and park shelters for
shade and protection from the elements.
Conclusion
Offleash areas, or dog parks, provide . great benefits to
dog owners. Current statistics indicate almost one in
four people own a dog. Dogs and their owners are .
happiest and healthiest when they have opportunities
for exercise and meeting others. Dog parks have not
proven to be a significant • : nil' i risk or• source of
o� ,y C.
LMCIT Loss Control 05/09
Learn More
Following are some web sites where
you can find dog parks. or information
about dog parks:
http:/ /animal.discoverv.com /features
/dognark/map /states /MN.html
http : / /www.ecoanimal.com /doafun/
http: / /www.dogplay.com /Activities /d
ogpark.htm(
htto: / /www.thebark.com /community.
/advocacy dogParks /dogParks.htmi
OLRA Rules and Etiquette
1. Park hours are from ''a°'" to �a M -p 51-cr
2. Dogs must wear collar with license, vaccination, and permit information
at all times.
3. Dogs must be leashed in parking area and when entering or exiting the
OLRA.
4. Dogs who exhibit aggressive behavior must be immediately leashed and
removed from OLRA. Individual dogs known to have a history of
aggression may not . be permitted or may have permit revoked; this
includes but is not limited to dogs classified as dangerous or
potentially dangerous in any city.
5. Owners /handlers are responsible for the actions and behaviors of their
dogs; any damage or injury caused by dogs will be the liability of the
owners.
6. Owners /handlers must remain in control of dogs at all times; this means
dogs must be under voice or whistle control, in view, and
owner /handler must have one leash ready and available per dog.
7. Children under the age of 12 cannot be responsible for dogs in OLRA.
All other children in OLRA must be supervised by an adult for safety
reasons.
8. Dogs in heat, sick dogs, and puppies under four months old are not
allowed in the OLRA. No other type of animal is allowed in the OLRA.
9. No food or glass bottles allowed in OLRA. Owners must bring own water
for dogs.
10. Owners /handlers must clean up after their dogs. Owner /handlers
should bring their own waste bags and must fill in any holes dug by
their dogs.
11. All other city park rules and city laws are enforce.
safety gate for dog run to prevent dogs
entering from interacting
with dogs leaving.
in only
no exi
gate only
opens in-
cannot open from park
dog run
dogs
to exit
wait here
dogs enterin
wait here while
owners remove
Cdes
AR& a' iJ
Exit only 4
gate opens
gate *1 from both sides
CITY OF STILLWATER
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 30, 2012
Present: Linda Am rein, David Brandt, Scott Christensen, Rob McGarry, Solveg Peterson,
Don Stiff and Council member Mike Polehna
Absent: Sandy Snellman
Staff present: Assistant Public Works Superintendent Tim Moore
Chair Amrein called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Brandt, seconded by Mr. Christensen, moved approval of the
minutes of December 19, 2011, as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
No comments were received
ACTION ITEMS
July 4th Fireworks Display
City Administrator Hansen reviewed the responses to the six Request for Proposals (RFPs) the
City sent out and his recommendation for the selection is RES Specialty Pyrotechnics. Two of
the six vendors, he said, have done displays for the City in past years and are known
commodities to the City. Mr. Hansen spoke of the difficulty in analyzing the responses and said
basically reputation, references and past experience are the determining factors. He said
someone in the industry had also reviewed the RFP responses and concurs with the
recommendation of RES Specialty Pyrotechnics. Mr. Hansen spoke briefly about the fact that
the City does have a current contract for the fireworks, a contract which has been suspended.
Pending the resolution of that matter, he said the City cannot award a second contract. He said
should the Commission make a recommendation; it should be contingent on the resolution of
the issue with the existing contract. He said the intent is to award the contract for this year's
display no later than February 29th. He said there is an alternate plan should the legal issues
not be resolved by that time. Ms. Amrein asked if someone had already been contacted to do
the 4th of July fireworks. Mr. Hansen said he did not have that inf ormation but said the City
would be very cautious of that potential. Mr. McGarry asked what action was being requested of
the Commission, suggesting that evaluating bids /proposals was a function for City staff. Mr.
