Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-01 CC Packet REVISED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North November 1, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. 4:30 P.M. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Possible approval of request to purchase one dehumidifier for the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center IV. STAFF REPORTS 1. Police Chief 2. Fire Chief 3. City Clerk 4. Community Development Dir. – Update on Police Department/City Hall Improvements 5. Public Works Dir. 6. Finance Director 7. City Attorney 8. City Administrator 7:00 P.M. AGENDA V. CALL TO ORDER VI. ROLL CALL VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9. Possible approval of October 18, 2016 regular meeting minutes IX. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS X. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Council may take action or 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. XI. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) all items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a council member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 10. Resolution 2016-197, directing payment of bills 11. Possible approval to purchase laptop for IT Department 12. Resolution 2016-198, approving issuance of a new On-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses to The Velveteen LLC, DBA The Velveteen 13. Resolution 2016-199, appointing emergency election judges and fixing compensation XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS. 14. Case No. 2016-38. This is the date and time for a public hearing to consider a request by Brian Farrell of the Northland Real Estate Group, for the Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing for the property located at 12525 75th Street North and multiple properties located within LR district. PID 30.030.20.42.0002. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on September 30, 2016. (Ordinance – 1st Reading – Roll Call) XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS XIV. NEW BUSINESS 15. Possible approval of resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report for 2017 Street Improvements (Resolution – Roll Call) XV. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) XVI. COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS XVII. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XVIII. STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED) XIX. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 18, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Absent: Councilmembers Weidner and Polehna Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Magnuson Police Chief Gannaway Fire Chief Glaser Public Works Director Sanders City Clerk Ward PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of October 4, 2016 regular, recessed and executive session meeting minutes Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to approve the minutes of the October 4, 2016 regular, recessed and executive session meeting. All in favor. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS There were no petitions, individuals, delegations or commendations. OPEN FORUM Hank Gray, 231 North Everett Street, coach of the Stillwater Area High School Mountain Bike Team, along with team members Amelia Lehmann and Hannah Brown, thanked the Council for granting a special permit for the team to practice at Brown’s Creek Park. They informed the Council that the high school team placed first overall in Division One and the middle school team placed second. STAFF REPORTS Fire Chief Glaser reported that during Fire Prevention Week, crews spoke to over 1,000 students, and over 1,000 people attended the open house. Public Works Director Sanders noted that the Minnesota DNR will not be doing any winter maintenance on the Brown’s Creek Trail this year. Staff would like to discuss with the DNR the possibility of the City doing winter maintenance on the trail. Council consensus was to encourage the discussion. City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5 CONSENT AGENDA Resolution 2016-191, Directing the Payment of Bills Possible approval of sanitary sewer adjustments Resolution 2016-192, approval of increase to railroad lease payment Resolution 2016-193, approval of agreement with SafeAssure Consultant, Inc. for OSHA and Safety Consultation Resolution 2016-194, a resolution denying the demolition of the structure located at 209 Wilkins Street East (HPC Case No. 2016-22) Amended Ordinance No. 1086, an Ordinance of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota annexing land located in Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.033, Subdivision 2(2), Permitting Annexation by Ordinance Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: None PUBLIC HEARINGS A public hearing to consider the assessments for the 2016 Street Improvement Project (Project 2016- 02, L.I. 409) Public Works Director Sanders explained the project. Work should be completed this fall except for the final lift of bituminous work on the reconstructed streets. The cost of the project including engineering, construction and administrative costs is estimated at $1,794,318.64. This cost includes water main replacement and street and utility work on some Oak Park Heights streets, which will be paid by the Stillwater Water Board and the City of Oak Park Heights. Less these areas, the cost of the 2016 Street project is $1,392,699.05. The City received a favorable bid on the project, coming in about 20% lower than estimated in the feasibility study, which resulted in the lowering of some assessment rates. The assessment period would be 10 years at an interest rate of 3.5%. Six appraisals were done in the project area. Appraisals found that the value of the improvement increased property values equal to or more than the amount of the assessment. One objection was received from 613 Olive Street. Staff recommends that Council hold the assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the 2016 Street Improvement Project. Mayor Kozlowski asked about the difference in assessment policy for state aid roads, and Public Works Director Sanders replied that state aid roads are assessed at 50% because they take more traffic than local roads. None of the project area streets are state aid streets. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Tom Murphy, 601 Olive Street West, commended City staff for fielding questions from the property owners and for trying to maintain the project cost at a lower level. He feels the current assessment is now more in line with other projects, but property owners still will see little or no increase in property values. He stated that property owners feel strongly that the improvements will lead to higher traffic and increased speeds and that will decrease property values. He questioned the findings of the appraisal performed by Ray Kirchner and asked why the interest rate could not be lower. He has researched how the assessment rate went from 50 to 70%. He feels City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5 that a significant number of the Councilmembers may have already decided the outcome and that this hearing is really just part of a required process. Mayor Kozlowski agreed that the City should re-examine its assessment policy. He was surprised by the $10,000 assessments. He has struggled with the issue of assessment policy since joining the Council, and has researched what other cities do, which is all across the board. Randy Patterson, 613 Olive Street West, objected to the assessment on the basis that he has a 50 foot lot and will pay over $200 a linear foot. He stated the new street is falling all to pieces and the sidewalk is jagged and uneven. Mr. Sanders replied there was some settling that will be fixed, and another layer of blacktop will be placed in the spring. New streets are expected to last at least 20 years. If a mill and overlay needs to be done in 10 years, property owners would get a credit for the life of the street. The street was tested and found to be hard before it was paved. It will be fixed at the contractor’s cost. The sidewalk previously included six and five foot sections in varying condition. Removing the entire length of sidewalk would have increased project costs, so good sections were left, making matching more difficult. Mayor Kozlowski remarked that he would like to see what a City-wide tax increase would look like in comparison with the current method of property assessment. Kathleen Charlsen, 728 Olive Street West, inquired if the $10,000 assessment could be extended to 20 years. She also noted the traffic is outrageous, and suggested lower speed limit signs be placed on Olive Street. Mr. Magnuson stated that 3.5% is a historically very low interest rate and the average term of assessments has been 15 years rather than 10, so the Council could choose the longer term if they wish. Nina Cook, 814 Olive Street West, asked how the project is actually being paid for. She also asked if the speed limit could be lowered to 15 mph. City Attorney Magnuson replied that funding came from bond issues that were done by capital outlay and from reserves. Mr. Sanders added that the City does not set speed limits. The state law for residential roads in the State of Minnesota is 30 mph. Police Chief Gannaway stated that he asked his staff to do more enforcement on Olive. Mr. Sanders added that the City has two flashing speed limit signs that can be placed on Olive. Chris Mikla, 602 Olive Street West, questioned why the assessments are being made in 2016 for a project that will be completed in 2017, and Public Works Director Sanders replied that when projects span a year, the assessment is done in the year the majority of the project is done. Roni Bozvay, 510 Olive Street West, stated she is already working two jobs and will have to get another part time job to be able to afford the assessment. She would like the Council to consider speed bumps. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Councilmember Junker reminded the residents that the Councilmembers all get assessments too. If it was decided to assess everybody across the board via higher property taxes, it would generate a lot of complaints. If the assessment rate were dropped down to 50% there still would be complaints about that. Olive is an old street that had to be done. He likes some of the ideas that came up in the hearing. Councilmember Menikheim acknowledged that the assessment process is imperfect. He would like to look at some of the ideas brought up. He thanked residents for showing civility. City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt Resolution 2016-195, a resolution adopting assessments for the 2016 Street Improvement Project (Project 2016- 02) L.I. 409, with the term of the assessments to be changed from 10 years to 15 years. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Possible approval of proposal from Brown’s Creek Watershed District for an assessment on the Marylane Drainage Easement Public Works Director Sanders reported that during construction of the Rutherford Station Development, City staff and Brown’s Creek Watershed District fielded concerns from residents along Marylane and the Brown’s Creek Preserve development regarding flooding of their backyards during temporary dewatering activities. Both staffs have concerns that flooding could still occur and conditions may worsen; also that future development of the parcels on the east side of Marylane would increase the runoff in the area and add to drainage issues. Staff feels the easement area should be studied to determine ways to improve the downstream drainage from Marylane. The estimated study cost is $24,127. Since the drainage area is not within City limits it is proposed that the cost of the study be split evenly between the City and the Watershed District. Staff recommends that the Council approve the Marylane easement assessment and share the cost with the Brown’s Creek Watershed District in the amount of $12,060. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to approve the Marylane easement assessment study. All in favor. Possible amendment to the Construction Management contract for police station and city hall remodel City Administrator McCarty explained that on March 8, 2016 the City entered into a contract with Wenck Construction for Construction Management (CM) services related to the Police Station and City Hall remodel project. Based upon the funding authorization for the project, Wenck’s contract could only be written for the first phase of work. Now that preliminary approval has been given by the Council for the 2017 City Budget, which includes funding for the second phase of work, the contract needs to be amended accordingly. The total cost is higher than the original contract, but still within the budgeted allocation. Wenck Construction and City staff are requesting adoption of a resolution approving Amendment #2 to the contract. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt Resolution 2016-196, resolution approving Amendment #2 to the contract with Wenck Construction for Construction Management Services. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: None City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS There were no Council request items. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. All in favor. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Resolution 2016-191, directing the payment of bills Resolution 2016-192, approval of increase to railroad lease payment Resolution 2016-193, approval of agreement with SafeAssure Consultant, Inc. for OSHA and Safety Consultation Resolution 2016-194, a resolution denying the demolition of the structure located at 209 Wilkins Street East (HPC Case No. 2016-22) Resolution 2016-195, resolution adopting assessments for the 2016 Street Improvement Project (Project 2016-02) L.I. 409 Resolution 2016-196, resolution approving Amendment #2 to the contract with Wenck Construction for Construction Management Services Amended Ordinance No. 1086, an Ordinance of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota annexing land located in Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.033, Subdivision 2(2), Permitting Annexation by Ordinance RESOLUTION 2016-197 DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF BILLS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the bills set forth and itemized on Exhibit "A" totaling $235,157.00 are hereby approved for payment, and that checks be issued for the payment thereof. The complete list of bills (Exhibit "A") is on file in the office of the City Clerk and may be inspected upon request. Adopted by the Council this 1st day of November, 2016. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 LIST OF BILLS Action Rental Inc. After Midnight Group AIR Corval Constructors Air Down There AirFresh Industries Inc Airgas USA LLC All Traffic Solutions Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Ancom Communication Inc. APWA Aspen Mills Bald Eagle Sportsmens Assoc. BCA Training & Auditing BDI Gopher Bearing Becker Arena Products Bernicks BL Dalsin Roofing Bolton and Menk Inc. Braun lntertec Corporation Bryan Rock Products Inc. C. Hassis Snow Removal and Yard Services Cates Fine Homes LLC CDW Government Inc. Century Link Cities Digital Solutions Clifton LarsonAllen LLP Comcast Computer Services of Florida Coverall of the Twin Cities Cub Foods ECM Publishers Erenberg Sarah Guardian Supply Hardrives Inc. Haussner Plumbing LLC Hisdahl Inc Hydro-Klean LLC J.H. Larson Company Johnson Ronald Just For Me Spa Kirvida Fire Inc. League of MN Cities LeMoine Chyrisse Lennar of Minnesota Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Concrete & mixing trailer Refund of Tech fee Equipment repair Service face mask Toilet rental Equipment repair supplies Battery Lock repair Batteries Membership Uniforms Range charges Training Equipment repair supplies Equipment repair supplies Beverages for concessions Building repair charges Myrtle lift station work Police/City Hall Remodel McKusick Lake Trails Project Lawn service Grading Escrow Refund Switch Telephone LaserFiche Audit Internet Software Commercial Cleaning Services Refreshments Publications Reimburse for mileage Uniforms Trail improvements Repair flush valves Plaque Storm sewer repairs Equipment repair supplies Repairs Massages for Health Fair Vehicle repair Workers Comp claim Reimburse for Reserve meeting banquet Grading Escrow Refund Arbitration & Administrative Hearings Page 1 772.54 25.00 691.50 40.00 365.00 264.11 295.00 257.40 477.00 230.00 1,639.22 385.00 75.00 453.28 127.76 228.80 2,500.00 7,648.32 1,795.00 932.78 100.00 6,000.00 101.25 41.54 10,333.00 2,000.00 299.80 375.00 2,312.00 57.06 70.35 16.20 1,351.83 25,523.85 230.00 682.00 980.00 1,239.37 112.15 120.00 553.68 2,137.58 380.35 6,000.00 1,663.88 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 Page 2 Mansfield Oil Company Fuel 3,563.97 Marshall Electric Company Electrical work at gazebo 617.00 Menards Equipment repair supplies 1,112.52 MN Fall Maintenance Expo Seminar 100.00 MSSA Winter Chemical Training 40.00 Municipal Emergency Services Uniform 534.13 Newman Signs Supplies 64.54 Northland Real Estate Group Refund of Appeal Fee 50.00 Office Depot Office supplies 475.50 Performance Plus LLC Mask fit 25.00 Pioneer Press Subscription -Fire 148.62 Quicksilver Courier service 43.82 Quill Corporation Office supplies 243.03 R&R Specialties Inc. Paint 770.00 Regency Office Products LLC Office supplies 28.22 Riedell Shoes Inc. Skates 903.44 Rose City Sign Company Installed repaired lens & glass 190.00 Sanders Shawn Reimburse for hotel charges 91.00 SRF Consulting Group Downtown plan update 6,526.08 St. Croix Boat and Packet Co. Arena Billing 47,115.15 St. Croix Recreation Fun Playgrounds Portable bench with back 1,400.00 Stillwater Motor Company Vehicle service 29.24 T.A. Schifsky and Sons Asphalt 3,571.67 Truck Utilities Inc. Equipment repair supplies 741.02 Turnout Rental LLC Bunker pants 400.00 USAble Life Term Life Insurance 434.40 Valley Trophy Inc. Name plate 13.00 Verizon Wireless Wireless service 1,763.28 Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Insurance 154.00 Washington County Dept of Public 2017 Food & Beverage License 605.00 Washington County Sheriffs Office Quarterly MDCs 6,061.99 WSB & Associates Inc. St. Croix Riverbank Stabilization 6,811.00 Zamboni Equipment repair supplies 276.28 CREDIT CARDS Amazon Computers 1,069.96 BCA Training Training 375.00 Buy Door Hardware Supplies 98.00 eBay Supplies 209.66 Log Me In Subscription 149.00 Office Depot Office supplies 26.77 Racine North Computers 2,120.00 St. Croix River Assn Work Shop 27.27 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 LIBRARY Baker and Taylor Brodart Co Butler Melissa Cole Papers ECM Publishers Howe Linnea Menards Midwest Tape Nardini Fire Equipment Office of MN IT Services Paper Roll Products Recorded Books Inc Security Response Services Inc Stillwater Public Library Foundation LIBRARY CREDIT CARDS Amazon.com American Library Association Constructive Playthings Dream Host Etsy Lakeshore Learning Materials The University of Chicago Press OCTOBER MANUALS Century Link Comcast Haak David MN Dept of Commerce MN Dept of Labor & Industry Postmaster Postmaster Verizon Wireless Xcel Energy ADDENDUM Magnuson Law Firm Noble John Robole Donna Xcel Energy Materials Materials Staff Reimbursement Janitorial Supplies Board Meeting Notice Materials Janitorial Supplies Materials Fire Inspection Telephone Supplies Materials Alarm Monitoring Reimbursement of Aug/Sept SPLF CC Materials Materials Minor Equipment Monthly Website Fee Supplies Minor Equipment Materials Telephone TV, internet, voice Refund of overpayment Unclaimed property Plan review fee Utility Billing postage Newsletter postage Police mobile broadband Energy Professional Service Reimburse for work boots Reimburse for mileage Energy Page 3 695.41 2,022.55 13.87 328.15 23.70 61.02 92.35 715.32 149.15 378.67 143.03 35.00 168.12 18.00 603.95 140.00 49.94 19.95 33.13 37.48 109.32 314.70 662.11 61.75 3,272.50 5,648.49 2,847.15 1,487.64 612.26 13,305.25 12,873.58 164.92 48.60 17,157.78 TOTAL 235,157.00 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 Adopted by the City Council this 1st Day of November, 2016 Page 4 Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Diane Ward, City Clerk Date: 10/28/2016 Subject: New On-sale & Sunday Liquor License DISCUSSION: An application for a new On-sale Sunday liquor license has been received from The Velveteen LLC, DBA The Velveteen . The proposed license premises is at 123 2nd Street N, Suite 101. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval contingent upon the satisfactory investigation, inspections, and approvals from the Police, Fire, Building, Finance Departments, Washington County Department of Health and Minnesota Alcohol Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED). It should be noted that AGED approval is the last approval required before the actual license is issued by staff to the establishment. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting a resolution entitled “Approving issuance of a new On-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses to The Velveteen LLC, DBA The Velveteen”, contingent upon the satisfactory investigation, inspections, and approvals from the Washington County Health Department, Police, Fire, Building, Finance Departments and Minnesota Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division. RESOLUTION 2016-198 APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A NEW ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES TO THE VELVETEEN LLC, DBA THE VELVETEEN WHEREAS, a request has been received from Sarah Moslemi for the issuance of a new On-sale and Sunday liquor license for a restaurant located at 123 2nd Street N, Suite 101; and WHEREAS, approval is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements to hold a Wine and Strong Beer liquor license, the satisfactory investigation, inspections, and approvals from the Washington County, Police, Fire, Building, Finance Departments, and Minnesota Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota, hereby approves the issuance of a new On-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses to The Velveteen LLC., DBA: The Velveteen, 123 2nd Street N, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082. Adopted by Council this 1st day of November 2016. _____________________________ Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: _______________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2016-199 APPOINTING EMERGENCY ELECTION JUDGES AND FIXING COMPENSATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the following named persons, shall be appointed as Election Judges, subject to the attendance of a two hour training to be held on July 18, 21, 26, or October 2016, or completion of on-line training, training for Health Care Judges and training for Head Judges (if applicable), and eligible to serve at the Primary Election to be held on August 9, 2016 and/or the General Election to be held on November 8, 2016: First Name Last Name Address Teresa Salvati 2311 Interlachen Drive Gemma Lockrem 5645 56th Street Circle N Maurice Stenerson 6061 Paris Ave N BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of Stillwater as follows: 1. That the compensation to be paid to the regular Election Judge is hereby fixed at $9.50 per hour; and the compensation for the Head Judges is hereby fixed at $12.02 per hour and that the City will provide food (snack and dinner) to judges as part of their compensation. 2. That the following staff members are designated election officials to assist the City Clerk in the 2016 election administration for the City of Stillwater. Beth Wolf Dawn Thoren Nancy Manos Rich Bornt Jesse Perreboom Rose Holman Brad Junker 3. That the following staff members are hereby also designated election judges to assist in the polling places at the discretion of the City Clerk in the 2016 election administration for the City of Stillwater. Beth Wolf Dawn Thoren Nancy Manos Rich Bornt Jesse Perreboom Brad Junker Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 1st day of November 2016.. ____________________________________ Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Received My name Is Dionne Meisterling and I live at 12550 72"d street north in Stillwater. NOV 1 2016 I have been fortunate enough to have lived in many diverse places such as North Carolina,Texas and New Zealand to name a few. When my husband finished his medical training it was°a'n'exouRtunitWnef Department our lives because we had the opportunity to locate our new life anywhere we wanted to go. We looked at many different states and cities. In the end,we choose Stillwater. Not only did we have family here, we loved Stillwater's charm and beauty. We are not alone in how we feel about this place. As you probably know,Stillwater has won national awards for its beauty. USA today voted Stillwater America's most picturesque small towns in 2015 and Forbes named Stillwater in their top 10 America's Prettiest Towns in 2011. Stillwater's charm is not by accident. Stillwater has a long history and it has grown throughout the years. We are fortunate that Stillwater's growth does not look like what we are seeing in neighboring communities that have allowed massize,super-sized projects to be erected like what we all know is on the horizon if Croix Bay can get this zoning change. I am asking you to vote no tonight for reasons that deal directly with the zoning amendment and with the project. If you are going to let the developer dabble back in forth in between the ZAT and plan then I can do it to. • 1. This ZAT has the same legal effect of spot zoning, something that was avoided when 2008 project was approved. There are no other parcels of land to which the zoning change would benefit. If you want to make the argument that one day Stillwater could annex land and acquire lakeshore property to which this zoning could apply,then be sure to recognize you would have more land available for senior housing at the same time. 2. Although,the developer would like to make this ONLY about the zoning amendment, it would be irresponsible for you to pretend you don't know what will happen next. They have provided the city 2 new plans that clearly depict the same height and density as before. You are fully aware that they have not complied with the feedback you gave them when you voted this down last time because of the density and height. 