Hansen said he would like the Commission to approve the recommendation. Mr. Hansen
apologized for not providing the RFP responses to Corn missioners, but noted some of the
information is proprietary. Mr. Polehna pointed out the recommended vendor is the only one
who provided a listing of exactly the number and size of shells that would be included in the
display; he said he had spoken with a friend in the industry who agreed with the
recommendation. Mr. Christensen asked how much the City spent on fireworks last year. Mr.
Hansen said for many years, the City has given a contribution of $40,000 for both shows, 4th of
July and Lumberjack Days finale. Mr. Hansen said the vendors have told him their costs have
been $28,000 for the show; he said there have been som e indications of support from other
entities. Ms. Amrein moved to accept the recommendation provided by Mr. Hansen. Ms.
Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Eagle Scout project
Jonathon Osafouyia, a life Scout from Boy Scout Troop 114, working on his Eagle Scout project,
proposed that Troop 114 design and build a c anoe rack for Lily Lake for seasonal storage of
Park and Recreation Board Minutes
January 30, 2012
Page 2 of 3
canoes. He said Scouts would also be able to store some of their canoes there and teach
canoeing and do other activities. Mr. Moore said there have been si milar request in the past and
said it was decided that a better use of an Eagle Scout project would be to work on kiosks; he
said there are two Eagle Scout projects committed to the kiosks. The Eagle Scout candidate
said he had some concept plans from the proposed project. On a question by Ms. Amrein, he
said the rack(s) could be put in the ground permanently or removed after the canoeing season;
he said the rack would accommodate 4 canoes. Mr. Moore noted there is a rain gard en between
the boat launch and the dock at Lily Lake and asked whether the plan would be to place the
rack north or south of the dock; Jonathan said whatever location would be most convenient. Mr.
Moore noted the area to the north is wooded and fairly limited in access. Ms. Amrein explained
that normal procedure is for the Eagle Scout candidates to work closely with City staff on their
projects. Mr. Polehna suggested another possible location m ight be at the south end of Long
Lake. In discussion regarding a potential I ocation, it was noted that Lily Lake likely has more
traffic than Long Lake as well as the availability of parking. Mr. Brandt, seconded by Mr. Stiff,
moved to have Jonathon work with staff on the details of the project proposal.
Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park
Mr. Moore noted that after the November presentation, the Commission asked that the group do
some additional research about m aintenance of a dog park at the proposed Boutwell Cemetery
site and other issues, such as liability. Sarah Jaycocks said research indicates that annual
operating costs to the City would be trash pick -up four times at week at an estimated cost of
$1,800; snow plowing estimated at $350 for a total of $2,150 in soft costs. She said the
organization's out -of- pocket costs would be for sign maintenance; satellite toilet (if desired);
fencing; parking lot, estimated at $28,000; possible rain garden work in conjunction with the
watershed district; and benches and shelter. She said the dog park would be covered under the
City's existing liability policy and, according to the League of Minnesota Cities and no additional
liability insurance would be needed. She said the League also i ndicated that there has been no
significant history of claims or significant liability risk associated with dog parks. Regarding the
size of a park, she said Minneapolis Parks and Recreation staff have indicated that there have
been no significant issues with smaller off -leash parks, similar to the size proposed; she noted
there are more than a dozen dog parks in the metropolitan area that are about 1- to 2 -acres in
size.
Ms. Jaycocks provided comments regarding other potential sites mentioned by the Commission:
the dump site, which would need to be resurfaced with gravel and would require additional
fencing; the Aiple site, which might be subject to annual flooding and is already designated for
other uses, including the bridge staging area, boat launch and trail system; and the dome site,
which is smaller than one acre and would require complete excavation.
Ms. Jaycocks noted that Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society has
suggested that the proposal would be a good use of the land and the park would increase public
awareness of the historical significance of the cemetery and deter vandalism; she said he also
indicated that the Historical Society would assist in the maintenance of the historic cemetery.