3. PUD's should not circumvent the spirit and intention of the underlying zoning. That zoning is in place to protect people. At this point that zoning is the only thing protecting me and my family's largest asset. 4. McKenzie's property should not be allowed senior housing because his parcel resides fully in the shoreland overlay district. As does my land. In that district,senior housing is not a permitted use intentionally. When select senior living was approved in 2008, it required the shoreland overlay ordinance be amended. The mayor and council had a discussion about how to the word the ordinance so that properties actually on the lake would not be permitted to have senior housing but to allow an LR property located on an arterial road to have senior housing. It was clear then that a designation was being made as to the inappropriateness of high density on the lake. As nothing with the lake has changed, nor should the rationale for your decision. 5. I want you to provide my family with the same opportunity to develop my land as what you allow for anyone else. When you rezoned Don Mackenzie's land to LR,you said "how can we deny him a rezoning when everyone around him is already LR?" Fair is fair, right? If by some crazy reason,you allow high density to be built along my north and east property lines, how will make sure that when I want to do the same thing that fair is fair? I cannot purchase open space to offset densities. 6. A"yes"vote will open the door for the height and density to be negotiated on every senior housing project .The developer is asking for ANY height and density with no upper limit. Depending upon how things are negotiated, it would be possible to end up with 5+stories buildings in zones that do not allow it. To: City Counsel Tuesday, November 1, 2016 As homeowners and small business owners in the Liberty development we wanted to express our opinions concerning the the proposed senior housing campus, Croix Bay, and the request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) related to the project. Bradley Bush 165 Rutherford Road Stillwater, MN Owner: Natural Medicine of Stillwater (Liberty Lofts) "I am not against city development and very open to a retirement campus. What is concerning is the president that will be created by allowing for 4-story structures that have not been allowed before; excluding the new firehouse training tower which is not a true comparison. Opening this "pandora's box" will lead to future issues in this quaint and livable city. Secondly, this development does not represent the spirit of Stillwater, with it's grandiosity of size and corporate oversight. What makes Stillwater a wonderful place to live is it's open spaces, sensible Mid- West values and reluctance to bend toward urban sprawl trends. Please do not allow for zoning amendment changes and keep Stillwater from becoming the "new" Woodbury! Rebecca Bush 165 Rutherford Road, Stillwater, MN Owner: Natural Medicine of Stillwater (Liberty Lofts) "I am against the Zoning Text Amendment because of the impact that this change can cause not only in this project but for projects in the future. I am in agreement with all the homeowners that came to the first meeting and subsequent meetings to tell you to vote `NO'to the Zoning Text Amendment. We have asked this developer repeatedly to come back with a design that is more representative of Stillwater and smaller in size which they have not done. Please do not let this corporation control this project future developments in our town." P.S. We could not attend tonights meeting due to the timing of the meeting, one day after Halloween, on a school night. We have 4 children, 3 of which attend Rutherford School, and have prior commitments. ONIAMONlon Dear Stillwater Mayor and City Council Members, / Z4/,/ The Stillwater Planning Commission approved a zoning text amendment(ZTA) at its meeting recently. We believe it is a rather sneaky"end around"a decision made by the city council earlier this year. We hope you will consider the potential negative impact the ZTA will have on established single-family neighborhoods and reject the proposal. We are very disappointed that the Stiliwater's City Planning Department is recommending approval of a zoning text amendment related to the PUD regulations as they pertain to Senior Housing,and as they specifically relate to the development proposed by Landform and Northland Real Estate Group. Further,we believe that since the change has the potential for affecting many neighborhoods in the city,notification of the proposed change should be disseminated more widely throughout the city before the amendment is discussed. In addition,we believe that when changes to large tracts of land are proposed,the city's 300-foot neighbor-notification rule is inadequate. Apartment buildings,for that's what senior housing is,will likely bring additional traffic to an already dangerous road around the north end of Long Lake. The apartments will bring noise and light pollution to an area that is special in part because it is quiet and dark at night. The development authorized by the proposed text change will diminish our property values and is not in character with the existing neighborhood. We are not opposed to senior housing. We are seniors who may move to senior housing some day. But we are opposed to dropping large buildings that may exceed 35 feet in height into an established neighborhood of single-family homes with absolutely no buffer between the long established single-family neighborhoods and this new,high-density development. Amending the zoning text will ignore the rights of neighboring homeowners in favor of the developer and their associates who don't live here. Many of those neighboring homeowners,like us,have lived in the neighborhood and paid taxes to the city for decades. Sincerely, hk- -64.4%m> k-LoVeie--k) [co ,t),-z.t,,te,e,,coeae-4-e Or 2) /1)S s Y, .? kci2_ tivfm-e_ , /65 a,twcie_. 9-%r zet ((4 TO: Mayor Kozlowski and the Stillwater City Council members RE: Zoning Text Amendment to the Planned Unit Development regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing-- Case# CPC/2016-38 DATE: November 1,2016 FROM: Gail Pundsack 140 Northland Avenue �Q Stillwater, MN 55082 efria- I was a member of the City of Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan Committee. We spent many hours reviewing and discussing the goals,principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Much of the emphasis was to preserve the unique community character, neighborhoods,and the natural beauty of our city. There are several reasons that I object to the proposed ZAT to the PUD regulations for senior housing as addressed by the Planning Report to the City Council dated November 1, 2016. 1. The structure of the Zoning Text Amendment is not compatible with the 2030 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan. A. An open ended ordinance is not defensible. Throughout the 2030 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan every residential land use category and the corresponding zoning district has specific density requirements. It is contradictory to the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan to create an amendment to any zoning requirement that does not include a quantifying height or density requirement to be met(i.e. up to xx units per acre or not to exceed 1.xx%of the existing zoning regulations). Article vii regarding flexibility is way to obscure and could cover anything. B. Once this ZAT is passed, if a PUD is presented to the City Council for approval,any objections would have to exclude height/density and other"flexibility" issues since the amended zoning has taken those items off the table. If the proposal fits the zoning ordinances,then it should be passed. C. Amending the Zoning text in this way, for a specific project,would be creating a dangerous precedent for additional height/density(or any other)zoning PUD amendments for any other purpose. This dangerous precedent could then be applied to other residential complexes in all areas of the Stillwater Community whenever developers seek(and are denied)multi-level, high density projects. There are several undeveloped and under developed areas in the City of Stillwater(including the historical and downtown areas)that may be used in the future to build additional Senior Housing facilities that will be able to utilize the flexibility of this amendment. D. Although the proposed ZAT is not supposed to be site specific, it is a fact that the Northland Land Development group has submitted this ZAT and has been instrumental in preparing it. If it is passed,they will have successfully circumvented the City Council variance denial of the density and heights on their Croix Bay Senior Housing project. The Croix Bay development is beautiful and may increase our tax base,but it is not justification for passing a Zoning Text Amendment that could have negative repercussions well into the future. 2. The applicable regulations of public necessity to pass this Zoning Amendment is not met---- The real need for senior housing in the Stillwater area should be fully understood. The information from the 2013 Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment(the Assessment)requested by the Washington County Housing&Redevelopment Authority which was prepared by Maxfield Research Inc has been referenced during multiple presentations by Northland Real Estate Group and in the October 12, 2016 Planning report for case 2016-38 A clear understanding of the senior housing shortage is imperative in any decision the City of Stillwater is to make regarding senior housing development opportunities and the future of the Stillwater Community as a whole. The 2013 Assessment was completed referring to the Stillwater area as it includes Stillwater,Oak Park Heights,Bayport, Lake Elmo, Baytown Township and Stillwater Township. Several of the tables included in this 2013 Assessment include the following information: Washington County Stillwater area Percent Population 2000 201,130 26,348 13.1% Population 2010 238,136 30,124 12.7% Over 55 population 2000 31,751 5,180 16.3% Over 55 population 2010 53,972 8,257 15.3% Senior Facility Units 2013 3265 991 30.4% The Stillwater area,as of 2013, had 13%of the total population of Washington County and 15% of the population over 55. At the same time,the Stillwater area had 30%of the Senior Housing Facility units. That is double the percentage of senior facility units in relationship to both populations. The Assessment projection that the senior demand by 2020 of 670 units is first divided in two larger groups: Active Adult need -375 units-Primarily houses,apartments, condos, and twin homes. Service Enhanced need-295 units- Senior housing facilities-general congregation, assisted living and memory care. (see page 303 attached) The 2013 Assessment identified that although "The Stillwater submarket has an abundant supply of senior housing... The greatest need will be for affordable and/or market rate active adult rental units (there is not an affordable senior development in the submarket."(see page 304 attached) The Assessment identified a need for 295 affordable(low-income)senior housing facility units in the Stillwater submarket. They did not identify a need for above market senior housing facilities. Affordable senior housing rent is identified in the 2013 Assessment as"less than 30% of adjusted gross income". (i.e. 30%of AGI @ $30,000=$750 per month). The need for senior housing for low income residents will not be met with the Croix Bay senior housing development. It is being designed as a higher end senior housing facility. The current zoning variance process is sufficient to help the City Council make the determination of exceptions for height/density and other issues on a case by case basis. It should not be amended to enable a senior housing unit that does not meet the projected need. 3. The City Code Section 31-205 indicates the City Council must find that the public necessity and community welfare are furthered. This condition must be met to pass this Zoning Amendment. This condition is not met-- The housing section of the 2030 Comp Plan identifies the importance of preserving our neighborhoods while incorporating affordable housing within residential zones.This calls for a need of more restrictive zoning ordinances not the less restrictive amendment above. The majority of the community is comprised of residential homes and neighborhoods that would be negatively affected by facilities with tall buildings and high densities that bring increased traffic. Control of variances to height or density of housing facilities is to important to the surrounding neighborhoods to be left to arbitrary negotiations with developers. There is value to staff to be able to present a developer's requests to the City Council for determination.It is the elected City Council's responsibility to make a determination on what is in the best interest of the community. They are not elected to oversee a developer's profit margin but to protect the Stillwater community. By approving this specialized zoning text amendment it appears to send the message that the City Council encourages developers to use whatever means they can to circumvent a disapproved variance request. Future multiple unit housing projects could create a way to utilize this precedent to support their zoning issues. This is a downward slope that is a detriment to our community welfare. There are several undeveloped and under developed areas in the City(including some in the historical and downtown areas)that may choose this type of zoning amendment for future development projects. 4. The City Code Section 31-205 indicates the City Council must find that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles,policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. This condition is not met--It does not prove that existing zoning does not satisfy the development need. The proposed zoning amendment is not in general conformance with the following Principles,policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan: a. Land use Goal 2 - "Utilized the future land use map as the overall land use policy statement by designating residential, commercial and parks and open space lands appropriately located with adequate access and buffering from adjacent uses." -Per our zoning, Senior Housing facilities are considered residential in nature. - Senior Housing facilities can reasonably be identified as a combination residential/institutional facility as they provide both housing and employment of support staff(Memory care requires extensive 24 hour care.) This is a higher capacity with higher needs than simple multiple housing units. -As a specialized housing facility placed in an existing residential neighborhood there should be more stringent control (not the proposed lessened control)of zoning regulations to ensure that the facility will not negatively affect the surrounding residential neighborhood. b. Policy 8 of the housing section of the 2030 Comp Plan states that "The city shall endeavor through the development design review process to maintain and enhance Stillwater's community character" - This"development design review process" includes City Council approval/denial of variance requests. The decision of the City Council will be based on how the variance request would have an effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and the community character. - This"development design review process"will be diminished by the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. This is a direct reversal of Policy 8. 5. The Planning Commission October 12,2016 Planning Report listed the following program and policies included in the housing section of the 2030 Comp Plan to support the proposed amendment. These do not support the need for the ZAT. Program 3 "Attempt to meet regional lifecycle housing goals" Policy 4 "Attempt to disburse assisted(affordable)housing throughout the community Policy 5 "Locate assisted(affordable)housing near transit lines and public parks" Policy 9 "Utilize the Future Land Use map to designate residential sites appropriately located for a range of housing densities." We do not accomplish these goals by giving away our zoning process. They do not support the less restrictive text zoning amendment to the PUD regulations which attempts to bypass existing land use goals and policies. 6. The November 1, 2016 Planning Report to the City Council provided a spreadsheet of how the surrounding cities treat zoning height and density for PUDs. They each had different approaches based on the community characteristics, location and available space for development. Stillwater is a very unique community rich in history,natural beauty, developed neighborhoods,with active, involved residents. This decision should be based upon Stillwater's characteristics. It is the right and responsibility of the Stillwater City Council to represent the residents of Stillwater and to act in their best interest. They must ensure that a developer complies with the zoning regulations of the city as developed by Comprehensive Plans over several generations.The Planning Commission,with oversight by the City Council is charged with preserving the goals and intent of the 2030 comprehensive plan. The City of Stillwater City Council has shown their commitment to that responsibility when they approved the PUD subject to modifications to the proposed height and density. Passing this amendment would, in fact,be forfeiting a portion of those rights and responsibilities and setting up a poor precedent for future decisions. DEMAND SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Stillwater Recommendations The Stillwater submarket has somewhat of a limited supply of land for new development as much of the land in Stillwater and Baytown Townships are guided for lower-density. Thus, a significant portion of the housing added will be in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Bayport. The Stillwater submarket is projected to add 1,017 households between 2013 and 2020. Approximately 45%of the general occupancy housing demand will be for single-family homes, 25%for owner-occupied multifamily homes, and 30%for rental units. Stillwater Projected General Occupancy Demand, 2013—2020 General Orcupartcy 1,209 851 58„ ti AtfordaPle eAtittifutiiily 553 798 161 JO 1118 t Modest Move-Lip t'xert,livP M()dest 55 359 138 134 164 Stillwater Projected Senior Demand, 2020 � 4v% Serkior Housing 670 rf AC4l t y " t i I 0 Attord,ibiE. Ownt*i S CFt K t 7„ AI ivit 132 9"5 " 148 0 ?t,1 34 i' !' Note:Because households are mobile and are willing to seek out various housing products in adjacent communi- ties,these demand figures may experience fluctuations. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 303 DEMAND SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS For-Sale Housing: To meet the projected single-family home demand in the Stillwater submar- ket through 2020, a supply of about 235 lots will need to be maintained to allow adequate consumer choice. Currently,the supply is about 90 available lots, meaning that the existing supply needs to triple in the short term to keep pace with potential demand. Rental Housing: A new market rate rental development has not been built for about ten years since Curve Crest Villas. There is sufficient demand for either a market rate, affordable, and/or subsidized property. Senior Housing: The Stillwater submarket has an abundant supply of senior housing with 4.4 Boutwell's Landing, Oak Park Senior Living, and Croixdale, among others. However,these buildings have been successful by drawing residents from a broad area and many of these facilities have future expansion plans. We project demand from local seniors to continue between 2013 and 2020 such that about 375 units of active adult and 295 of service-enhanced Nop units will be needed. The greatest need will be for affordable and/or market rate active adult rental units (there is not an affordable senior development in the submarket) and assisted living jJ units. %f MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 304 Abbi Wittman From: GARY JACOBSEN <GUACOBSEN21@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:52 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: City Council Meeting - Croix Bay Senior Living Complex Mayor and City Council Members, We would like to go on record,just as we had done at the Planning Commission meeting last month,that we are fully supportive of the Croix Bay Senior Living complex and cannot think of a better location for this senior living community. The opportunity to locate this facility on 50 acres (25 of which will be green space) is an outstanding use of this property and let's face it, there is no other available property in Stillwater that would accomplish the obligation for senior housing in this city. This facility IS NOT going to be dropped into a residential neighborhood as has been mentioned by some (there are only 20 homes that are bordering this property on the East and West). This facility IS NOT going to cause anymore traffic than what we experience coming from Liberty. This facility IS the RIGHT CHOICE for this property. What we don't need is another Liberty or Legends being built there. The City Council and Mayor need to move this project forward by approving what the Planning Commission has already passed. Gary & Mary Anne Jacobsen 1 • Abbi Wittman From: Craig Leiser <craig@rotarycraig5960.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:04 PM To: Abbi Wittman Cc: Karen Kill Subject: Jackson Wildlife Management Area Development. • Dear Abbi, Please accept this last minute additional comment regarding the proposed Senior Citizen Housing in the area previously identified as the "Jackson Wildlife Management Area." As I'm sure you are aware, this type of project comes to Browns Creek Watershed District only after the City planning and zoning committee's have acted. In fact, were it not for private citizen concern, we would be unaware of this development until AFTER its' zoning approval, when they would then be asking for Watershed District Approval. In the form of a "Fait Accompli," as the French would say. Considering that the Watershed District was unsuccessful in its attempt to purchase the 34 acres of the Jackson Wildlife Area, you should be aware of why we were trying to purchase. The southern reach of Brown's Creek initiates in Oak Park Heights near Menards. It drains multiple large impervious surface areas (Cub Marketplace, Menards, two auto dealerships, Kohl's, etc.) and thus carries a large amount of surface debris, oil and other elements of concern into Long Lake, where some settling occurs. The outflow of that water as well as everything coming off of the proposed development then flows north to ultimately enter McKusick Lake by way of the Diversion Structure. Jackson Wildlife Area offered significant opportunity for allowing sediment to further settle and phosphorus to be taken up by shoreline plant life. This proposed development, with added impervious, parking areas for vehicles, and reducing of the shoreline vegetation seems more likely to exacerbate our water quality issues. Our concern as the Watershed is ultimately dealing with excess sediment, phosphorus and other undesirable runoff components and volume is that it will make our task of removing or reducing them before it impacts Brown's Creek, a DNR designated trout stream unless we can provide at least preliminary assessment of the added outflow from this new development. Such an assessment would not be the actual process of seeking a permit from Brown's Creek, but rather guidance as to density and placement of structures as they would impact runoff into the South Reach of Brown's Creek. I understand that this development will come up for discussion this evening at the Stillwater City Council and could be in front of Brown's Creek WD at its' next scheduled meeting on Nov. 10, 2016. As I said, since we have not seen anything from the developer in the way of a submittal, we could not nor would not include it in our agenda of that date. 1 As this issue has yet to come before BCWD, consider this as a friendly statement of potential concern as the development goes forward. I do plan on adding these comments to a discussion on the agenda of our next meeting for full awareness of all members of the BCWD Board of Directors on Nov. 10, 2016. Craig Leiser President, Brown's Creek Watershed District Craig@RotaryCraig5960.com 2 Abbi Wittman From: Jill Dreyfus <jilldreyfus@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:36 PM To: Ted Kozlowski; Doug Menikheim; David Junker;Tom Weidner; Mike Polehna Cc: ryanjcollins@hotmail.com;jenna.fletcher@tpl.org; seanhade@comcast.net; eric.fsci@gmail.com; ckelly@stillwaterestateplanning.com; mikekocon@aol.com; afsundberg@yahoo.com;Abbi Wittman;turnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us; lauerathon@gmail.com Subject: Croix Bay Senior Housing Project- comment Dear City Council Members, As a resident of Stillwater in the Liberty on the Lake neighborhood, I am asking you to please vote no tonight at the city council meeting to the large-scale housing project proposed by the developers of Croix Bay. While I do believe that Stillwater needs additional senior housing options, I am deeply concerned about the size and scale of the project in the proposed location, as well as the precedent that a yes vote for a project of this size would set for our town. The current scale of the project seems very much out of line with the character of the surrounding community. My request is to please: 1) Retain the "no"vote from March when the developer asked for the same thing in a different way. 2) Keep senior housing the right size and character for Stillwater 3) Protect our rights as homeowners to not have large scale, commercial facilities in our neighborhoods and on our lakeshores. Thank you for considering my concern,as well as the concerns of others in the area regarding this proposed project. Warm regards, Jill Dreyfus 3645 Homestead Green Stillwater, MN 55082 • 1 Frederic W.Knaak* Of Counsel flcnaak@klaw.us Thomas M.Dailey,P.A. (1943-2015) Wayne B.Holstad** 1 Joseph B.Marshall wholstad@klaw.us H O L S TAD & ! �A. , PLC C Craig J.Benning "Local in character,national in reputation,international in reach" Paralegal cbeuning@klaw.us Michelle E.Hagland mhagland@klaw.us *Also Licensed in Wisconsin&Colorado *Qualified Neutral under Rule 114 Legal Assistant legalassistant@klaw.us **Also Licensed in Iowa, Federal Court of Claims, &US Court of Appeals Washington,D.C. October 31, 2016 VIA EMAIL Mayor Ted Kozlowski and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater, Minnesota 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Mayor Ted Kozlowski - tkozlowski@ci.stillwater.mn.us Councilmember Ward 1 Doug Menikheim—dmenikheim@ci.stillwater.mn.us Councilmember Ward 2 David Junker—djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us Councilmember Ward 3 Tom Weidner—tweidner@ci.stillwater.mn.us Councilmember Ward 4 Michael Polehna—mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us RE: Proposal Zoning Text and Map Amendments 12525 75th Street North (Applicant: Northland Real Estate Group) CASE NO: 2016-13/2016-38 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am, once again, writing to you to address the profound concerns and objections of residents of your City living on Long Lake over yet another proposal by Northland Real Estate Group (or, more accurately, the latest step of an ongoing effort) to locate a massive residential senior housing project on land in the City currently planned for low-density residential use into the foreseeable future. Telephone: (651)490-9078 I Facsimile: (651)490-1580 4501 Allendale Drive I St.Paul,MN 55127 Stillwater Mayor and Council Qctober 31, 2016 Page Two What is being requested of you is that you amend your current Code provisions governing PUDs to afford greater"flexibility"to a developer to ignore, without variance, the current height restrictions that would apply to the above-described parcel. As this parcel is unique in the City, it is hopefully lost on none of you that what is proposed, although it would seem to be a code revision that would apply city-wide, in fact only applies to this parcel: there are no other parcels that meet the standards stated in the proposed text. This kind of three to four-story PUD development of a senior warehouse would only be allowed under your Code on this site if the amendment is passed. Masking what is, in effect, spot zoning, by cloaking modifications in the zoning text as being general in character is still spot zoning if its actual effect is particulized to a single parcel. That is the case here. What is proposed is spot zoning and, consequently, illegal. Adding strength to this argument is the fact that while this developer may wish to utilize open space nearby to argue a lower overall density for a development that is very urban where the construction is to occur, no other resident located in that area will ever be able to do the same for their property. In other words, while the proposed rezoning would allow Northland Real Estate Group to construct a massive senior housing project, no other property owner would be able to do the same, or even a much smaller project, even though they are ostensibly now in a zone that would allow such an option. Not only is the proposed language change particularized to one parcel, it is particularized to one development proposal, and all other landowners in the project area will continue to be required to sell or develop their property as low density residential under the shadow of this massive project. At the very least,this is disparate treatment. At worst, it would represent, in our view, a taking. In addition, it remains remarkable that the clear protections of the City's Shoreline Overlay District, which does apply to the area surrounding Long Lake, would seem to have been glossed over or ignored. This kind of project simply would not be allowed within the shoreline zone under your code. Concerns about the environmental impact on the Long Lake Watershed should also have triggered an environmental assessment of some sort beyond the mere representations of the developer. We understand that a request for an EAS has been properly tendered to the City, but there has yet been no response. We would respectfully urge you to move the EAS process forward on this development and provide the necessary careful review that this massive undertaking should have in terms of its impact on the Long Lake ecosystem. Stillwater Mayor and Council October 31, 2016 Page Three I need to advise you that our clients are very concerned about the clear perception they now have that the City's planning staff, rather than serve to protect the citizens of the City under the zoning code, are now all but openly advocating for the advancement of this proposal. Their only recourse, they believe, is for an immediate appeal to your own good sense of the City's code and what the developer is so obviously up to. We respectfully request that you reject the proposed text amendment change. Sincerely, rederic W. naak Attorney at Law Cc: Clients My name Is Dionne Meisterling and I live at 12550 72nd street north in Stillwater. I have a Chemical Engineering Degree and my MBA in Finance and Venture Capital. From those credentials you would correct in assuming that I like working with facts. So I will approach you tonight the most accurate information I can. I have been fortunate enough to have lived in many diverse places such as North Carolina,Texas and New Zealand to name a few. When my husband finished his medical training it was an exciting time in our lives because we had the opportunity to locate our new life anywhere we wanted to go. We looked at many different states and cities. In the end,we choose Stillwater. Not only did we have family here, we loved Stillwater's charm and beauty. We are not alone in how we feel about this place. As you probably know,Stillwater has won national awards for its beauty. USA today voted Stillwater America's most picturesque small towns in 2015 and Forbes named Stillwater in their top 10 America's Prettiest Towns in 2011. Stillwater's charm is not by accident. Stillwater has a long history and it has grown throughout the years. We are fortunate that Stillwater's growth does not look like what we are seeing in neighboring communities that have allowed massive,super-sized projects to be erected like what we all know is on the horizon if Croix Bay can get this zoning change. White Bear Lake provides a good example of a unique city that has become forever changed in the minds over several residents by a HUGE senior complex on Hwy 61. My mom is a hair dresser in downtown White Bear Lake and everyone that sits in her chair is speaking out how inappropriate the size of that project was for their unique town. I am asking you to vote no tonight for reasons that deal directly with the zoning amendment and with the project. If you are going to let the developer dabble back in forth in between the ZAT and plan then I can do it to. 1. This ZAT has the same legal effect of spot zoning,something that was avoided in 2008 when Select Senior Housing was approved. There are no other parcels of land to which the zoning change would benefit. If you want to make the argument that one day Stillwater could annex land and acquire lakeshore property to which this zoning could apply,then be sure to recognize you would have more land available for senior housing at the same time. 2. Although,the developer would like to make this ONLY about the zoning amendment, it would be irresponsible for you to pretend you don't know what will happen next. They have provided the city 2 new plans that clearly depict the same height and density as before. You are fully aware that they have not complied with the feedback you gave them when you voted this down last time because of the density and height. 3. McKenzie's property should not be allowed senior housing because his parcel resides fully in the shoreland overlay district. As does my land. In that district,senior housing is intentionally not a permitted use. When select senior living was approved in 2008,it required the Shoreland Overlay ordinance be amended. The mayor and council had a discussion about how to word the ordinance so that properties actually on the lake would not be permitted to have senior housing but TO allow an LR property located on an arterial road to have senior housing. It was clear then that a designation was being made as to the inappropriateness of high density on the lake. As nothing with the lake has changed, nor should the rationale for your decision. 4. Please provide my family with the same opportunity to develop my land as what you allow for anyone else. When you rezoned Don Mackenzie's land to LR,you said "how can we deny him a rezoning when everyone around him is already LR?" Fair is fair, right? If by some crazy reason, you allow high density to be built along my north and east property lines, how will make sure that when I want to do the same thing that fair is fair? I cannot purchase open space to offset densities and I am fully in the Shoreland Overlay. 5. A"yes"vote will open the door for the height and density to be negotiated on every senior housing project.The developer is asking for ANY height and density with no upper limit. Depending upon how things are negotiated, it would be possible to end up with 5+stories buildings in zones that do not allow it. 6. This ZAT is in direct opposing to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as detailed by Gail Pundsack. 7. Allowances in the proposed ZAT would allow for worsening of water quality problems that the DNR is trying to address as detailed in the letter from Craig Leiser,the President of the Browns Creek Watershed, dated 11-01-16. I have talked with 3 different real estate agents to see if I could get a handle on whether or not this development or any other development of this size could hurt my property value. The answer I received was that it depends how much height and density. If the height is too high and buildings are within the direct site lines of potential new houses that would be place along the property line then,yes. The answer is also yes if the density is high enough that commercial utilities produce constant white noise or too much lighting. These concerns are the exact reason that cities use buffers and transitional zoning to go from low density to high density. PUD's should not provide developers and avenue to circumvent good planning practices or underlying zoning. At this point the current zoning is the only thing protecting me and my family's largest asset. Our property is our legacy for our family as it was to my father-in-law. The Meisterling family has written a few pages in the history book of Stillwater. My father-in-law started St.Croix Orthopaedics with 1 other doctor in 1977. Before merging with TCO last year,SCO had grown to employ 20 doctors, over 200 employees and was a successful$40M business. I would like to feel as though me and my family can stay in Stillwater and be part of the future of our great city. I ask that you please protect me and my family from what could allow a substantial devaluation of my property. To the Mayor and Council Members of Stillwater, I am writing to support the approval of the text amendment, which would allow three-story senior buildings. Stillwater needs to have many more options for senior housing in the very near future. The proposed ZAT is narrow enough to deal with seniors, but flexible enough to allow a variety of sizes and formats of senior housing, rather than being a “one size fits all.” In addition, it has the benefit of not resulting in “spot-zoning” for the proposed Croix Bay development. Therefore, I commend you all for your initial support of it. I hope to be able to attend some of the public meetings this fall. In regards to the 35’ height of the proposed structure and related issue of density, I would like to point out to the Mayor and Council that the comparative properties in Oak Park Heights are both 4-4½ stories high with slanted roofs. In the scale of economies, we cannot ask the Croix Bay property to provide comparable housing with half the height allowed, and while being able to build on only 25% of the land. The fact that the City has also allowed both Rutherford School and the Stillwater Fire Department to have higher height allowances in this neighborhood demonstrates precedent for slightly higher heights where real need exists, such as this present situation. Finally, consider that the need for such housing is real. The Washington County Housing Authority recently stated that the Stillwater area will need an additional 650 units for senior housing in four years—by 2020. If approved, Croix Bay will provide approximately 30% of that figure. In addition, our current facilities (Good Samaritan and Gold Living/Greeley & Linden) are all aging and will need to be renovated or replaced. I urge to you vote “yes” for the text amendment to allow 3-story senior buildings on November 1st and “yes” to the Croix Bay project on December 6th so that Stillwater residents have needed housing option! Thank you all for your work. I love living in Stillwater, and part of the reason is because of all the work that you folks do. Thank you! Kind regards, Stephen L. Huebscher 703 Wilkins St. N., Stillwater Cell: (651) 210-0225//email: huebscher@juno.com Disclosure: I am a member of Grace Baptist Church which hopes to sell part of its land for the Croix Bay development. 1 Diane Ward From:Jill Gmail <jillian.reiman@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:45 PM To:Abbi Wittman; Mike Polehna Subject:Please vote No Dear Stillwater Mayor and City Council,    I appreciate your time and attention to this request.      I'm writing to request that the Stillwater City Council vote no to the proposed zoning amendment that would allow  senior housing to be built at heights and densities not consistent with the underlying zoning.     I believe Croix Bay development is not consistent with the surrounding communities in size or scope and I have to  wonder how this aligns with the overall City plan.     The proposed building structures at 41’ are out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhood and are  beyond the underlying zoning maximum of 35 feet.  The proposed density of 220 units make this residential housing  proposal the size of a commercial project and are beyond the limit of 2.2 units per acre allowed by law.  The noise, light  and traffic from the proposed density will have a significant negative impact to the communities that surround this site.   They had not been planned to mitigate this type of impact.         Thank you    ‐Jillian Reiman    Sent from my iPhone  1 Diane Ward From:Maribeth Lundeen <emblund@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:50 PM To:Abbi Wittman Subject:Croix Bay I live at 3623 Pine Hollow Pl.  I am writing in support of the proposed Croix Bay development. I think that this type of  housing is needed in Stillwater and that it would enhance our community.  As a citizen of Stillwater I would like to have  an option of living in Stillwater when the time comes that I need that type of housing.  I hope the council approves the  amendment that Croix Bay is requesting tonight.  Thank you. Maribeth Lundeen  1 Diane Ward From:Abbi Wittman Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:46 AM To:Diane Ward; Nancy Manos; 'Kendra Lindahl, AICP' Subject:FW: Croix Bay Here is another public comment for Croix Bay.    Abbi  Jo Wittman    P: 651‐430‐8822  F: 651‐430‐8810    www.ci.stillwater.mn.us    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Cheryl Swenson [mailto:mcswens@comcast.net]   Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:43 AM  To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us>  Subject: Croix Bay    Very interested in Croix Bay project and support it wholeheartedly.      Marv and Cheryl Swenson      Dear Stillwater City Council Member, Mike Polehna, The Stillwater Planning Commission approved a zoning text amendment (ZTA) at its meeting recently. We believe it is a rather sneaky "end around" a decision made by the city council earlier this year. We hope you will consider the potential negative impact the ZTA will have on established single-family neighborhoods and reject the proposal. We are very disappointed that the Stillwater's City Planning Department is recommending approval of a zoning text amendment related to the PUD regulations as they pertain to Senior Housing, and as they specifically relate to the development proposed by Landform and Northland Real Estate Group. Further, we believe that since the change has the potential for affecting many neighborhoods in the city, notification of the proposed change should be disseminated more widely throughout the city before the amendment is discussed. In addition, we believe that when changes to large tracts of land are proposed, the city’s 300-foot neighbor-notification rule is inadequate. Apartment buildings, for that's what senior housing is, will likely bring additional traffic to an already dangerous road around the north end of Long Lake. The apartments will bring noise and light pollution to an area that is special in part because it is quiet and dark at night. The development authorized by the proposed text change will diminish our property values and is not in character with the existing neighborhood. We are not opposed to senior housing. We are seniors who may move to senior housing some day. But we are opposed to dropping large buildings that may exceed 35 feet in height into an established neighborhood of single-family homes with absolutely no buffer between the long established single-family neighborhoods and this new, high-density development. Amending the zoning text will ignore the rights of neighboring homeowners in favor of the developer and their associates who don’t live here. Many of those neighboring homeowners, like us, have lived in the neighborhood and paid taxes to the city for decades. Sincerely, Wes and Deirdre Kramer 7100 Mid Oaks Ave North 1 October 30, 2016 Stillwater Mayor and City Council Members, City Planning Staff Reference Case 2016-38. November 1, 2016 City Council Meeting The City’s PUD Permit Code Sec. 31-210 does not specifically address Senior Housing related applications. It is well documented that senior housing market demand is strong with needs for new additional housing units nationwide, including in Stillwater. Recently the City Planning Commission voted to approve an update to the City’s PUD Code to include a section deemed appropriate to specifically address Senior Housing PUD Applications. It is believed that this update will provide needed guidance to better facilitate both Planning and Council future reviews of senior housing applications. Under Case 2016-38 the Council is being requested by Planning to review and vote for that updated PUD Code to address future senior Housing applications. I am writing to you today to demonstrate my full support for a Council vote of approval on the Commission’s updated PUD Code. However I do have some concern that the 20 acre minimum requirement [Sec. 31-210 item 3) i)], although certainly appropriate for modern campus style life cycle senior housing, it may be too restrictive for certain other style senior housing. One could certainly envision a viable future PUD compact style senior housing application on a smaller site. I merely ask Council to consider this concern. I am in full support of the Council’s final decision to approve the needed update to the PUD code whether or not item 3) i) is maintained as approved by Planning Commission or is slightly modified. Respectfully Submitted, Don McKenzie 12620 72nd Street N. Stillwater, MN 55082 1 October 31, 2016 Stillwater Mayor and City Council Members, City Planning Staff Reference Case 2016-38. Updating of PUD Code to include Senior Living Section I am writing to advise that I am in full support of the Planning Commission’s modified version of the City’s PUD Code to include Senior Housing section. It is suggested that the City Council vote to adopt this update of the PUD Code, as it will help to provide future guidance for Planning Commission and City Council on future Senior housing development proosals. Sincerely, Rosemary, McKenzie Rosemary McKenzie 12620 72nd Street N. Stillwater, MN 55082 2 October 30, 2016 October 31, 2016 Stillwater Mayor and City Council Members, City Planning Staff Reference Case 2016-38. November 1, 2016 City Council Meeting The City’s PUD Permit Code Sec. 31-210 does not specifically address Senior Housing related applications. It is well documented that senior housing market demand is strong with needs for new additional housing units needed nationwide. Recently the City Planning Commission voted to approve an update to the City’s PUD Code to include a section deemed appropriate to specifically address Senior Housing Applications. It is believed that this update will provide needed guidance to better facilitate both Planning and Council future reviews of senior housing applications. Under Case 2016-38 the Council is being requested by Planning to review and vote for that updated PUD Code to address future senior Housing applications. I am writing to you today to demonstrate my full support for a Council vote of approval on the Commission’s updated PUD Code. However I do want to mention that I do have some concern that the 20 acre minimum requirement [Sec. 31-210 item 3) i)], although certainly appropriate for modern campus style life cycle senior housing, it may be too restrictive for certain other style senior housing. One could certainly envision a viable future PUD compact style senior housing application on a smaller site. I merely ask Council to consider this concern and yield to the. I am in full support of the Council’s decision to approve the needed update to the PUD code. 3 Respectfully Submitted, Don McKenzie 12620 72nd Street N. Stillwater, MN 55082 1 Diane Ward From:Abbi Wittman Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:43 AM To:Diane Ward Cc:Nancy Manos Subject:FW: Vote No big buildings Will you please add this to the Council add‐on packet?    Thank you.    