She concluded that the Boutwell site is still the best choice as the size of the site does work for
an off -leash park; increased care for the site would honor its historical significance; the land
could be maintained as a natural area with additional plantings to improve the area; the
proposal has support from a number of individuals and organizations; and a sunset clause
would allow the agreement to be terminated if things don't work out to the satisfaction of the
parties. Ms. Jaycocks reviewed what the organization would propose as improvements: a five -
foot fence with gated entry around the park area; historical and interpretive sign and benches at
the cemetery; two waste receptacles near the parking area; signage with dog park rules; and
benches and small shade structure within the dog park area.
Park and Recreation Board Minutes
January 30, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Ms. Amrein asked about the comments regarding the dump site — that it would be "inconvenient"
for the City, according to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen explained that the City needs a snow deposit
area. He said if the dog park were to be located there with fencing to maneuver around when
dumping snow, it would be inconvenient. M s. Amrein asked about the comment that there would
be no legal impediment to using the Boutwell Cemetery site, noting that the Comprehensive
Plan states there is to be no dog park. Mr. Moore stated the Counci I felt the Comprehensive
Plan didn't need to be so detailed to specifically state the City would have a dog park, so the
Plan does not include any language related to a dog park.
Ms. Amrein asked what action was requested of the Commission. Mr. Moore said he was
seeking a recommendation regarding this proposed site. Mr. Christensen noted the Parks
Commission is just the first step; the proposal will also have to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission where different concerns likely will be raised and then it will go to the City Council.
Mr. Christensen suggested it would be appropriate to take action and send the proposal on to
the next level where a different group of people will have different questions. M s. Peterson
expressed her concern a bout', the size of the Boutwell site and the potential for the need for
additional land if the park is successful. Ms. Amrein noted the original consultant's plan for this
land was to leave it as a natural, open area; she said she did not think a dog park was a great
use of this land. Allison McGinness said she didn't think there should be a concern about
possible expansion due to the nearby wetlands, but said it could be made clear in an agreement
with the City that there would be no future expansion of the use. Mr. Polehna suggested there is
a potential 3 -acre site in Stillwater Township, immediately adjacent to the City; he said the two
chair persons of the Township's park board have indicated they would be willing to talk with this
group about the possibility of having a dog park there. Mr. Hansen said he had been working
with the dog park proponents and he had recommended the Boutwell site because the proposal
would not be in competition will any other proposed users; every other space in the community,
he said, there was competition from other users. Mr. Hansen said he had indicated to the group
that he would support their proposal; however, he said he thought this new site mentioned by
Mr. Polehna ought to be explored, suggesting that another m onth's delay wouldn't hurt. Ms.
Jaycocks asked whether the group would have to come back before the Commission a third
time should the Township location not work out. Mr. McGarry agreed that the group deserved
some direction from the Commission at this point and should either approve or disapprove of
the Boutwell site. Mr. McGarry said he would have no issue with the Boutwell site, noting it is a
park and it is the Commission's function to promote use of public space; however, he agreed
that the Stillwater Township site should be explored and would be much better as it has more
space.
Mr. Brandt moved approval of the concept of the Boutwell site as proposed by Friends of
Stillwater Area Dog Park. Mr. McGarry seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -2.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
No informational items presented.
COMMISSION ITEMS/TOPICS
No items discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. on a motion by Mr. McGarry, second by Mr. Brandt.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
Sc Airs.
iinar
l ' ±`;!'u1 1 ,,ti ✓1.- ' 5082-9363
439 -U '96 (65.1 - 9 i5 (Fax)
March 28, 2012
City of Stillwater &
Stillwater Township Joint Board
C /O: Bill Turnblad
216 4th Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Reference: Special Use Permit for a Dog Park
Case No. 2012 -07
Dear Board Members:
Reoelved
MAR 3 0 2012
We are writing to express our concerns and opposition to the proposed Dog Park which
would be located East of the City of Stillwater Public Works Facility on Boutwell Road
North. Our residence is adjacent to the proposed park at the South City property line.
We chose this property specifically because at the time of purchase it was owned by the
Historical Society and there was a cemetery in our backyard. We had an expectation that
there would be plenty of open space behind us and that the area would be protected from
development. Of course that changed a number of years ago when the City bought the
property and built the Public Works building and then later added baseball fields. Should
this site become the "dumping grounds" for City uses that no one else wants in their
backyards?