Abbi Jo Wittman P: 651-430-8822 F: 651-430-8810 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us   From: wade nelson [mailto:wadenelson.w@gmail.com]   Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:42 AM  To: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us>  Subject: Vote No big buildings  Hi my name is wade Nelson I'm writing u in regards to changing zoning laws for a senior citizen building . I think having such a large scale building built so close to normal houses would be a blight . Liberty housing development is already crowded! And the area the deleveoper wants to build is a nice wooded area overlooking a lake. It is really no place for a multi story building. There is enough car traffic in the area ... I know there is a need for buildings such as a senior building but there are plenty off other places suited for that!! The area that is in question is very buetiful and pristine. I'm not a tree huger what's so ever I'm for progress but it has to be done in way that's is smart. So please think of the impact on the people who live in the area and vote no On the changing of the zoning laws. There was very good reason that this area was zone the way it was. This way Stillwater dose not become a Woodbury !!! A over crowded mess!!! because once the area starts getting built on its hard to stop it!! Sincerely wade Nelson Get Outlook for iOS 1 Diane Ward From:Abbi Wittman Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:06 AM To:Diane Ward Subject:FW: Northland Real Estate Group Proposal(Croix Bay Project) And another…    Abbi Jo Wittman P: 651-430-8822 F: 651-430-8810 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us   From: MNM_14MGR@discounttire.com [mailto:MNM_14MGR@discounttire.com]  Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:38 AM  To: Ted Kozlowski <tkozlowski@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Doug Menikheim <dmenikheim@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; David Junker  <djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Tom Weidner <tweidner@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Mike Polehna  <mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; turnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us;  ryanjcollins@hotmail.com; jenna.fletcher@tpl.org; seanhade@comcast.net; eric.fsci@gmail.com;  ckelly@stillwaterestateplanning.com; mikeocon@aol.com; lauerathon@gmail.com; afsundberg@yahoo.com  Subject: Northland Real Estate Group Proposal(Croix Bay Project)  City Council and City Planners, I unfortunately am unable to attend tonight's city council meeting regarding amending the current zoning for senior housing. I own a home on 190 Northland Ave and would definitely not agree to the zoning amendment. I ask that you vote "NO" like last March when the developer asked for the same thing in a different way. I also ask that you please keep senior housing the right size and character for Stillwater. Protect our rights as homeowners to not have large scale, essentially commercial facilities in our neighborhoods and on our lakeshores. Sincerely, Brandon Enerson Store Manager Discount Tire Co. (651)351-5172 mnm_14mgr@discounttireco.com This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com 1 Diane Ward From:Abbi Wittman Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:45 AM To:Diane Ward Subject:FW: Proposed change in zoning as requested by Northland Real Estate Group Will you please include the enclosed as an item in the add‐on packet today?    Thank you.    Abbi Jo Wittman P: 651-430-8822 F: 651-430-8810 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us   From: John Braatz [mailto:johnb@mtechmn.com]   Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:03 AM  To: Ted Kozlowski <tkozlowski@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; David Junker <djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Tom Weidner  <tweidner@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Mike Polehna <mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Abbi Wittman  <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; turnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us; Doug Menikheim <dmenikheim@ci.stillwater.mn.us>  Subject: Proposed change in zoning as requested by Northland Real Estate Group    To: Stillwater Mayor and City Council Members From: John and Candis Braatz, 7070 Mid Oaks Avenue Date: November 1st, 2016 Regarding: Proposed change in zoning as requested by Northland Real Estate Group We respectfully request that you factor in our position on the proposed zoning change under consideration for the land between county road 12 and 72nd street, west of Northland Avenue and east of Rutherford elementary school. We are against the proposed zoning change for the following reasons:  This land is adjacent to Long Lake, one of the few natural areas remaining in Stillwater. Large buildings, commercial or otherwise, would have an extremely negative aesthetic impact on this area and would compromise the experience for all who presently enjoy this space.  This is a residential area. Changing the zoning to allow large buildings would limit the city council's ability to maintain control over future developments, negatively impacting the value to the current residents. We are not opposed to a retirement facility being constructed on this land but we feel strongly that it fit in with the surroundings A monstrous building would be in great conflict with the natural charm of the area. Limiting the height to 35 feet and the capacity to 110 units is an appropriate compromise. Thank you all for your effort and consideration on this matter. Regards, 2 John Braatz Cell 612-382-0815 Email johnb@mtechmn.com 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 . Washington ,;-;:;County Board of Commissioners Fran Miron, Chair, District 1 Gary Kriesel, District 3 Karla Bigham, District 4 Lisa Weik, District 5 9:00 9:00 9:10 9:10 9:40 9:55 10:10 Roll Call BOARD AGENDA NOVEMBER 1, 2016 -9:00 A.M. Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Public Visitors may share th eir comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibilityor function of WashingtonCounty Govemment, whether or not the issue is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Boardmustfill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to th e County Board secretary or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium , state your name and city of residence, and present your comments. Yourcommenlsmusl be addressedexclusivelyto the Board Chair and th e full Board of Commissioners . Commen ts addressed to individual Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presenta tion to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair res erves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, over ly argumentative, or ifit is not relevant to an issue that is par/ of Washington County'sResponsibilities Consent Calendar -Roll Call Vote Public Hearing-Community Development Agency-Barbara Dacy, Executive Director Resolution -Approval of Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2 and Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-2 Red Rock Crossing General Administration -Molly O'Rourke, County Administrator Letter of Support for Election of Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator, to the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (MCIT) Board of Directors and Molly O'Rourke, County Administrator, as Voting Delegate at the MCIT Annual Meeting on December 5, 2016 Commissioner Reports -Comments -Questions This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report lo the full Board on committee activities, make corxzf/Ots on ma tiers of interest and information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during thi s time . Any act ion necessary because of discussion will be scheduled/or a future board meeting. Board Correspondence Adjourn Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room . . EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSENT CALENDAR * NOVEMBER 1, 2016 The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption : DEPARTMENT/AGENCY Administration Public Works Sheriffs Office ITEM A. Approval of October 18, 2016 County Board Meeting Minutes. B. Approval to appoint Anne Maule Miller, Stillwater, to the Brown's Creek Watershed District Board of Managers to a three-year term expiring November 13, 2019. C. Approval of partnership agreement with Brown's Creek Watershed District for purchase of Lauenstein property. D. Adoption of resolution to authorize final payment in the amount of $38,331.50 to Taylor Electric Company for completion of the County State Aid Highway 14 Signal Revisions Project. E. Approval of an amendment to a land lease agreement Washington County has with the City of Hudson, Wisconsin. Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action. Assistive 11:stonfnq device.s are available for use in , the County Board Room EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER REGULAR MEETING RECESSED MEETING lllwater ACE OF MINNESOTA 114E X IRTXEL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North November 1, 2016 4:30 P.M. AGENDA 4:30 P.M. 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Possible approval of request to purchase one dehumidifier for the St. Croix Valley Recreation Center IV. STAFF REPORTS 1. Police Chief 2. Fire Chief 3. City Clerk 4. Community Development Dir. - Update on Police Department/City Hall Improvements 5. Public Works Dir. 6. Finance Director 7. City Attorney 8. City Administrator 7:00 P.M. AGENDA V. CALL TO ORDER VI. ROLL CALL VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9. Possible approval of October 18, 2016 regular meeting minutes IX. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS X. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Council may take action or 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. XI. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) all items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a council member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 10. Resolution 2016-197, directing payment of bills 11. Possible approval to purchase laptop for IT Department XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS. 12. Case No. 2016-38. This is the date and time for a public hearing to consider a request by Brian Farrell of the Northland Real Estate Group, for the Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing for the property located at 12525 75th Street North and multiple properties located within LR district. PID 30.030.20.42.0002. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on September 30, 2016. (Ordinance — 1st Reading — Roll Call) XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS XIV. NEW BUSINESS 13. Possible approval of resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report for 2017 Street Improvements (Resolution — Roll Call) XV. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) XVI. COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS XVII. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XVIII. STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED) XIX. ADJOURNMENT illwater 114E OIRTNELACE OF MINNESOTA j) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 18, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Absent: Councilmembers Weidner and Polehna Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Magnuson Police Chief Gannaway Fire Chief Glaser Public Works Director Sanders City Clerk Ward PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of October 4, 2016 regular, recessed and executive session meeting minutes Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to approve the minutes of the October 4, 2016 regular, recessed and executive session meeting. All in favor. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS There were no petitions, individuals, delegations or commendations. OPEN FORUM Hank Gray, 231 North Everett Street, coach of the Stillwater Area High School Mountain Bike Team, along with team members Amelia Lehmann and Hannah Brown, thanked the Council for granting a special permit for the team to practice at Brown's Creek Park. They informed the Council that the high school team placed first overall in Division One and the middle school team placed second. STAFF REPORTS Fire Chief Glaser reported that during Fire Prevention Week, crews spoke to over 1,000 students, and over 1,000 people attended the open house. Public Works Director Sanders noted that the Minnesota DNR will not be doing any winter maintenance on the Brown's Creek Trail this year. Staff would like to discuss with the DNR the possibility of the City doing winter maintenance on the trail. Council consensus was to encourage the discussion. City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 CONSENT AGENDA Resolution 2016-191, Directing the Payment of Bills Possible approval of sanitary sewer adjustments Resolution 2016-192, approval of increase to railroad lease payment Resolution 2016-193, approval of agreement with SafeAssure Consultant, Inc. for OSHA and Safety Consultation Resolution 2016-194, a resolution denying the demolition of the structure located at 209 Wilkins Street East (HPC Case No. 2016-22) Amended Ordinance No. 1086, an Ordinance of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota annexing land located in Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.033, Subdivision 2(2), Permitting Annexation by Ordinance Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: None PUBLIC HEARINGS A public hearing to consider the assessments for the 2016 Street Improvement Project (Project 2016- 02, L.I.409) Public Works Director Sanders explained the project. Work should be completed this fall except for the final lift of bituminous work on the reconstructed streets. The cost of the project including engineering, construction and administrative costs is estimated at $1,794,318.64. This cost includes water main replacement and street and utility work on some Oak Park Heights streets, which will be paid by the Stillwater Water Board and the City of Oak Park Heights. Less these areas, the cost of the 2016 Street project is $1,392,699.05. The City received a favorable bid on the project, coming in about 20% lower than estimated in the feasibility study, which resulted in the lowering of some assessment rates. The assessment period would be 10 years at an interest rate of 3.5%. Six appraisals were done in the project area. Appraisals found that the value of the improvement increased property values equal to or more than the amount of the assessment. One objection was received from 613 Olive Street. Staff recommends that Council hold the assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the 2016 Street Improvement Project. Mayor Kozlowski asked about the difference in assessment policy for state aid roads, and Public Works Director Sanders replied that state aid roads are assessed at 50% because they take more traffic than local roads. None of the project area streets are state aid streets. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Tom Murphy, 601 Olive Street West, commended City staff for fielding questions from the property owners and for trying to maintain the project cost at a lower level. He feels the current assessment is now more in line with other projects, but property owners still will see little or no increase in property values. He stated that property owners feel strongly that the improvements will lead to higher traffic and increased speeds and that will decrease property values. He questioned the findings of the appraisal performed by Ray Kirchner and asked why the interest rate could not be lower. He has researched how the assessment rate went from 50 to 70%. He feels Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 that a significant number of the Councilmembers may have already decided the outcome and that this hearing is really just part of a required process. Mayor Kozlowski agreed that the City should re-examine its assessment policy. He was surprised by the $10,000 assessments. He has struggled with the issue of assessment policy since joining the Council, and has researched what other cities do, which is all across the board. Randy Patterson, 613 Olive Street West, objected to the assessment on the basis that he has a 50 foot lot and will pay over $200 a linear foot. He stated the new street is falling all to pieces and the sidewalk is jagged and uneven. Mr. Sanders replied there was some settling that will be fixed, and another layer of blacktop will be placed in the spring. New streets are expected to last at least 20 years. If a mill and overlay needs to be done in 10 years, property owners would get a credit for the life of the street. The street was tested and found to be hard before it was paved. It will be fixed at the contractor's cost. The sidewalk previously included six and five foot sections in varying condition. Removing the entire length of sidewalk would have increased project costs, so good sections were left, making matching more difficult. Mayor Kozlowski remarked that he would like to see what a City-wide tax increase would look like in comparison with the current method of property assessment. Kathleen Charlsen, 728 Olive Street West, inquired if the $10,000 assessment could be extended to 20 years. She also noted the traffic is outrageous, and suggested lower speed limit signs be placed on Olive Street. Mr. Magnuson stated that 3.5% is a historically very low interest rate and the average term of assessments has been 15 years rather than 10, so the Council could choose the longer term if they wish. Nina Cook, 814 Olive Street West, asked how the project is actually being paid for. She also asked if the speed limit could be lowered to 15 mph. City Attorney Magnuson replied that funding came from bond issues that were done by capital outlay and from reserves. Mr. Sanders added that the City does not set speed limits. The state law for residential roads in the State of Minnesota is 30 mph. Police Chief Gannaway stated that he asked his staff to do more enforcement on Olive. Mr. Sanders added that the City has two flashing speed limit signs that can be placed on Olive. Chris Mikla, 602 Olive Street West, questioned why the assessments are being made in 2016 for a project that will be completed in 2017, and Public Works Director Sanders replied that when projects span a year, the assessment is done in the year the majority of the project is done. Roni Bozvay, 510 Olive Street West, stated she is already working two jobs and will have to get another part time job to be able to afford the assessment. She would like the Council to consider speed bumps. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Councilmember Junker reminded the residents that the Councilmembers all get assessments too. If it was decided to assess everybody across the board via higher property taxes, it would generate a lot of complaints. If the assessment rate were dropped down to 50% there still would be complaints about that. Olive is an old street that had to be done. He likes some of the ideas that came up in the hearing. Councilmember Menikheim acknowledged that the assessment process is imperfect. He would like to look at some of the ideas brought up. He thanked residents for showing civility. Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt Resolution 2016-195, a resolution adopting assessments for the 2016 Street Improvement Project (Project 2016- 02) LI. 409. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Possible approval of proposal from Brown's Creek Watershed District for an assessment on the Marylane Drainage Easement Public Works Director Sanders reported that during construction of the Rutherford Station Development, City staff and Brown's Creek Watershed District fielded concerns from residents along Marylane and the Brown's Creek Preserve development regarding flooding of their backyards during temporary dewatering activities. Both staffs have concerns that flooding could still occur and conditions may worsen; also that future development of the parcels on the east side of Marylane would increase the runoff in the area and add to drainage issues. Staff feels the easement area should be studied to determine ways to improve the downstream drainage from Marylane. The estimated study cost is $24,127. Since the drainage area is not within City limits it is proposed that the cost of the study be split evenly between the City and the Watershed District. Staff recommends that the Council approve the Marylane easement assessment and share the cost with the Brown's Creek Watershed District in the amount of $12,060. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to approve the Marylane easement assessment study. All in favor. Possible amendment to the Construction Management contract for police station and city hall remodel City Administrator McCarty explained that on March 8, 2016 the City entered into a contract with Wenck Construction for Construction Management (CM) services related to the Police Station and City Hall remodel project. Based upon the funding authorization for the project, Wenck's contract could only be written for the first phase of work. Now that preliminary approval has been given by the Council for the 2017 City Budget, which includes funding for the second phase of work, the contract needs to be amended accordingly. The total cost is higher than the original contract, but still within the budgeted allocation. Wenck Construction and City staff are requesting adoption of a resolution approving Amendment #2 to the contract. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt Resolution 2016-196, resolution approving Amendment #2 to the contract with Wenck Construction for Construction Management Services. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Junker, Mayor Kozlowski Nays: None Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS There were no Council request items. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. All in favor. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Resolution 2016-191, directing the payment of bills Resolution 2016-192, approval of increase to railroad lease payment Resolution 2016-193, approval of agreement with SafeAssure Consultant, Inc. for OSHA and Safety Consultation Resolution 2016-194, a resolution denying the demolition of the structure located at 209 Wilkins Street East (HPC Case No. 2016-22) Resolution 2016-195, resolution adopting assessments for the 2016 Street Improvement Project (Project 2016-02) L.I. 409 Resolution 2016-196, resolution approving Amendment #2 to the contract with Wenck Construction for Construction Management Services Amended Ordinance No. 1086, an Ordinance of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota annexing land located in Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.033, Subdivision 2(2), Permitting Annexation by Ordinance Page 5 of 5 STAFF REQUEST ITEM Department: St. Croix Valley Rec Ctr Date: 10/20/16 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Request to purchase one dehumidifier for the St. Croix Valley Recreation center FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost of the units are $56,285 to $84,222 and we will need to install it which will be approximately $10,000 in addition to the quote below. Funding would be capital outlay 2015 rollover of $67,250 2016 HVAC and a grant received through the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission. Quote 1 Trane $84,222 Quote 2 SVL $56,610 Quote 3 MMS $56,285 Staff recommends approving Quote 2 SVL is the most responsible bidder Total cost of project is $66,285 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED Yes x No Submitted by: Douglas Brady Date:10/20/16 f %%�7°Pkc \JM J^ IA7/ Ge,41 Ao �*CiNtsT'�+f`T t11v MANE' Prepared For: Doug Brady Job Name: Stillwater Rec Center HVAC Proposal (Valid for 30 days from Proposal date) Date: October 11, 2016 Proposal Number: S3-109399-1 Delivery Terms: Payment Terms: Freight Allowed and Prepaid - F.O.B. Factory Net 30 Days Trane U.S. Inc. dba Trane is pleased to provide the following proposal for your review and approval. Tag Data - ICE Westem DU (Qty: 1) Item I Tag(s) ( Qty I Al DH -1 1 Product Data - ICE Western DU DH -1 1- 10EW model OSD109-WSG- 1070X200 Outdoor down discharge bottom R/A dehumidifier utilizing desiccant wheel and direct fired regeneration heater 4,500 cfm airflow to process area @ 0.75 w.c. esp w/ 5 Hp 1485 cfm for regeneration w/ 2 Hp motor 208/3/60, 400 MBH input for direct fired regeneration 7-14" w.c. Natural gas manifold c/w direct fired burner section, high temperature modulating gas valve w/ discharge air sensor and remote temperature selector unit mounted, special high limit for regeneration, manifold controls enclosure for manifold and control, regeneration filter rack w/ 2" pleated filters, process filter section w/ 2" pleated filters, inlet damper for regeneration w/ 2 position damper motor, exhaust damper for regeneration w/ 2 position damper motor, 2" 3 lb density insulation, 22 gauge solid liner, unit mounted control panel, humidity sensor, Allen Bradly Micrologics PLC w/ HMI, geaseable bearings, ACTECH VFD BI fan for regeneration, motor and bearings out of air stream for regeneration, stainless steel plates and screens to protect wheel from burner, desiccant wheel WSG 1070X200, hinged access doors w/ Austin Romtech handles, roof curb. Total Net Price (Excluding Sales Tax) ......... $ 84,222.00 Tax Status: Taxable Fi Exempt 0 IF EXEMPT PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE WIN YOUR SIGNED PROPOSAL OR WITH YOUR PURCHASING DOCUMENTS, KEEP YOUR ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE. YOU WILL BE CHARGED TAX IF A VALID EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE IS NOT ON FILE BEFORE EQUIPMENT, PARTS OR SERVICES ARE PROVIDED. SEE WWW.TAXSITES.COM/STATE-LINKS HTML FOR TAX FORMS Anticipation Discount Trane has created an easy way to reduce your cost through the Anticipation Discount Program (ADP). ADP is a flexible program designed for all customers. Your discount depends on how much you pay, when you pay, the current discount rate and the date your equipment ships. Your Trane representative will be happy to provide you with a formal ADP quotation so you can lock in your savings. Sincerely, Spencer Ingaldson - Trane U.S. Inc. dba Trane 775 Vandalia Street Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (612) 201-3598 This proposal is subject to your acceptance of the attached Trane terms and conditions. J: IJOBSI1001109399111Proposal. doc Stillwater Rec Center HVAC October 14, 2016 TERMS AND CONDITIONS • COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT "Company" shall mean Trane Canada ULC for sales in Canada and Trane U.S. Inc. for sales In the United States. 