We believe that this park would adversely affect our ability to sell our property in the
future because there are many people who would not buy a property next to a dog park.
We are also concerned about where we would go for relief if the dogs in the park are
barking excessively or if there are other related noise issues? If we called the police
department they would tell us that it is a dog park and that dogs bark.
We therefore ask that the Joint Board reject this proposal and not allow it to go forward.
If you have any questions please call me at 651- 439 -0796.
tephen W. Nelson
Kathleen M. Nelson
Item 5.01
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
DATE: February 14, 2012
MEETING DATE: February 22, 2012
REGARDING: Annexation Area Building Permit Update through 2011
For 2012, there were 54 permits issued for residential units within the City of Stillwater,
44 of them were within the Orderly Annexation Area. The Orderly Annexation
Agreement allows up to 120 housing unit permits to be issued each year starting in 1996.
Over that period, a total of 1,920 permits could have been permitted. The total number of
permits issued through December 31, 2011 has been 1,245. For of 2012, the number of
permits that could be issued for new housing starts in the annexation area is 792, which is
the unit surplus that has accumulated over the 16 year period plus 120 housing units for
2012.
Year
Res. Unit Permits Issued
Res. Unit Permits Allowed
1996
0
120
1997
0
120
1998
13
120
1999
104
120
2000
201
120
2001
228
120
2002
172
120
2003
142
120
2004
106
120
2005
53
120
2006
47
120
2007
22
120
2008
41
120
2009
33
120
2010
39
120
2011
44
120
Total
1,245
1,920
BT /mjp
Item 5.02
iliwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
DATE: February 14, 2012
TO: Joint Planning Board Members
SUBJECT: Annexation Policy for Fairy Falls Road Area
MEETING DATE: April 4y 2012
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
David and Lynne Murphy live at 9098 Fairy Falls Road. Their property has a size of
3.88 acres. It is their desire to subdivide one lot from their homestead. However, the
minimum lot size in Stillwater Township is 2.5 acres. Therefore, they do not own
enough land to create the new lot. If the land were located in the City of Stillwater, the
minimum lot size for this property would only be 1.5 acres. So, the landowners have
submitted an annexation petition to the City to allow for the lot split.
The Stillwater Town Board discussed the detachment on January 12, 2012 and
concluded that they would offer no objection.
The City of Stillwater Planning Commission held a public hearing for the annexation
request on February 13, 2012. The landowner and residents at 2216 Orwell Court N and
the owner of 9033 Fairy Falls Road testified against the petition. A number of issues
were offered in opposition, but the one that resonated most with the Planning
Commission was the fear of "opening the floodgates ". In the absence of a policy or
annexation plan for the area, approving one annexation request could lead to others
with a haphazard result.
Never the less, the petition to annex this specific property found general support
amongst the Commissioners. On a 5 -2 vote they recommended approval of the
annexation, but requested staff to discuss a potential annexation policy for the Fairy
Falls Hill area with the Town Board and City Council.
Fairy Falls Hill
Detachment/Annexation Policy
Page 2 of 3
POLICY DISCUSSION
If the Township and City are interested in setting a mutual policy as recommended by
the City Planning Commission, here are a few thoughts offered by City staff.
• As a general policy the City of Stillwater discourages new construction if
municipal sanitary sewer is not available. The Fairy Falls Hill neighborhood has
neither municipal sewer nor municipal water. Furthermore, it would not be cost
effective to provide utilities to this isolated neighborhood. Perhaps a property or
two being detached may make sense, but not as a general policy.
• Obvious physical demarcations serve as good municipal boundaries. In this
neighborhood the City boundary follows a public survey section line, which is
not an obvious physical boundary. Roads, rivers, etc. serve as better physical
boundaries.
• Perhaps limiting the potential annexation area to those few properties bounded
by Fairy Falls Road to the north /northeast and Orwell Avenue to the west would
serve the purposes of limiting the potential number of properties while using
clear physical features as boundaries. The potential area is shown in the attached
map.
REQUEST
If the Joint Planning Board members believe there is a need or value in discussing a
detachment /annexation policy for this neighborhood, City staff will provide
information for future Board and Council meetings.
bt
attachment: map
Planning Report for Murphy Annexation Petition
Fairy Falls Hill
Detachment/Annexation Policy
Page 3 of 3
Potential Detachment'
Annexation Policy Area
Stillwater Township
The Y ring a::
'A111:1414
Zoning Map
Januar; 2012
Zoning Districts
^It
genic e, irg3
B-; .2 :esae .
ORS-Tr.
_ . -
❑ c "sot _ - :e,--
._ a•te-.:
❑ :,J..ge snort
.G14 Gave ^set o-a aesar. e
.GCSI.^Ave Tats eante':a
.CTMi Cove Tow rose ransee . s
.14 Taatvraae
Doc -Men ., .. 7rs ante—.6
se- 7e— Range-.c
at snape'A••r•rs_s
.G1- Oil -era Oa-i is:a
111G57 -:cRa canes Z sP c.
Ogg.: esxs sae •:g- rna:.a
.Oso e.arwss oa'e- Tae
Os s=aw -'Cats
. e- -.or, -caea
:o^ua ;aseYT 7•xa ?°r_•^.
,rs•s:o•
. P.:a - =erg :Car 7r '..x- gnome
.a, : ass -salt,
DRGV
DARTER
iliwater
THE BIRTHPLACE O F MINNESOTA
DATE: February 9, 2012 CASE NO.: 2012 -05
TO: Planning Commission
REQUEST: Annexation
APPLICANT: David and Lynne Murphy
LAND OWNER: David and Lynne Murphy
LOCATION: 9098 Fairy Falls Hill (Stillwater Township)
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2012
AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
Mr. and Mrs. Murphy have submitted a petition for annexation of their 3.88 acre
homestead property at 9098 Fairy Falls Hill. Their goal is to split the property
creating one more building site.
The property is currently located in Stillwater Township where the minimum lot
size does not allow the property to be split. If the property were located in the City,
a lot split would be possible. Therefore, the landowners have submitted an
annexation petition.
If this annexation is approved by the City, Township and Municipal Board, then the
Murhpys will make application for a subdivision, rezoning and a minor
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The property is not located within the Orderly Annexation Agreement area, so
review of the annexation request is simplified. Essentially the decision will be based
upon whether the City can offer something that the Township cannot, and whether
Murphy Annexation
February 9, 2012
Page 2 of 3
the Township supports the detachment. If both of these can be answered in the
affirmative, the City could decide to approve the request.
The City can offer improved, but not dramatically improved local government
services. The City Police Department is larger and more diverse than its counterpart
in the Township, so the quality of police service has the potential to be improved for
the property. The City Fire Department currently provides fire protection to the
property through a contract with the Township, so fire service would remain the
same. No City utilities are available in the Murphys' neighborhood. In summary, a
slight service improvement argument can be made, but it would not be dramatic.
However, one distinct advantage the City offers is that the required minimum lot
size for unsewered property is less in the City than in the Township. The Township
requires 2.5 acres for a lot in the subject neighborhood, whereas the City would only
require 1.5 acres on the property1 (as long as on -site sewage treatment is possible).
The two planned lots on the Murphy property would be about 1.6 acres and 2.2
acres in size. Therefore, the property could possibly be split if it were in the City,
but cannot be in the Township.
The Town Board said at their January 12, 2012 meeting that they would offer no
objection to a request by the Murphys to detach from the Township and be annexed
to the City of Stillwater.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Recommend approval of the requested annexation with the following conditions:
a. Approval of the annexation does not compel the City to approve the future
split of the property into two lots.
b. When application is made by the landowners for a lot split, a septic system
designer must provide proof that an on -site septic system will function
satisfactorily on the new lot and that the loss of 1.65 acres will not make
future on -site septic service for the existing lot difficult.
The property would ultimately be rezoned to RA, Single Family Residential if annexed. Minimum lot size in
the RA district is 10,000 square feet. But, the property is also located in the St. Croix River Overlay district,
which requires 1 acre for unsewered lots. Finally, the property is encumbered by a scenic easement since it is
located within the National Wild and Scenic River Corridor of the St. Croix River. The easement requires a
minimum lot size of 1.5 acres. Since the easement is the most restrictive of the lot size standards, its 1.5 acre
minimum requirement takes precedence.
Murphy Annexation
February 9, 2012
Page 3
c. When the landowners make application for the lot split, they will also need
to make application for a rezoning and for a minor Comprehensive Plan
amendment to include the property within the City's future land use map.
2. Recommend denial of the requested annexation.
3. Continue the public hearing until the next meeting for more information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative one.
attachments: Location and Zoning Map
Survey
Applicant Letter
Stillwater Township
1iUwater
Murphy Property
B,,tk01nnesota,
Zoning Map
9154
9090
9090
14440
14490
- - - HIGHWAY ... 96
2270
14491
qTF
321
311
404
402
318
1912
1904
- ._POPLAR'_. STRREBT.
306
January 2012
Zoning Districts
4111111e012 city limit
browns creek and Cribs
missing row 6
D A -P, Agricultural Preservation
RA- Single Family Residential
O RB - Two Family
❑ TR, Traditional Residential
LR, Lakeshore Residential
❑ CR, Cottage Residential
▪ CTR, Cove Traditional Residential
■ CCR, Cove Cottage Residential
. CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential
TH, Townhouse
❑ RCM - Medium Density Residential
LIRCH - High Density Residential
❑ VC, Village Commercial
MCA - General Commercial
CBD - Central Business District
BP -C, Business Park - Commercial
. BP -0, Business Park - Office
❑ BP -I, Business Park - Industrial
IB - Heavy Industrial
CRD - Campus Research Development
EPA - Public Administration
. PROS - Park, Recreation or Open Space
D Public Works Facility
❑ ROAD
WATER
Bearing system Assumed. CERTIFICATE -OF SURVEY "M." Ind. Notes
value
• Ind. iron found in place. BARRETTT J. STACK, LAND SURVEYOR "R." Ind. Record value.
o Ind. 413774 iron pipe set. tel. (651) 439 -5630 Approx. contour data per Wash.
"Deed" Ind. Deed call. County mapping.
The right -of -way of Fairy Falls ;J.oad North Drainfield Loc. shown is approximate.
is not currently defined by desc. in furnished "EBT" Ind. approx. loc. of Bit. Pavt.
documents as to right -of -way width and the use The overall parcel is subject to a Scenic
of this publically maintained road easement is Easement as Desc. in Doc. No. 367575.
�`'� assumed to be an easement that is Overall Parcel Description supplied is Rec.
prescriptive in nature. in Doc. No. 316881, Wash. Co. records.
el h-6c/
/;1/..A .0',V Survey Made For: Lynne and David Murphy
91 ;2 iP 1/'N t 9092 Fairy Falls Road North
D/� Stillwater, r'innesota 55082
- � -F,
/- _ ''? -ti
/ � ti ` moz o
ms'
.9 s,
'7-,— -/ \-;3
c� �\
sii � � c mot.- ?
\,1:(
C Is
�s
`! Bl `'x �4
54 j �\ ■
N
Ora Ca e, /s
6.9't //c-
p..< 7Zi!
'L\
FR L�n4 3 \7rp
7;44 v,
i,e /w _oT 3 e \ \
,-1--% L' ,�'w (2/1/ \ \ a
5EC
A-
N
.3\
�� ` i
a ^N- ro \\
\, \ N
C _U
V2 L
�
A ti
l N I / / I
' I —
s \ /
Q,t \ \ L
l
1\1,1.1 l'/ i
' l \ \� \ \\ i , \h
1‘ I \ I , ,�
hN \\\\\\ / , I (ti r-
�� \\ , +,I III\ .;
, ,m\i‘\ \ \ \ \ \\ ■ / 1 -, N / i 4\
\ / /I / / ri) I i:"\ \
N \ iTiki, \\I\ ((\ \\\\\ \\\ j )\ 1 ( 1 ( i /
v ', 41- \ teN I 1 1.
, 1 , \ \ \ QQ,,,, ��`� { (6,)11 Noe rr�
, •rivv. f23z o % 0';
so,linic ,_ 2.7.6? --\—
\ — - - /t Nei ci ii -3 _,e -25¢, 7B = SC,+ 83 -\ S — r ( I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was
--- --- �_ / D,Q/V.E < ' I 1 prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
It am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of
- }� sR ° \� "al )\,
the State of Minnesota.
/OT 7 N \ .:9\ /D
STONE
MuN.,
54/ CAE.'
S474 5E%
la
Date 11 -28 -2011
Reg.No
13774
To City of Stillwater:
Regarding our application of annexation to the City of Stillwater of the property at 9098 Fairy Falls Rd N,
property owners David and Lynne Murphy, PID 16.030.20.44.0006:
We want to subdivide our 3.88 acre property into two lots with the intention of selling the undeveloped
piece (approx. 1.5 ac.) at the south end of the property.
Attached is a recent survey of the 3.88 acres which is contiguous to the city on the south property line.
We have had discussion with the Stillwater Township Board of Supervisors who stated at their meeting
on January 12, 2012, that they will offer no objection to the detachment of the property.
We have had discussion with Chris Stein, of the St Croix National Scenic Riverway Park Service, which
has a scenic easement on the property. That easement requires a minimum of 1.5 acres with frontage
of 250 feet parallel to the river. Our survey indicates that this would allow one buildable lot that would
front on Orwell Court Rd as indicated on the survey enclosed.
The proposed lot would meet all the requirements of the City of Stillwater.
A soil test has not been completed, but the maps indicate that the soils are more than adequate to
support a septic system. A perc test will be done as weather permits.
David and Lynne Murphy
9098 Fairy Falls Rd
Stillwater, MN
651 - 439 -9485
January 13, 2012
Bill Turnblad
From: Rex Perry <rex @rexperry.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:20 AM
To: David .Johnson @Stillwatertownship.com
Cc: michael.s.dahlquist @usace.army.mil; murphylandd @comcast.net; Bill Turnblad
Subject: Public Hearin Case No. 2012 -05
Mr.David Johnson,
Yesterday evening 2/13/12, the Stillwater City Planning Commission met to discuss a proposal to annex the
property at 9098 Fairy Falls Rd. N., currently owned by David and Lynne Murphy and currently part of
Stillwater Township, into the city of Stillwater.
It was noted by Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director, that this issue had been discussed with
members of the Stillwater Town Board and they offered no objection to this transfer.
There were several issues that were brought up during the meeting that most correctly should have been
answered by someone from the Town Board. Among those items discussed was loss of tax base, road
maintenance and future annexation plans.
Unfortunately there was no one from the Township to speak to these issues and as a direct result of there not
being any objections from the Township, the proposal was basically given a green light to proceed.
It seemed to me that the only reason that the City wanted to proceed was that the annexation would increase
their tax base. There was no other noted benefit to the city. I do not care if David and Lynne want to pay higher
property taxes. I, for one, do not.
The City is basically expecting the Township to continue snow plowing and other road maintenance on Orwell
Avenue as the annexation plans do not include the area of the road. I would suggest that the City be advised that
once the annexation is completed that they will have total responsibility for Orwell Avenue North and Orwell
Court.
The issue that concerns me the most is the piecemeal approach and the precedent that that sets for the future.
This is a concern that I, and others, voiced at the meeting. I am sure that there are other property owners that
share a common boundary with the City that would very much like to subdivide. It was noted during the
meeting, and became very apparent, that neither the City nor the Township had any plan for growth or orderly
annexation in this area.
The property located at 9090 Fairy Falls Rd. N which is currently in the township would basically be
surrounded by the city when the Murphy property is annexed. Does it make sense to have that situation? Does
the current resident have a say in the matter?
This seems to be the classic case of putting the cart before the horse. When this annexation plan is approved I
would not be surprised to hear of others who want to do the same thing and given the precedent established by
approval of this case, the City and the Township would be hard pressed to say no.
It is too bad that someone from the Township could not find time to attend this meeting.
Rex Perry
i