1. Acceptance. These terms and conditions are an Integral part of Company's offer and form the basis of any agreement (the "Agreement") resulting from Company's proposal (the "Proposal") for the sale of the described commercial equipment and any ancillary services (the "Equipment") COMPANY'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO PERIODIC CHANGE OR AMENDMENT The Proposal is subject to acceptance in writing by the party to whom this offer is made or an authorized agent ('Customer') delivered to Company within 30 days from the date of the Proposal. If Customer accepts the Proposal by placing an order, without the addition of any other terms and conditions of sale or any other modification, Customer's order shall be deemed acceptance of the Proposal subject to Company's terms and conditions If Customers order is expressly conditioned upon Company's acceptance or assent to terms and/or conditions other than those expressed herein, return of such order by Company with Company's terms and conditions attached or referenced serves as Company's notice of objection to Customers terms and as Company's counter-offer to provide Equipment in accordance with the Proposal and the Company's terms and conditions. 11 Customer does not reject or object in writing to Company within 10 days, Company's counter-offer will be deemed accepted. Customer's acceptance of the Equipment will in any event constitute an acceptance by Customer of Company's terms and conditions. This Agreement is subject to credit approval by Company. Upon disapproval of credit, Company may delay or suspend performance or, at its option, renegotiate prices and/or terms and conditions with Customer. If Company and Customer are unable to agree on such revisions, this Agreement shall be cancelled without any liability. 2. Title and Risk of Loss. All Equipment sales with destinations to Canada or the U.S shall be made as follows: FOB Company's U.S. manufacturing facility or warehouse (full freight allowed) Title and risk of loss or damage to Equipment will pass to Customer upon tender of delivery of such to carrier at Company's U.S manufacturing facility or warehouse. 3. Pricing and Taxes. Following acceptance without addition of any other terms and condition of sale or any other modification by Customer, the prices stated are firm provided that notification of release for immediate production and shipment is received at Company's factory not later than 3 months from order acceptance. If such release is received later than 3 months from order acceptance date, prices will be increased a straight 1% (not compounded) for each 1 month period (or part thereof) beyond the 3 month firm price period up to the date of receipt of such release. If such release is not received within 6 months after the date of order acceptance, the prices are subject to renegotiation or at Company's option. the order will be cancelled. Any delay in shipment caused by Customer's actions will subject prices to increase equal to the percentage Increase in list prices during that period of delay and Company may charge Customer with incurred storage fees. In no event will prices be decreased. The price of Equipment does not include any present or future foreign, federal, state, or local property, license, privilege, sales, use, excise, value added, gross receipts or other like taxes or assessments. Such amounts will be itemized separately to Customer, who will make prompt payment to Company Company will accept valid exemption documentation for such from Customer, if applicable All prices include packaging in accordance with Company's standard procedures. Charges for special packaging, crating or packing are the responsibility of Customer. 4. Delivery and Delays. Delivery dates are approximate and not guaranteed. Company will use commercially reasonable efforts to deliver the Equipment on or before the estimated delivery date will notify Customer if the estimated delivery dates cannot be honored, and will deliver the Equipment and services as soon as practicable thereafter. In no event will Company be liable for any damages or expenses caused by delays in delivery 5. Performance. Company shall be obligated to fumish only the Equipment described in the Proposal and in submittal data (if such data is issued in connection with the order) Company may rely on the acceptance of the Proposal, and in submittal data as acceptance of the suitability of the Equipment for the particular project or bcation Unless specifically stated in the Proposal, compliance with any local building codes or other laws or regulations relating to specifications or the location, use or operation of the Equipment is the sole responsibility of Customer If Equipment is tendered that does not fully comply with the provisions of this Agreement, and Equipment is rejected by Customer, Company will have the right to cure within a reasonable time after notice thereof by substituting a conforming tender whether or not the time for performance has passed 6. Force Majeure. Company's duty to perform under this Agreement and the Equipment prices are contingent upon the ran -occurrence of an Event of Force Majeure. If the Company shall be unable to carry out any material obligation under this Agreement due to an Event of Force Majeure, this Agreement shall at Company's election (i) remain in effect but Company's obligations shall be suspended until the uncontrollable event terminates or (ii) be terminated upon 10 days notice to Customer, in which event Customer shall pay Company for all parts of the Work furnished to the date of termination An "Event of Force Majeure" shall mean any cause or event beyond the control of Company Without limiting the foregoing, *Event of Force Majeure'. includes: acts of God; acts of terrorism, war or the public enemy; flood; earthquake; tornado; storm; fire; civil disobedience; pandemic insurrections; riots; laborilabour disputes; labor/labour or material shortages; sabotage; restraint by court order or public authority (whether valid or invalid); and action or non -action by or inability to obtain or keep in force the necessary governmental authorizations, permits, licenses, certificates or approvals if not caused by Company; and the requirements of any applicable government in any manner that diverts either the material or the finished product to the direct or indirect benefit of the govemment 7. Limited Warranty. Company warrants the Equipment manufactured by Company for a period of the lesser of 12 months from initial start-up or 18 months from date of shipment, whichever is less, against failure due to defects in material and manufacture and that it has the capacities and ratings set forth in Company's catalogs and bulletins ("Warranty'). Equipment manufactured by Company that includes required start-up and sold in North America will not be warranted by Company unless Company performs the Equipment startup Exclusions from this Warranty include damage or failure arising from: wear and tear; corrosion, erosion, deterioration; modifications made by others to the Equipment; repairs or alterations by a party other than Company that adversely affects the stability or reliability of the Equipment, vandalism; neglect; accident; adverse weather or environmental conditions; abuse or improper use; improper installation; commissioning by a party other than Company; unusual physical or electrical or mechanical stress; operation with any accessory, equipment or part not specifically approved by Company; refrigerant not supplied by Company; and/or lack of proper maintenance as recommended by Company. Company shall not be obligated to pay for the cost of lost refrigerant or lost product. Company's obligations and liabilities under this Warranty are limited to fumishing replacement equipment or parts, at its option, FCA (Incoterrns 2000) factory or warehouse (f.o.b. factory or warehouse for US domestic purposes) at Company -designated shipping point, freight -allowed to Company's warranty agent's stock location, for all non -conforming Company -manufactured Equipment (which have been returned by Customer to Company. Returns must have prior written approval by Company and are subject to restocking charge where applicable Equipment, material and/or parts that are not manufactured by Company are not warranted by Company and have such warranties as may be extended by the respective manufacturer. COMPANY MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING PREVENTION OF MOLDIMOULD, FUNGUS, BACTERIA, MICROBIAL GROWTH, OR ANY OTHER CONTAMINATES. No warranty liability whatsoever shalt attach to Company until Customers complete Order has been paid for in full and Company's liability under this Warranty shall be limited to the purchase price of the Equipment shown to be defective. Additional warranty protection is available on an extra -cost basis and must be in writing and agreed to by an authorized signatory of the Company. EXCEPT FOR COMPANY'S WARRANTY EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN, COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE, AND HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS, ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONCERNING ITS PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY OR OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR OTHERS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO ARISE FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR TRADE. 8. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Company and Customer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless each other from any and all claims, actions, costs, expenses, damages and liabilities, including reasonable attomeys' fees, resulting from death or bodily injury or damage to real or personal property, to the extent caused by the negligence or misconduct of their respective employees or other authorized agents in connection with their activities within the scope of this Agreement Neither party shall indemnify the other against claims, damages, expenses or liabilities to the extent attributable to the acts or omissions of the other party. If the parties are both at fault, the obligation 10 indemnify shall be proportional to their relative fault The duty to indemnity will continue in full force and effect, notwithstanding the expiration or early termination hereof, with respect to any claims based on facts or conditions that occurred prior to expiration or termination. FLD = Furnished by Trane U.S. Inc dba Trane / Equipment Proposal Page 2 of 4 Installed by Others Stillwater Ree Center HVAC October 14, 2016 9. Insurance. Upon request, Company will furnish evidence of its standard insurance coverage If Customer has requested to be named as an additional insured under Company's insurance policy, Company will do so but only subject to Company's manuscript additional insured endorsement under its primary Commercial General Liability policies In no event does Company waive any rights of subrogation 10. Customer Breach. Each of the following events or conditions shall constitute a breach by Customer and shall give Company the right, without an election of remedies, to terminate this Agreement, require payment prior to shipping, or suspend performance by delivery of written notice: (1) Any failure by Customer to pay amounts when due; or (2) any general assgnment by Customer for the benefit of its creditors, or if Customer becomes bankrupt or insolvent or takes the benefit of any statute for bankrupt or insolvent debtors, or makes or proposes to make any proposal or arrangement with creditors, or if any steps are taken for the winding up or other termination of Customer or the liquidation of its assets, or if a trustee, receiver, or similar person is appointed over any of the assets or interests of Customer; (3) Any representation or warranty furnished by Customer in connection with this Agreement is false or misleading in any material respect when made; or (4) Any failure by Customer to perform or comply with any material provision of this Agreement Customer shall be liable to the Company for all Equipment furnished and all damages sustained by Company (including lost profit and overhead). 11. Limitation of Llability. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, IN NO EVENT SHALL COMPANY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION REFRIGERANT LOSS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOST DATA, LOST REVENUE, LOST PROFITS) EVEN IF A PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF SUCH POSSIBLE DAMAGES OR IF SAME WERE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS FRAMED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, ANY OTHER TORT, WARRANTY, STRICT LIABILITY, OR PRODUCT LIABILITY). In no event will Company's liability in connection with the provision of products or services or otherwise under this Agreement exceed the entire amount paid to Company by Customer under this Agreement. 12. Nuclear Liability. In the event that the Equipment sold hereunder is to be used in a nuclear facility, Customer will, prior to such use, arrange for insurance or governmental indemnity protecting Company against all liability and hereby releases and agrees to indemnify Company and its suppliers for any nuclear damage, including loss of use, in any manner arising out of a nuclear incident, whether alleged to be due, in whole or in part to the negligence or otherwise of Company or its suppliers 13. Intellectual Property; Patent Indemnity. Company retains all ownership, license and other rights to all patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights related to the Equipment, and, except for the right to use the Equipment sold, Customer obtains no rights to use any such intellectual property. Company agrees to defend any suit or proceeding brought against Customer so far as such suit or proceeding is solely based upon a claim that the use of the Equipment provided by Company constitutes infringement of any patent of the United States of America, provided Company is promptly notified in writing and given authority, information and assistance for defense of same Company will, at its option, procure for Customer the right to continue to use said Equipment, or modify it so that it becomes non -infringing, or replace same with non -infringing Equipment, or to remove said Equipment and to refund the purchase price The foregoing will not be construed to include any Agreement by Company to accept any liability whatsoever in respect to patents for inventions including more than the Equipment furnished hereunder, or in respect of patents for methods and processes to be carried out with the aid of said Equipment. The provision of Equipment by Company does not convey any license, by implication, estoppel, or otherwise, under patent claims covering combinations of said Equipment with other devices or elements. The foregoing states the entire liability of Company with regard to patent infringement Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, Customer will hold Company harmless against any expense or loss resulting from infringement of patents or trademarks arising from compliance with Customer's designs or specifications or instructions. 14. Cancellation. Equipment is specially manufactured in response to orders An order placed with and accepted by Company cannot be delayed, canceled, suspended. or extended except with Company's written consent and upon written terms accepted by Company that will reimburse Company for and indemnify Company against loss and provide Company with a reasonable profit for its materials, time, labor, services, use of facilities and otherwise. Customer will be obligated to accept any Equipment shipped, tendered for delivery or delivered by Company pursuant to the order prior to any agreed delay, cancellation, suspension or extension of the order. Any attempt by Customer to unilaterally revoke, delay or suspend acceptance for any reason whatever after it has agreed to delivery of or accepted any shipment shall constitute a breach of this Agreement For purposes of this paragraph, acceptance occurs by any waiver of inspection, use or possession of Equipment, payment of the invoice, or any indication of exclusive control exercised by Customer. 15. Invoking and Payment. Equipment shall be Invoiced to Customer upon tender of delivery thereof to the carrier Customer shall pay Company's invoices within net 30 days of shipment date, Company reserves the right to add to any account outstanding for more than 30 days a service charge equal to the lesser of the maximum allowable legal interest rate or 1.5% of the principal amount due at the end of each month Customer shall pay all costs (including attorneys' fees) incurred by Company in attempting to collect amounts due and otherwise enforcing these terms and conditions. If requested, Company will provide appropriate lien waivers upon receipt of payment Company may at any time decline to ship, make delivery or perform work except upon receipt of cash payment, letter of credit, or security, or upon other terms and conditions satisfactory to Company Customer agrees that, unless Customer makes payment in advance, Company will have a purchase money security interest in all Equipment to secure payment In full of all amounts due Company and its order for the Equipment, together with these terms and conditions, form a security agreement (as defined by the UCC in the United States and as defined in the Personal Property Security Act in Canada). Customer shall keep the Equipment free of all taxes and encumbrances, shall not remove the Equipment from its original installation point and shall not assign or transfer any interest in the Equipment until all payments due Company have been made. The purchase money security interest granted herein attaches upon Company's acceptance of Customer's order and on receipt of the Equipment described in the accepted Proposal but prior to its installation The parties have no agreement to postpone the time for attachment unless specifically noted in writing on the accepted order Customer will have no rights of set off against any amounts, which become payable to Company under this Agreement or otherwise. 16. Claims. Company will consider claims for concealed shortages in shipments or rejections due to failure to conform to an order only if such claims or rejections are made in writing within 15 days of delivery and are accompanied by the packing list and, if applicable, the reasons in detail why the Equipment does not conform to Customer's order, Upon receiving authorization and shipping instructions from authorized personnel of Company, Customer may return rejected Equipment, transportation charges prepaid, for replacement. Company may charge Customer any costs resulting from the testing, handling, and disposition of any Equipment returned by Customer which are not found by Company to be nonconforming Ali Equipment damaged during shipment and all claims relating thereto must be made with the freight carrier in accordance with such carrier's policies and procedures. Claims for Equipment damaged during shipment are not covered under the warranty provision stated herein. 17. Export Laws. The obligation of Company to supply Equipment under this Agreement is subject to the ability of Company to supply such items consistent with applicable laws and regulations of the United States and other governments Company reserves the right to refuse to enter into or perform any order, and to cencel any order, under this Agreement if Company in its sole discretion determines that performance of the transaction to which such order relates would violate any such applicable law or regulation. Customer will pay all handling and other similar costs from Company's factories including the costs of freight, insurance, export clearances, import duties and taxes Customer will be "exporter of record' with respect to any export from the United States of America and will perform all compliance and logistics functions in connection therewith and will also comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations Customer understands that Company andlor the Equipment are subject to laws and regulations of the United States of America which may require licensing or authorization for andlor prohibit export, re-export or diversion of Company's Equipment to certain countries, and agrees it will not knowingly assist or participate in any such diversion or other violation of applicable United States of America laws and regulations. Customer agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Company for any damages resulting to Customer or Company from a breach of this paragraph by Customer 18. General. Except as provided below, to the maximum extent provided by law, this Agreement is made and shall be interpreted and enforced In accordance with the laws of the state of New York for Equipment shipped to a U.S location and the laws of the province to which Equipment is FLD = Furnished by Trane U, S Inc, dba Trane / Equipment Proposal Page 3 014 Installed by Others Stillwater Roc Center HVAC October 14, 2018 shipped within Canada, without regard to its conflict of taw principles that might otherwise call for the application of a different state's or province's law, and not including the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods Any action or suit arising out of or related to this Agreement must be commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued To the extent the Equipment is being used at a site owned and/or operated by any agency of the Federal Government, determination of any substantive issue of law shall be according to the Federal common law of Govemment contracts as enunciated and applied by Federal judicial bodies and boards of contract appeals of the Federal Government. This Agreement contains all of the agreements, representations and understandings of the parties and supersedes all previous understandings, commitments or agreements, oral or written, related to the subject matter hereof This Agreement may not be amended, modified or terminated except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. No documents shall be incorporated herein by reference except to the extent Company is a signatory thereon If any term or condition of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or Incapable of being enforced by any rule of law, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement will nevertheless remain in full force and effect as long as the economic or legal substance of the transaction contemplated hereby is not affected in a manner adverse to any party hereto. Customer may not assign, transfer, or convey this Agreement, or any part hereof, or its right, title or interest herein, without the written consent of the Company. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Customer's permitted successors and assigns. This Agreement may be executed In several counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. A fully executed facsimile copy hereof or the several counterparts shall suffice as an original 19. Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Clause. Company is a federal contractor lhat complies fully with Executive Order 11248, as amended, and the applicable regulations contained in 41 C.F.R. Parts 60-1 through 60-60, 29 U.S C Section 793 and the applicable regulations contained in 41 C.F.R Part 60-741; and 38 U.S C. Section 4212 and the applicable regulations contained in 41 C.F. R Part 60-250 Executive Order 13496 and Section 29 CFR 471, appendix A to subpart A, regarding the notice of employee rights in the United States and with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K) 1982, c. 11 and applicable Provincial Human Rights Codes and employment law in Canada. 20. U.S. Government Work. The following provision applies only to direct sales by Company to the US Government. The Parties acknowledge that Equipment ordered and delivered under this Agreement are Commercial Items as defined under Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). In particular, Company agrees to be bound only by those Federal contracting clauses that apply to *commercial' suppliers and that are contained in FAR 52.212-5(e)(1). The following provision applies only to Indirect sales by Company to the US Govemment. As a Commercial Item Subcontractor, Company accepts only the following mandatory flow down provisions: 52.219.8; 52.222-26; 52.222-35; 52.222-38; 52.222-39; 52.247-64, If the sale of the Equipment is in connection with a U.S. Government contract, Customer certifies that it has provided and will provide current, accurate, and complete information, representations and certifications to all government officials, including but not limited to the contracting officer and officials of the Small Business Administration, on all matters related to the prime contract, including but not limited to all aspects of its ownership, eligibility, and performance. Anything herein notwithstanding, Company will have no obligations to Customer unless and until Customer provides Company with a true, correct and complete executed copy of the prime contract Upon request, Customer will provide copies to Company of all requested written communications with any govemment official related to the prime contract prior to or concurrent with the execution thereof, including but not limited to any communications related to Customer's ownership, eligibility or performance of the prime contract. Customer will obtain written authorization and approval from Company prior to providing any government official any information about Company's performance of the work that is the subject of the Proposal or this Agreement, other than the Proposal or this Agreement. 21. Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. If Customer is an Indian tribe (in the U S) or a First Nation or Band Council (in Canada), Customer, whether acting in its capacity as a government, governmental entity, a duly organized corporate entity or otherwise, for itself and for its agents, successors, and assigns: (1) hereby provides this limited waiver of its sovereign immunity as to any damages, claims, lawsuit, or cause of action (herein 'Action') brought against Customer by Company and arising or alleged to arise out of the furnishing by Company of any product or service under this Agreement, whether such Action Is based in contract, tort, strict liability, civil liability or any other legal theory; (2) agrees that Jurisdiction and venue for any such Action shall be proper and valid (a) if Customer is in the U.S., in any state or United States court located in the state in which Company is performing this Agreement or (b) if Customer is in Canada, in the superior court of the province or territory in which the work was performed; (3) expressly consents to such Action, and waives any objection to jurisdiction or venue; (4) waives any requirement of exhaustion of tribal court or administrative remedies for any Action arising out of or related to this Agreement; and (5) expressly acknowledges and agrees that Company is not subject to the jurisdiction of Customer's tribal court or any similar tribal forum, that Customer will not bring any action against Company in tribal court, and that Customer will not avail itself of any ruling or direction of the tribal court permitting or directing it to suspend its payment or other obligations under this Agreement The individual signing on behalf of Customer warrants and represents that such individual is duly authorized to provide this waiver and enter into this Agreement and that this Agreement constitutes the valid and legally binding obligation of Customer, enforceable in accordance with its terms 1-28.130-4 (0614) Supersedes 1-26.130-4(0214) FLD = Furnished by Trane U.S. Inc. dba Trane / Equipment Proposal Page 4 0! 4 Installed by Others SCHWAB • VOLLHABER • LUBRATT, INC. sv L 4600 CHURCHILL STREET . ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 66126. PHONE: (661) 481-8000. FAX: (651) 481-8621 To St Croix Rec Center Attn: Doug Brady Project St Croix Rec Center Engineer PROPOSAL NUMBER 597890 BID DATE 10/20/16 Terms of Payment NET 30 DAYS Delivery Terms FOB FACTORY FREIGHT ALLOWED Date 10/20/16 Desiccant Dehumidifiers (1) ARID -Ice model DH -142 packaged desiccant dehumidification units as follows: • 2" double wall insulated weatherproof construction for outdoor slab mounting location • 5,800 CFM (2.0" ESP) • Outdoor ventilation air package with hood, bird -screen and damper (user selectable modes! of 0%, 20% or 100% emergency purge. Note 100% purge mode may exceed DH capacity) • Push button purge for fixed time resurfacer operation ventilation • Direct drive process fan with premium E motor and shaft grounding • Direct drive reactivation Fan with TEFC motor and operating controls • 30% 2" Filters with pressure drop indicators for reactivation AND process airstreams • 42" DIA, 400 mm advanced silica gel desiccant wheel with all stainless steel cassette • Double Hp Viton rotor air seal system • Rotation detector and chain -drive purge reactivation configuration • Electric reactivation system with CRRC micro -processor reactivation energy rate controller • Unit face mount disconnect switch • Single point power supply • Motor starters with unit controller and interlocks with safety circuits • Room dew -point transmitter with display and remote user interface • Unit mouted graphic annunciator panel • Factory start-up and first year labor warranty by Controlled Dehumidification/SVL • Adapter curb to existing Munters A2OG YOUR COST FOR THE ABOVE, FREIGHT ALLOWED $ 56,610.00 Sincerely, KeCfy Hw,cei-14,/eGr�. Kelly Hauenstein Schwab-Vollhaber-Lubratt, Inc. 651-255-1926 Standard Schwab-Vollhaber-Lubratt, Inc Terms and Conditions apply to this proposal Sales & Usc Taxes not included 1/1 MIDWEST MECHANICAL SOLUTIONS 8125 Lewis Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Proposal To: St. Croix Valley Recreation Center Date: 10/18/2016 Attn: Doug Brady Delivery Terms: FOB Factory Project: St Croix Valley Recreation Center Payment Terms: Net 30 Engineer: TBD Tax: Not Included Proposal #: 40807 Midwest Mechanical Solutions is pleased to offer the following products for your review and consideration: Group Item # Qty Model Tag 1 1 1 Munters DDS Series Dehumidification System DHU-1 Model A20 replacement of the existing Munters A20 rooftop mounted Ice Rink dehumidification unit with the following: * Outdoor Rooftop Construction - New 2" double Wall Foam Injected Panels with R-14 insulation * Panel frame system is constructed of FRP pultruded members with no through metal - Thermally Broken * Access Doors with heavy duty lockable latches and hinges * Ultra High Efficiency Direct Drive Supply Fan with 7.5 Premium Efficiency Motor * Direct Drive Reactivation Fan with 3 HP Premium Efficiency TEFC Motor * Two Position Outside Air Damper * Munters Patented Titanium Silica Gel HoneyCombe Dessicant Dehumidification wheel - Wheel Size 42" Diameter( 1000 mm) 400 mm deep wheel for less heat rise to the space ( Wheel Size Provides Capacity and Efficiency of Existing Wheel) * Direct Fired Natural gas reactivation Modulating Burner with internal controls * Face and Bypass and Return Air Dampers * 2" Deep - 30% Efficient Pre -Filters on Reactivation and Supply Air * Unit Control identical to existing unit * Single point power with unit mounted disconnect * Humidistat, purge interlock and gas control * Factory Authorized Start-up Assistance * 5 year Workmanship and Material Parts warranty on the desiccant wheel * 1 year parts warranty on entire unit * Freight to Stillwater, MN Not Including: Installation, Transitions to existing ductwork, Removal of Existing Units, Storage, 1st year Labor Warranty, Tax Please note that the NEW A20 unit is the same width but approx. 30 " longer and the supply and discharge don't line up exactly, if adaptor curb is purchased from MMS, the cost would be $ 1,715.00 Sincerely, Total Net Price (Group 2) $54,570 1 1 IS— Midwest Mechanical Solutions Bret Riemenschneider- Direct: (952) 525-2034 / Fax: (952) 738-5224/Mobile: (612) 859-5765 Email: Brel@jnmsus.com Wednesday, October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 1 www. mmsus. com EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 Page 1 LIST OF BILLS Action Rental Inc. After Midnight Group AIR Corval Constructors Air Down There AirFresh Industries Inc Airgas USA LLC All Traffic Solutions Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Ancom Communication Inc. APWA Aspen Mills Bald Eagle Sportsmens Assoc. BCA Training & Auditing BDI Gopher Bearing Becker Arena Products Bernicks BL Dalsin Roofing Bolton and Menk Inc. Braun Intertec Corporation Bryan Rock Products Inc. C. Hassis Snow Removal and Yard Services Cates Fine Homes LLC CDW Government Inc. Century Link Cities Digital Solutions Clifton LarsonAllen LLP Comcast Computer Services of Florida Coverall of the Twin Cities Cub Foods ECM Publishers Erenberg Sarah Guardian Supply Hardrives Inc. Haussner Plumbing LLC Hisdahl Inc Hydro-Klean LLC J.H. Larson Company Johnson Ronald Just For Me Spa Kirvida Fire Inc. League of MN Cities LeMoine Chyrisse Lennar of Minnesota Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Concrete & mixing trailer Refund of Tech fee Equipment repair Service face mask Toilet rental Equipment repair supplies Battery Lock repair Batteries Membership Uniforms Range charges Training Equipment repair supplies Equipment repair supplies Beverages for concessions Building repair charges Myrtle lift station work Police/City Hall Remodel McKusick Lake Trails Project Lawn service Grading Escrow Refund Switch Telephone LaserFiche Audit Internet Software Commercial Cleaning Services Refreshments Publications Reimburse for mileage Uniforms Trail improvements Repair flush valves Plaque Storm sewer repairs Equipment repair supplies Repairs Massages for Health Fair Vehicle repair Workers Comp claim Reimburse for Reserve meeting banquet Grading Escrow Refund Arbitration & Administrative Hearings 772.54 25.00 691.50 40.00 365.00 264.11 295.00 257.40 477.00 230.00 1,639.22 385.00 75.00 453.28 127.76 228.80 2,500.00 7,648.32 1,795.00 932.78 100.00 6,000.00 101.25 41.54 10,333.00 2,000.00 299.80 375.00 2,312.00 57.06 70.35 16.20 1,351.83 25,523.85 230.00 682.00 980.00 1,239.37 112.15 120.00 553.68 2,137.58 380.35 6,000.00 1,663.88 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 Page 2 Mansfield Oil Company Marshall Electric Company Menards MN Fall Maintenance Expo MSSA Municipal Emergency Services Newman Signs Northland Real Estate Group Office Depot Performance Plus LLC Pioneer Press Quicksilver Quill Corporation R&R Specialties Inc. Regency Office Products LLC RiedelI Shoes Inc. Rose City Sign Company Sanders Shawn SRF Consulting Group St. Croix Boat and Packet Co. St. Croix Recreation Fun Playgrounds Stillwater Motor Company T.A. Schifsky and Sons Truck Utilities Inc. Turnout Rental LLC USAble Life Valley Trophy Inc. Verizon Wireless Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Washington County Dept of Public Washington County Sheriffs Office WSB & Associates Inc. Zamboni CREDIT CARDS Amazon BCA Training Buy Door Hardware eBay Log Me In Office Depot Racine North St. Croix River Assn Fuel Electrical work at gazebo Equipment repair supplies Seminar Winter Chemical Training Uniform Supplies Refund of Appeal Fee Office supplies Mask fit Subscription - Fire Courier service Office supplies Paint Office supplies Skates Installed repaired lens & glass Reimburse for hotel charges Downtown plan update Arena Billing Portable bench with back Vehicle service Asphalt Equipment repair supplies Bunker pants Term Life Insurance Name plate Wireless service Insurance 2017 Food & Beverage License Quarterly MDCs St. Croix Riverbank Stabilization Equipment repair supplies Computers Training Supplies Supplies Subscription Office supplies Computers Work Shop 3,563.97 617.00 1,112.52 100.00 40.00 534.13 64.54 50.00 475.50 25.00 148.62 43.82 243.03 770.00 28.22 903.44 190.00 91.00 6,526.08 47,115.15 1,400.00 29.24 3,571.67 741.02 400.00 434.40 13.00 1,763.28 154.00 605.00 6,061.99 6,811.00 276.28 1,069.96 375.00 98.00 209.66 149.00 26.77 2,120.00 27.27 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION #2016-197 Page 3 LIBRARY Baker and Taylor Brodart Co Butler Melissa Cole Papers ECM Publishers Howe Linnea Menards Midwest Tape Nardini Fire Equipment Office of MN IT Services Paper Roll Products Recorded Books Inc Security Response Services Inc Stillwater Public Library Foundation LIBRARY CREDIT CARDS Amazon.com American Library Association Constructive Playthings Dream Host Etsy Lakeshore Learning Materials The University of Chicago Press OCTOBER MANUALS Century Link Comcast Haak David MN Dept of Commerce MN Dept of Labor & Industry Postmaster Postmaster Verizon Wireless Xcel Energy Materials Materials Staff Reimbursement Janitorial Supplies Board Meeting Notice Materials Janitorial Supplies Materials Fire Inspection Telephone Supplies Materials Alarm Monitoring Reimbursement of Aug/Sept SPLF CC Materials Materials Minor Equipment Monthly Website Fee Supplies Minor Equipment Materials Telephone TV, internet, voice Refund of overpayment Unclaimed property Plan review fee Utility Billing postage Newsletter postage Police mobile broadband Energy 695.41 2,022.55 13.87 328.15 23.70 61.02 92.35 715.32 149.15 378.67 143.03 35.00 168.12 18.00 603.95 140.00 49.94 19.95 33.13 37.48 109.32 314.70 662.11 61.75 3,272.50 5,648.49 2,847.15 1,487.64 612.26 13,305.25 STAFF REQUEST ITEM Department: MIS Date: 10/28/16 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Briefly outline what the request is) Purchase of laptop for IT department. These are not in the budget for 2016. However, because of savings, there is money available in the Capital Outlay budget. FINANCIAL IMPACT (Briefly outline the costs, if any, that are associated with this request and the proposed source of the funds needed to fund the request) Total cost of the laptop will be approximately $700.00. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED Yes No X ALL COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK A MINIMUM OF FIVE WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING IN ORDER TO BE PLACED IN THE COUNCIL MATERIAL PACKET. Submitted by: KV Date: /0 , 2 g , / (0 ter FIE 6'.RTH P14 r F OF MINNFSOTA+ PLANNING REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 1, 2016 Planning Commission: October 12, 2016 CASE NO.: CPC/2016-38 APPLICANT: Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST On a 5-3 split vote, the Planning Commission is forwarding a recommendation of approval for the modified requested Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) pertaining to senior living PUDs throughout the City of Stillwater. The requested new subsection, under the existing, Qualifications and Requirements, is proposed to read: PUDs for Senior Housing i. May be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUD is met. ii. May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. iii. Must include permanent open space that is either deeded to the City or preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the City. iv. Shall be designed as a senior housing campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted. v. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. vi. May allow building heights/ stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vii. May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. As the Council will remember, a similar request was made by this applicant. At the time of the Council's denial of that application, the Council provided direction that the request was too broad. City staff and legal counsel determined the application is substantially different than the original proposal, proposing greater standards for qualifications and requirements. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS City Code Section 31-205 indicates that in order to approve a zoning text amendment the Planning Commission and City Council must find that: • The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and ■ That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. A copy of the Planning Commission report, as well as draft meeting minutes, are attached for the Council's review. A majority of the Planning Commission found these two review standards to be met and recommended approval of the request. DISCUSSION A PUD permit can be issued to any development project in any zoning district. If approved, this ZAT would be applicable to any senior -living PUD in any zoning district in the City of Stillwater. However, the ZAT would not grant inherent development rights to exceed height or density. Rather, it would allow he City and specific project developer to negotiate a site-specific development where increased height and density could be found appropriate and granted. On October 12, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request. Discussion at the hearing centered on past PUD applications and PUDs, inconsistencies pertaining to density in the existing PUD ordinance as well as the intent of PUD regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and inquiries about how other communities address density and height increases in PUDs. Staff has attached the ZAT and PUD regulations, 2008 PUD Permits map, and the 2008 Comprehensive Plan pages 2-14 and 2-29 for Council reference. Lastly, League of Minnesota Cities suggests "often the... development allows greater density than normally permitted in the development, in exchange for some other benefit, such as green space or open space."1 As PUDs are an industry -standard tool that cities across the nation use for flexibility, the Planning Commission staff report contained no analysis of how other east metro communities address height and density flexibility in PUDs. Since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has reviewed PUD ordinances of other Washington County communities and prepared the attached table for reference. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following options: A. Approval. Make findings that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, moving to approve the first reading of the attached draft Ordinance. B. Denial. Make findings that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are not furthered and that the proposed amendment is not in general conformance with the ' Zoning Guide for Cities. League of Minnesota Cities. January, 2015. p. 6 Case No. 2016-38 CC: 11/1//2016 Page 2 of 3 principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan, moving to deny the first reading of the attached draft Ordinance. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission As indicated, the Planning Commission majority found that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the Commission recommended approval of the addition of the following: PUDs for Senior Housing: i. May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. ii. Must include permanent open space. iii. Shall be designed as a senior housing with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted. iv. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. v. Mav allow building heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vi. Mav allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. The Commission's recommendation comes with the strong recommendation to eliminate the 20 - acre requirement, thereby allowing the proposed ZAT to be applicable to PUD properties, no matter their size. A draft Ordinance has been prepared based on the recommendation of the Commission. City Staff Staff has also found that with modifications to the proposed ZAT, the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. ATTACHMENTS October 12 Planning Commission report (4 pages) Draft Planning Commission minutes (7 pages) City Code Section 31-205: Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendment PUD Permits Map, 2008 City Code Section 31-210: PUD Permit Comprehensive Plan pages 2-14 and 2-29 Summary of Community PUD regulations (2 pages) Public Comments (9 comments, 12 pages) Draft Ordinance Case No. 2016-38 CC: 11/1//2016 Page 3 of 3 4vatei ' H. O F MINEEJIA PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: October 12, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-38 APPLICANT: Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group REQUEST: Case No. 2016-38: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing. Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND On April 5, Brian Farrell with Northland Real Estate gained conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the Croix Bay Senior Living Care Facility to be located at 12525/12721 75th Street North and 12620 72nd Street North. At that time, the following request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) was denied by the City Council: Aggregate density of structures z b.dilding height:, on privately or commonly owned property may not only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district i vh ci . iccsc truchxcs would normally be located if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects. Al Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects." SPECIFIC REQUEST A new ZAT request has been submitted which is proposing to add a new subsection to Planned Unit Development for new Qualifications and Requirements for senior housing PUDs. The new subsection is proposed to read: i. May be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUD is met. ii. May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. iii. Must include permanent open space that is either deeded to the City or preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the City. iv. Shall be designed as a senior housing campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted. v. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. vi. May allow building heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vii. May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. City staff and legal counsel has determined the application is substantially different than the original proposal, proposing greater standards for qualifications and requirements. EVALUATION OF REQUEST In review of the aforementioned request, it could be said that the proposed i and iii are redundant given all PUDs must meet the purpose and intent of the PUD and, as a part of that purpose and intent, preserving natural beauty sports, open spaces and recreational sites is already listed. City Code Section 31-205 indicate the Commission must find that: • The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and • That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated: The change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objected outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for more flexible design that will respond to today's marketplace. Furthermore, it will provide an opportunity to provide a portion for 670 new senior housing units that are needed in Stillwater by 2020 as documented in the 2013 Washington County study. The change will allow development of senior housing styles that are demanded by the marketplace and will provide options for Stillwater residents. While it is true the ZAT, if approved, could provide for additional senior housing development opportunities in the community, the City must consider whether or not the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered if the City was granted more flexibility in the review and consideration of these types of developments. The approval of this ZAT would not inherently grant rights, rather allow for a developer to propose additional height or density that is compensated for by increasing such elements as open space, amenities or site design quality. Senior Living Care Facilities and Nursing Homes are allowed by Special Use Permit (SUP) only in single and two-family residential district. Additionally, multi -family residential zoning districts (such as the RCL, Low Density Multiple -Family, and RCM, Medium Density Multiple - Family, districts) allow for three or more units. The amount of land available that is zoned this way is limited. So, providing flexibility for senior living facilities may encourage more development of this needed housing type. Case No. 2016-38 CPC: 10/12/2016 Page 2 of 4 The City of Stillwater is deficient in senior housing options. While it is true there are numerous senior living options within the Stillwater area, the 2013 Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment (the Assessment) developed by the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has estimated there is a shortage of 670 senior housing units' in the Stillwater area (including Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Baytown township, and Stillwater township); this is approximately 17% of the total 3,964 senior housing units needed by 20202. The Assessment notes this submarket "has a somewhat of a limited supply of new land for new development as much of the land in Stillwater and Baytown Townships are guided for lower -density. Thus, a significant portion of the housing will be in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Bayport. "3 Given the public need, modifications to the ZAT may be made to be further the general community welfare and help meet the public need for these types of housing options. However, as proposed, the ZAT would only be applicable to projects greater than 20 acres in size. Given the fact that that nearly all of the parcels in Stillwater that have the potential to develop as senior projects are smaller than 20 acres, the ZAT would be applicable for a very limited number of parcels. Given this consideration, the proposed ZAT is not supporting a public need because it is to restrictive. As the City Code further indicates, the ZAT must be in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The city's Comprehensive Plan housing chapter encourages the provision of a range of housing opportunities for aging in the community and for the elderly. Specifically noted are the following policies and programs: Program 3: Policy 4. Policy 5. Policy 9. Attempt to meet regional lifecycle housing goals for the City of Stillwater. Attempt to disburse assisted housing throughout the community. Locate assisted housing near transit lines and public parks. Utilize the Future Land Use map to designate residential sites appropriately located for a range of housing densities. Thus, the ZAT is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated that: The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed in the narrative, including the City's Comprehensive Plan goal to provide more lifecycle housing. The amendment will correct a deficiency in the existing in the existing code and will allow senior housing - like the Select Senior Living project that was approved in 2014 - to be reviewed and approved by the City. However, argument could be made that the ZAT is not in support of the land use designations set forth in the Future Land Use Map. As indicated in the previous section, there are limited ' Maxfield, P. 303 2 Maxfield, P. 291 3 Maxfield, P. 303 Case No. 2016-38 CPC: 10/12/2016 Page 3 of 4 large land areas available for development in Stillwater. The requirement a project must be 20 acres in size is somewhat in conflict with the existing land development conditions of the community. If approved, the ZAT would not be applicable to those parcels that may be ready for redevelopment of smaller parcels of land that are well-suited for senior living. Additionally, by indicating these flexibilities would only be permitted for campus -based developments, other types of senior housing PUDs would be excluded. Considerations must also be given as to whether or not the ability to ask for density and height increases are also consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. If the height and densities of a development are proposed in excess of the base zoning district, would a development be in harmony with the intent of the zoning district as well as the Comprehensive Plan? As the ZAT would not outright allow for increases in height and density, the purpose and intent of the PUD standards would still be preserved. Furthermore, as the "PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site," development controls and flexibility is still in the City's hand. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal meets the ZAT regulations, the Commission should forward a favorable recommendation of approval of the ZAT. B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the ZAT regulations, the Commission should forward recommendation of denial to the City Council. The Commission should indicate a reason for such recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain modifications the public necessity and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed ZAT is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. If subsections i -iv were omitted, as these qualifications and requirements either redundant or so limiting to be in the best interest of the community as a whole. Therefore, staff makes the recommendation the Commission recommend approval of this application with certain modifications. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative and Supporting Documentation (13 pages) Case No. 2016-38 CPC: 10/12/2016 Page 4 of 4 Northland Real Estate Group NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Stillwater, MN REQUEST FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT September 16, 2016 . • . . LANDFORM From Site to Finish INTRODUCTION On behalf of Northland Real Estate Group, Landform is pleased to submit this application for a zoning ordinance text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance to allow the City Council to grant flexibility from zoning standards as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is very common for cities to provide flexibility as part of a PUD in order to encourage development that would not otherwise be possible. The proposed text amendment would allow the City more flexibility to encourage quality development in Stillwater. BACKGROUND The City Council approved Northland's PUD concept plan on April 5, 2016. The Council expressed some concerns related to density and building height and, consequently, denied Northland's request for a zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment until the Council could better understand the impact of the proposed zoning text amendment. Northland has been working to address those stated concerns, met with individual landowners in April and held a neighborhood meeting in May to share information and gather feedback. Northland provided a revised concept plan for Council review at their June 7th meeting and received feedback that the revised concept plan was meeting many of the Council's comments. Based on this feedback, and the City's finding that the concept plan had demonstrated considerable progress and had effectively addressed many of the height and massing concerns raised at the April 5th City Council meeting, Northland submitted a new request for a zoning map amendment. On July 5, 2016, the City Council voted to approve the rezoning of the McKenzie property (PID 3003020420004) from A -P (Agricultural Preserve) to LR (Lakeshore Residential). As we have continued to refine the plans, it has become clear that the senior housing concept envisioned for this site will be most viable with a portion of the site at three stories. An evaluation of other similar senior housing communities in the region offering a variety of housing options range in height from three to five stories. The Select Senior Living project that was approved by the City of Stillwater on a portion of this site in 2008 and 2014 was approved at three stories and approvals were granted with no variance or PUD flexibility. In the interest of transparency and honest communication, we raised this issue with staff last winter and agreed that the text amendment was the desired approach to allow the City the flexibility to allow increased height where appropriate for certain projects. This request for a zoning text amendment is different than the previous proposal, but still grants the discretion to the City when reviewing a PUD and limits the flexibility to senior housing projects. There is a documented demand for senior housing in Stillwater. In 2013, Maxfield Research prepared a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Washington County, Minnesota. The study identifies a need for more than 5,300 senior housing units in the County and the study projected "demand from local seniors to continue between 2013 and 2020 such that about 375 units of active adult and 295 of service - enhanced units will be needed" in the Stillwater area (Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport and Baytown NRG15001 L A ND F OR M September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 2 Township). For Stillwater residents who want to stay in Stillwater, new senior housing options are needed and the Northland site is the only available site. The City of Stillwater allows senior housing in only two districts: Lakeshore Residential and Medium Density Residential. We have evaluated the potential sites in the City and the property controlled by Northland is the only site that is currently zoned appropriately and large enough to support a modern senior housing complex. We have prepared a graphic (Exhibit E) to show the potential senior housing sites. The only other vacant sites that are currently guided and zoned for senior housing are much smaller sites in existing neighborhoods west of Long Lake. The proposed text amendment would allow the Council to consider design flexibility for senior housing projects only and the exhibit shows that most properties in the City would not be eligible to apply for the flexibility. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR APPROVED PROJECT AND PROPOSED PROJECT While this application does not include a request for any project approvals, it is important to provide some context for the proposed text amendment by updating the Council on Northland's current proposed project, which is a re -visioning of a previously approved senior housing project on portions of the subject site. In 2008, and again in 2014, Select Senior Living of Stillwater received approval to construct a three-story, 100 -unit senior care facility on 5.87 acres between the elementary school and the church. The resulting density was 17.04 units per acre. When staff reviewed that request, the July 2, 2014 staff report noted that "The Comprehensive Plan's housing chapter encourages the provision of a range of housing opportunities for aging in the community and for the elderly. One tool identified for doing this is through the zoning ordinance, which allows higher density senior residential facilities by SUP in several of the City' s single family zoning districts. This is precisely the scenario proposed." The Select Senior Living project was not constructed, and in 2015, Northland acquired control of the site. Northland began evaluating the previous project and approvals with the idea that the project could be revived and constructed. The demand for senior housing is rising as the baby boomers age and seek generation -specific housing. According to recent trends, seniors are looking for a unique or distinctive range of amenities that allow residents to have access to these amenities without worry or travel, and provide a feeling of independent living. Northland determined quickly that a successful project would require a more diverse mix of units than previously conceived. Seniors would demand amenities necessary to support these units and the type of care that would allow them to be active members in the community. Northland gained control of additional adjacent property to achieve these goals and to allow the revisioned project to succeed in the market place. The expanded campus that Northland proposes includes property south and east of the original site. The property to the east has undergone extensive reforestation and rehabilitation and now provides an incredible natural amenity for both the campus and the community at -large. NRG15001 L A N D F OR M September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 3 While we are not requesting any development approvals at this time, we do want to highlight the progression of changes to the plans on this site over time. Northland understands that there were concerns about the height and density in the concept plan originally submitted and is working to develop a plan that addresses those concerns. Northland will distinguish between density and building height, as Northland's project is less dense and has been revised to have the same three-story building height as previously approved for the Select Senior Living project. The key progression of changes is shown on the attached Exhibits A -F. We would like to note a few of the key changes: 1. Reduction in the number of units from 262 to 220. 2. Reduction in the building square footage from 313,824 to 266,949 square feet. 3. Elimination of the retail component of the project and retention of only the daycare. 4. Increasing the conservation area from 8.83 to 26.28 acres of the 49.3 -acre site. 5. Reduction in building mass by reorienting the buildings and adding more articulation in the building face and rooflines. 6. Reduction in the height to one- and two -stories for the majority of the site. Only a small portion of the center of the building remains at three stories. 7. Reduction in the number of stories exposed on the rear from four -stories to two- or three -stories. We believe that these changes address the comments we received from the City Council at both the public hearing where the Concept Plan was approved and the follow-up work session where a revised Concept Plan was presented. We look forward to submitting a formal application for City review and approval later this fall. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT As the development team reviewed the Stillwater City Code and discussed the project with city staff prior to the concept plan submittal, they noted that the Code did not specifically allow the City the flexibility to approve the height and density that was approved for the previous project in 2008 and 2014. Therefore, Northland requested an ordinance amendment with the concept plan and rezoning to clearly provide the City with the flexibility that the City previously applied on this site through the use of the SUP. Northland has heard the City's concerns and proposes to add the necessary flexibility within the PUD section (Section 31-210) of the Zoning Ordinance. We believe that the best option is for the City to amend the PUD section of the ordinance to add a new category in the "Qualifications and requirements" portion to specifically allow the requested flexibility for senior residential uses. The amended language could narrowly limit the application of such new language by applying it only to projects that meet a minimum area requirement and a minimum open space requirement. This type of flexibility from development standards is very typical. For example, the City of Plymouth PUD ordinance allows "The various setback, lot area, and NRG15001 L ANDF OR M September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 4 height regulations of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purposes described in Section 21655.01." We have other examples of such ordinance flexibility from other cities and would be happy to share those at your request. In any event, we believe the existing PUD ordinance language should be modified. We look forward to developing language with the City, but in order to start the conversation, we suggest that Section 31-210 of the Zoning Ordinance could be modified to read as follows (by deleting the material and adding the underlined material): Planned unit developments shall meet the following requirements: (a) Purpose. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for a means of: (1) Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its improvements. (2) Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living environment. (3) Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between building and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as is the case in monostructural development. (4) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas. (b) Qualifications and requirements. Qualifications and requirements shall be as follows: (1) Land to be improved as a PUD: i. Shall be at least three acres in size; ii. Shall be at least one complete city block in size; iii. Shall have a density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre; or iv. Shall, when fully developed, contain upon it at least two principal buildings. (2) Smaller lots may be improved as PUD's if they: i. Are adjacent to or across the street from property which already has been approved for a PUD; ii. Contain unusual physical features; or iii. Are of special historical interest. (3) PUDs for Senior Housing., i. Mav be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUp is met, ii. Mav be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. Must include Demlanent open space that is either deeded to the City preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the City. iv. Shall be designed as a senior housing campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted v. Mav allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. NRG15001 L A ND F OR Ni September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 5 vi. Mav allow bulletin heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vii. May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. (34) Lots under separate ownership meeting the above requirements may be considered eligible for a PUD permit if a plan is submitted for the entire area and if financial accountability can be provided and shown for all aspects of the plan. (45) Permitted uses in a residential PUD must include detached, semidetached, attached, clustered or multistoried dwelling unit structures, or any combination thereof, and any nonresidential use designed to serve the residents of the PUD and of the vicinity, but which is not deemed to be objectionable. (55) Permitted uses in nonresidential PUD are limited to those permitted either specifically or by special use permit in the zoning district. (6Z) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located. (-7J Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of common open space must be filed with the community development director. When a corporation is formed to maintain space or facilities, the city is empowered to abate any nuisance resulting from the lack of maintenance and has the authority to assess the cost of the abatement of the nuisance to all property owners holding membership in the corporation and to spread the costs as an assessment and to certify the costs to the county auditor for collection with the real estate taxes. (32) The PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's comprehensive plan. (9') Land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes consistent with the standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy. (4911) All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed underground. (44) A building setback from property which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used for a less intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed building's height. (4313) A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved. (43 All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in accordance with city standards and specifications. NRG15001 L ANDFORM September 16, 2016 Text Amendment Narrative 6 We have reviewed the request in accordance with MN law and City ordinance standards in Section 31- 205 and find that the ordinance standards have been met. Specifically, the ordinance requires the City Council to consider two standards when approving a text or map amendment. Our proposal meets these considerations, specifically: 1. The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment. The change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objective outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for more flexible design that will respond to today's marketplace. Furthermore, it will provide an opportunity to provide a portion of 670 new senior housing units that are needed in Stillwater by 2020 as documented in the 2013 Washington County study. The change will allow development of senior housing styles that are demanded by the marketplace and will provide options for Stillwater residents. 2. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed earlier in this narrative, including the City's Comprehensive Plan goal to provide more lifecycle housing. The amendment will correct a deficiency in the existing code and will allow senior housing --like the Select Senior Living project that was approved in 2014—to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. SUMMARY We respectfully request approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment to allow the City to use flexibility from the zoning ordinance standards for senior housing projects in the City. The proposed amendment will formalize past flexibility that the City has previously granted to senior housing projects. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kendra Lindahl at klindahOlandform.net or 612.638.0225. ENCL: Exhibits A – F NRG15001 Text Amendment Narrative L AN DF ORM September 16, 2016 7 ROJECT BOUNDARY OUTHERFORD EMENTARY led LONG LAKE STREET-NORT 1 INTERLACHCJV DRIVE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 0 0 O O BACK 0 100' 200' BLOG HEIGHT PER CODE FRONT NORTH NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT A. 2014 SELECT SENIOR APPROVED PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 laMom�aid She w FeNM1`' urx i.V�ss1 sxr� Ma. 1lmrYc+m.,•:: cn.11C • ate- — r RUTHERFORD ELEMENTARY \ l.� ,10114 i TERLACHEN DRIVE - - STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 0 0 BACK • 1 1 Denotes Retail 0 100' 200' 6.11111.1 BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE FRONT NORTH NORTHLAND ur UR( )l,.r' Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT B: FEBRUARY SUBMITTAL APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 Uraih.A all So 1, Fwtr ...Ands.. fWlifmn Pules. Loss Il RUTHERFORD ELEMENTARY -� - ---7214D•STREE- -NORTW 4' :4 J I L.----.-.-.A� IP TERLACHEN DRIVE41ilia —7: 7— --.AV LONG LAKE 1 `. A STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 0 0 0 BACK 0 100' 200' BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE FRONT NORTH NORTHLAND ,SA!. FAT F CK -AP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT C: JUNE WORKSHOP CONCEPT PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 Ln�ew�aSwwVnZ ..,nwret len.. we* , b lwfln. Mfievs/ 1ormaIl: BACK STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 0 0 0 100' 200' BLDG HEIGHT PER CODE FRONT NORTH NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT D: SEPTEMBER CONCEPT PLAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at.-.>-+n,-y . fS SMY[n 1,1C ola U kr.* ._ 111 11 I niu 71:_E 1111 hill 1 11112s' • lulfin l/ 111 10,11111!1* \ Yl 0 f.'!JAI!' i—.,Alli, :l. III alt la _ fq.,•- a Ir .- I. �lIIT s.l_. 11111. ■]:�i10 't 17j11s111! 111r*z l-"� ,�„ . I ri111Fl1 i �. ■iii 1� �' :iii7;_7turauLinkingiri-404:01 1Comi ���.��IL ■ ■ ■�Cli �- �_#f1r 1ICI% I Illi •e =III is +lS•uI L. X111 J = !#ILII ll '� ■lull I III ! #1 1 MPhiliMIl ^ 11 0 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA LEGEND Vacant parcels where Senior Living Facilities are allowed today (zoned either Lakeshore Residential or Medium Density Residential) District AP: Agricultural Preservation LR: Lakeshore Residential CTR: Cove Tradillonal Residential RA: One Family Residential TR Traditional Residential v' CCR: Cove Cottage Residential RB. Two Family Residential CR: Cottage Residential r TH. Townhouse c CTHR: Cove Townhouse Residential * RCM: Medium Density Residential • RCH: High Density Residential CBD' Central Business District 61 VC: Village Commercial * CA General Commercial BPC: Business Park Commercial BPO: Business Park Office 0 BPI: Business Park Industrial * CRO: Campus Research Development * PA: Public Administration ;P PWF: Public Works Facility * PROS'. Parks, Recreation and Open Space NORTH NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT E: ZONING MAP WITH POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 Item - Exhibit A - - Exhbit B - Concept - Exhibit C - Council - Exhibit D - Select Sr. Living Application (February) Workshop Concept Current Concept Gross Parcel Size (ac) Upland Area (ac) % of Total Net Buildable Area (ac) Wetlands Water Steep Slopes R/W % of Total Footprint (Sr. Bldgs) Footprint (Brownstones) Footprint (Villa Pads) Total Footprint Building sq. ft. (GFA) First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Dedicated Conservation Area (ac) Units (total) MC AL IL Brownstones Villas Building Height (ft) Stories Stories exposed to South & West Gross Density (units/acre) Net Density BAR (footprint/Net Area) FAR (Total GFA/Net area) Impervious Coverage (%) Pervious Area Impervious Area Parking Underground Parking at -grade Retail Sq. Footage 6.50 6.50 100.00% 5.87 90.29% 32,870 N/A N/A 32,870 92,250 32,870 29,690 29,690 0 101 10 45 46 0 0 35 (flat roof) 3 3 15.53 17.20 12.85% 36.06% 24.80% 0 50 0 49.30 34.01 68.99% 30.94 2.00 13.30 0.72 2.33 62.77% 89,288 22,980 112,268 313,824 112,268 112,268 89,288 8.83 262 31 38 169 24 0 41 3 4 5.31 8.79 6.62% 23.28% 25.00% 25.26 8.42 180 158 10,000 49.30 34.01 68.99% 29.37 2.00 13.30 0.72 3.91 59.57% 110,320 0 32,205 142,525 326,255 142,525 102,275 81,455 26.28 243 31 118 78 0 16 41 3 4 4.93 8.27 8.62% 25.50% 25.00% 24.06 8.02 218 232 5,000 (daycare) 49.30 34.01 68.99% 29.88 2.00 13.30 0.72 3.40 60.61% 112,883 8,574 36,000 157,457 266,949 121,457 116,462 29,030 26.28 220 29 50 119 10 12 41 3 2 to 3 4.46 7.36 8.67% 20.51% 25.00% 24.45 8.15 240 215 5,000 (daycare) 41 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP Project Team: Ebenezer Landform Pope Architects Welsh/Colliers EXHIBIT F: PROPERTY DATA SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 jj1water THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 12, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer and Siess Absent: Councilmember Menikheim Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of September 14, 2016 mectin z minutes Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the September 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion passed 8-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2016-37: Special Use Permit (STJPI for a tattoo shgg to be located at 124 Main Street North. Josh Strand, applicant and Joyce Melton, pxoperty owner. City Planner Wittman explained that Josh Strand is proposing to relocate his tattoo business from Oak Park Heights to 124 Main Street North. The four -chair studio is proposed to be located in the entirety of the 1,596 square foot, storefront unit. There is a four parking space deficit on the piupeity and the proposal will go before the Downtown Parking Commission. She stated that the question was raised as to whether this type of service establishment is considered an Adult Use. It is the opinion of staff and City Attorney Magnuson that the intent of the Adult Uses ordinance was for sexually -oriented business. While minors in the State of Minnesota are not allowed to be tattooed, even with parental consent, the business also provides piercing services to 16-18 year old minors, accompanied by a parent. Therefore, the Main Street Tattoo business has been determined to not be an Adult Use. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Josh Strand informed the Commission that he has been running the tattoo shop in Oak Park Heights for six years. Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hade stated he doesn't feel the shop fits in with the rest of downtown. He respects the City Attorney but disagrees with his interpretation of the statute. He feels this is clearly an adult use because the main business will be tattoos and customers have to be over 18 to get a tattoo in Minnesota. Commissioner Fletcher pointed out there is another tattoo shop that has been in the downtown area for quite some time. She supports the request. Commissioner Hansen pointed out that the Special Use Permit would be subject to review on complaint which provides controls if something negative happens. Chairman Kocon said he supports the request because the zoning district allows tattoo shops under a SUP. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve Case No. 2016-37, Special Use Permit (SUP) for a tattoo shop to be located at 124 Main Street North, with the five conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 7-1, with Commissioner Hade voting nay. Case No. 2016-38: Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PVDs for Senior Housing. Kendra Lindahl, Landform representing Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that on April 5, Brian Farrell with Northland Real Estate gained conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the Croix Bay Senior Living Care Facility to be located at 12525/12721 75th Street North and 12620 72nd Street North. At that time, the request for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) was denied by the City Council. A new ZAT request has been submitted which is proposing to add a new subsection to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for new Qualifications and Requirements for senior housing PUDs. The new subsection is proposed to read that PUDs for senior housing: i. May be approved if the purpose and intent of the PUD is met; ii. May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size; iii. Must include permanent open space that is either deeded to the City or preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the City; iv. Shall be designed as a senior housing campus with a variety of housing options. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted; v. May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district; vi. May allow building heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district; vii. May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. Ms. Wittman explained that City staff and legal counsel have determined the application is substantially different than the original proposal, proposing greater standards for qualifications and requirements. Six comments were received - five in support and one against the text amendment. Staff finds that with certain modifications including the omission of subsections i -iv, the public necessity and the general community welfare are furthered and that the proposed ZAT is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wittman further explained the senior housing goals that have been set for Stillwater. She stated that staff finds that with modifications, the zoning text amendment could allow for greater flexibility and help the community meet the senior housing goals. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the ZAT with certain modifications. Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Commissioner Siess pointed out that Stillwater is unique in that one boundary is a river. The City does not have a lot of space in which to attempt to meet the established goals for senior living. Commissioner Kelly asked about the difference in the standards for PUD review versus variance review. City Planner Wittman explained that while both PUDs and variances require public hearings. PUDs require two sets of public hearings at the Commission and Council level: concept PUD and final PUD heard by both. Variances usually get one public hearing at the Planning Commission. The standards for each are different - PUDs were designed for flexibility to allow for site-specific development where official controls may have been constraining, as long as something has a mixture of uses, housing types and meets comprehensive plan goals. Variances are based on practical difficulty and a three-part test: is it reasonable, is there some uniqueness to the land not created by the applicant, and will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Siess asked for clarification whether the proposed ZAT would really only impact the one parcel of land under consideration. Ms. Wittman replied that at this time, the parcel of land being discussed is the only one that would not need other zoning changes. Commissioner Kelly questioned why the developer would not ask for a variance instead of the ZAT. Ms. Wittman reminded the Commissioners they were asking site-specific questions whereas she had advised them to focus on the ZAT which is related to the City rather than this specific site. Commissioner Kelly stated that if the proposed ZAT is not site specific, then the next question would be what sites does it specifically impact? If it is just this one site, an alternative to amending the text to accommodate one parcel might be to come with a variance request. If the City has routinely been approving PUDs with densities greater than what is in the PUD regulations, then the Commission should look at redoing the entire PUD language. Commissioner Hade asked what notice was given for the hearing. City Planner Wittman replied that all properties within 350 feet of the site, as well as notices in the Gazette, City web site and on Facebook. Kendra Lindahl, Landform Professional Services, representing the applicant, stated the ZAT is a policy issue for the Commission and not specifically about Croix Bay. The concept plan for Croix Bay was approved by the Council March 22 but the text amendment was denied at that meeting. The Council voiced concern that the proposed language was not specific enough, it was too broad and could affect too many properties. So developers looked at how to help the City fix some of the challenges presented by the existing PUD ordinance. She pointed out the 2030 comprehensive plan identifies the need to provide senior housing. In 2013 Washington County did market studies and determined there is not enough existing or planned senior housing to meet the demand, that by 2020, 670 senior units in the Stillwater area would be needed. Developers are asking to formalize the flexibility that has historically been granted. She said that three story buildings are today the marketplace standard because they reduce site impacts, make financial sense and have shorter corridors for seniors. They require a different kind of scale to integrate into the community. Any senior housing project that comes into Stillwater is not going to be a single story nursing home - people want a place where they can be active and age in place. Ms. Lindahl stated that the proposed text amendment allows the City flexibility to respond to development proposals. The amendment would apply to senior housing across the City. Developers are comfortable with staff s recommendation to omit the first four Page 3of8 Planning Commission October 12, 2016 items. The other items provide flexibility to work with developers, to find a project that fits within a particular site and is market -ready. She said to be very clear, developers are not asking for project approval tonight. Since the concept plan was approved by the Council March 22, they have worked on massing and density and have reduced the number of units from 262 to roughly 220 units, reduced height for the majority of the site, and a small portion of the center remains three stories. Developers hope to come back with an actual plat and site plan. They think the policy issue should be addressed City-wide to allow the City to help meet its senior housing demand. Commissioner Siess pointed out there is a big difference between the Select Senior Living plan previously approved in 2014, at 17 units per acre on five acres, and Croix Bay's proposal on 50 acres. She also asked, if the ZAT were approved, how would it benefit the Croix Bay proposal? Ms. Lindahl replied if the text amendment is not approved, Croix Bay developers would look at a smaller number of units but the footprint would get bigger, resulting in less open space, and they would have to reconsider the site. Commissioner Kelly stated Ms. Lindahl had referred to the ZAT being beneficial across the City, but it is pretty specific to senior living facilities on parcels over 20 acres. Ms. Lindahl replied that the City Council said they felt there was not enough discretion and wanted more specifics in the text amendment. She feels it's good for the City to allow PUD flexibility. That was just her starting point to have the conversation and frame the discussion. She is not saying that's the only answer. Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. Dionne Meisterling, 12550 72nd Street, stated she has attended all the prior meetings and has significant concern that misinformation is not being corrected. Her property is on the west side of the site. It takes up the entire 350 feet notification limit, so she informs other neighbors of the hearings. She is concerned that the planning department may be willing to change anything to get the proposal to go through. Previous proposals were denied. She feels a bias may be being given to this project. She is not against the development but wants City planners to look toward the best interest of the citizens. She was surprised at the last vote because there was no conversation about impacts on her property, despite the fact that the developer wanted to construct buildings that would span the entire north and east side of her property line, towering over her backyard. She feels the 2014 project would not need a height variance because the max was 35 feet and that proposal was at 34 feet. The clarification of three versus two and a half stories was not part of the discussion because height was not part of their project. Tonight they said they are reducing from 262 to 220 units, but Mr. Lazan was quoted in March stating it would be more than 220 and when the Council asked him specifically, he stated 230-250 units. She can't see a record of any conversation about density in 2014. She also observed the Mayor express concern about the big commercial expanse, as well as height and density, at the City Council meeting. The property was specifically guided for low density residential, yet this facility would be high density. Ms. Meisterling said that Northland Development Group wants wiggle room on the height and the density in Lakeshore Residential. They also would like to build a senior living facility on land that is completely in the shoreland overlay district. She read from the City ordinance noting that senior care facilities are permitted by SUP on lands that are partly, not wholly, in the shoreland overlay district. She asked the Commission to deny the ZAT. Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Don McKenzie, 12620 72nd Street North, noted he provided the City with a letter outlining the background of the project. He has been getting only positive feedback on the project. He is confident he made the right decision for future use of his property which is 10.25 acres constituting about 20% of the proposed senior living campus site. He and his wife can no longer take care of the property but it was never officially for sale. The single family development proposed years ago never occurred. Developers have approached them over the years but this is the first plan that seemed right. The density on the prior approved project was 7.39 units per acre but Northland's concept density was 5.24 and now has been reduced to 4.4 units per acre by reducing the number of units. He added that the current Northland plan has a number of adjustments that should alleviate height concerns. Gary Jacobsen, 198 Northland Avenue, stated he supports the zoning text amendment. The land owner has cleaned up the property making it a fitting setting for a senior housing development. He feels precedence was set in 2008 and 2014 approving a project that had far higher density than the present project. Stillwater desperately needs senior housing. Del Miske, 14155 10th Street North, West Lakeland, a member of Grace Baptist Church next door to the site, expressed support for the zoning text amendment. He feels the project is worthy. He is not speaking officially for the church but he has not heard any members express opposition. Phillip Manger, 12525 72nd Street North, spoke in opposition to the zoning text amendment. He is not opposed to senior or life cycle housing but feels it is inappropriate to manipulate or break laws to make it happen. He recognized that Stillwater has limited land to satisfy the Met Council's desire for senior living but pointed out that the text amendment would only apply to this parcel despite it being a City- wide ordinance, which constitutes spot zoning. The project would be a hyper -dense commercial project on Long Lake and an attempt to warehouse seniors. Mr. Manger reminded the Commission that, according to City Code, senior care facilities are permitted by SUP on parcels that are partly, not wholly, in the shoreland overlay district. Mr. McKenzie's land is wholly in the shoreland district. Diedra Kramer, 7100 Mid Oaks Avenue North, agreed with those who spoke in opposition to the zoning text amendment. Eldon Lamprecht, owner of 12630 72nd Avenue North, pointed out the question was asked, is this the only property that this zoning text amendment would apply to? The answer is the very property that is being discussed was in Stillwater Township about six years ago. So if Stillwater acquires new property from Grant or Stillwater Township, the text amendment would apply, which would open new possibilities in the future. The proposal is a case in point for the need for the zoning text amendment. He has carried out a forest stewardship plan on his property so it would be suitable for development. He never envisioned that so many seniors could enjoy it. He is paying taxes on the land as if it were developed. The trees planted a year ago were seedlings and are now shoulder or hip high. In 15 years it will be a dense urban forest that would hide just about anything that the developer has proposed. He told the Commission there are trees on his and McKenzies' property that are 5-10 feet higher than any structures that are proposed. He feels the site can handle the density and the use of the property should be maximized. Stephen Huebscher, 703 Wilkins Street West, voiced support for the ZAT to meet senior housing needs. He is a neighbor to Good Samaritan Nursing Home which is an aging facility that will need to be replaced in the future. The public hearing was closed. Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission October 12, 2016 City Planner Wittman shared a City map of approved PUDs as of 2008, stating that some developments exceeded the height or density allowed in their district. She then pointed out the districts which the 2030 comprehensive plan labels low density residential of 1 to 4.4 units per acre. The current zoning districts that fall into that category are RA, one family traditional residential, lakeshore residential, and cove traditional. She added that while it is true that the northwest corner of the development site is partially located in the shoreland district, a significant portion is located on property that is not in the shoreland district. The lot lines will most likely be changed when the developer applies for subdivision. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the first four items are eliminated from the proposed new subsection, is there an easement provision elsewhere in the PUD? She likes item #iii and would like it to remain. City Planner Wittman replied that one standard for PUDs is preservation of open space. It is correct that there is no other provision that indicates the land would have to be deeded. Staff would be leery at this point to bind the hands of the City to accept and manage deeded land, as opposed to the watershed district or some other entity that would be better able to manage open spaces. Chairman Kocon pointed out that in lakeshore residential, density up to 4.4 units per acre is viewed as doable. When looking at a 50 acre site, that could result in a lot of single family homes and take a lot of the open space out of the common good. Commissioner Hansen asked why is there a requirement to have a density over 25 units per acre for a PUD? Ms. Wittman replied that staff has grappled with that issue. The ordinance states that land to be developed as a PUD 1) shall be at least three acres in size, 2) at least one complete city block in size, 3) shall have density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre or 4) when fully developed contain at least two principal buildings. So the argument could be made that developments need to meet 1, 2, and 4, or 1, 2, or 4. The "or" definitely provides flexibility for different types of developments. Commissioner Siess asked if the 2014 development received a height variance. Ms. Wittman replied there were no height variances or density variances associated with that approval. The allowable height in this district is 35 feet or two stories. She explained how this has traditionally been applied in staff reviews of developments. Commissioner Collins commented that the real issue is whether the ZAT is appropriate for Stillwater. He likes the flexibility provided in items v, vi, and vii by the phrase "may allow", not "will allow." Chairman Kocon agreed, adding that he feels strongly about providing life cycle housing, introductory housing for kids and homes for seniors. This is a great location for senior housing. The density on the area proposed contributes to the openness and maximizes the land use. He feels a PUD allows the flexibility to make best use of the property. Commissioner Hade stated he opposes anything that changes the neighborhood where there are longstanding property owners and then someone comes in and wants to do something different. This proposal would put a significant large unit in a residential area. Chairman Kocon responded that he looks at other side of the issue - taking prime open space and cluttering it up with houses. Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Commissioner Fletcher stated she is generally in favor of the zoning text amendment. She would like to believe the changes to the zoning text could apply elsewhere. She feels strongly about ensuring permanent open space, so she would like to retain item #iii. Commissioner Hansen said the Commission should consider that what it is doing now matters for the future so he would like to make sure the language is not too specific. Knowing that the City Council wants the Commission to be more specific is a strange position to be in. If neighbors decided to merge their land there could be more properties in Stillwater to which this zoning language would apply. He is in favor of this site having a senior living center but wants to focus on getting this zoning text amendment right for the future. Today there is no place in Stillwater that could accommodate a senior living center without some language in place for it. He doesn't want this same issue to come up every other month. He supports the ZAT. Commissioner Kelly said he feels that this represents a major change to PUD regulations and that the proposed language adds a section that conflicts directly with another section. He would like to know what other cities' zoning ordinances look like before recommending a change to the current zoning language. He does not like the idea of amending it just for senior living. Commissioner Siess agreed. She would support tabling the matter in order to look at other communities. Without doing that, she feels the Commission would be doing the community a disservice because it would feel like spot zoning. Commissioner Hansen said he agreed to an extent. He realizes that staff does not have time to completely rewrite the ordinance. Without item #vi there is no way of putting a reasonably sized senior living center anywhere in Stillwater. Commissioner Kelly asked if the developer could ask for a height variance instead of the zoning text amendment. Ms. Wittman replied the developer could ask for any variance they want with any application. She agreed to look at model ordinances and see what other cities have done. Chairman Kocon remarked this is one way of preserving open space in Stillwater, planning for the future and providing life cycle housing. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to table Case No. 2016-38, Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing, for the purpose of researching other PUD regulations in other cities with regard to density and height. Motion failed 3 to 5 with Commissioners Collins, Hansen, Fletcher, Lauer, and Chairman Kocon voting against. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to forward to the Council a favorable recommendation on Case No. 2016-38, Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations pertaining to PUDs for Senior Housing, striking item i, keeping item ii, changing item iii to incorporate language requiring the inclusion of open space but eliminating the deeding of the conservation easement, leaving items iv through viii with a weighted recommendation that the Commission would support eliminating them but since the City Council is requesting more specific language, leaving those items in and letting the Council make that decision. Commissioner Siess restated that she feels that this is spot zoning and that the word "may" could allow heights that exceed zoning restrictions. She would like this on record. Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission October 12, 2016 Chairman Kocon countered that he feels the word "may" is what gives the ordinance flexibility; it doesn't say "shall." Commissioner Kelly noted if eliminate ii and iv are eliminated, would that be consistent with vi? Even though the section has a heading, the exact requirements should still be explained below the heading. Commissioner Hansen remarked with the heading of qualifications for senior housing, the wording is consistent. Motion passed 5 to 3 with Commissioners Hade, Kelly and Siess voting against. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES VRBO Survey Commissioner Siess asked to see the results of the survey about rental housing. City Planner Wittman stated that the survey results as well as results of a meeting on the topic would be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. She will try to provide access to the survey results as soon as possible. Commissioner Siess pointed out that, along with the complaint of not having enough senior housing there is also the complaint there is not enough lodging in Stillwater. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 p.m. All in favor, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 8 of 8 Sec. 31-205. Zoning map and zoning text amendment. (StUwte r Planning, Department Amendment of the text of this chapter or the zoning map shall be according to the following: (a) General. The provisions or text of this chapter or the zoning map may be amended by the city council, by ordinance when public necessity, the general community welfare and good zoning practice permit the amendment. All amendments to the zoning map must be in conformance with the comprehensive plan, adopted area or specific plans and other appropriate city policy. (b) Application. Amendments may be initiated by the city council, the planning commission or the owner or authorized agent of the property. (c) Planning commission hearing. A public hearing must be held by the planning commission on all proposed amendments. The commission must forward a recommendation for approval, modified approval or denial to the city council for final action. (d) Findings required. Prior to making a recommendation for approval or modified approval of a proposed amendment to the city council, the commission must first find that the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. (e) City council hearing. Upon receipt of the planning commission recommendations and prior to the adoption of any amendment, the city council must hold a public hearing. (f) Findings required. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance amending any of the provisions of this chapter, the city council must find that: (1) The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment; and (2) The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan. (g) Modification by city council. Modification of proposed amendments by the city council shall be as follows: (1) (2) Nonsubstantive changes. The city council may modify any proposed amendment by making nonsubstantive changes in the wording of a proposed text amendment; or, in the case of a proposed zoning map amendment, by reducing the area involved or by adopting a more restrictive zoning classification. Prior to taking the action, the city council may refer the proposed change to the planning commission which must report back to the city council within 30 days after the date of the city council referral or it will be deemed to have approved the proposed change. Substantive change. Any substantive change proposed by the city council must be referred to the planning commission for a public hearing. The commission must report to the city council within 60 days of referral. Where action cannot be taken within 60 days by the commission, it may request a longer period of time, and the city council may grant an extension. 1 of 1 10/7/2013 3:50 PM �iiii�ll I��-- amitilult, Millbrook ,4b-'4rt•.) ...- -• ....• `4141141.1 • '•• •E•••• .p • • • Ver !■■i■■•■ Oak Glen 1 I; 400 ;I; 4 "•. — , IP gil& tab V m pir .. -_. • r • V IMO • IP • Terra Springs t11 Iv Settler's Glen • Liberty Village • •.. Briggs o •e • .... ••i. •i••.••••w 4 ...... • • • •¢••4••¢. • •• 1••"V•••P • .`,• •.......1•••.•••;••¢••.,.•••...' • Liberty on the Lake ,••ti•• • akgrove Church • ••r • r . 1••••••••••• ••r•. ••••a•• Autumn Wood CUB Office ••1•. i • -- Highlands • • • 9....... ... r...t••.i•••}•••1.••..••.F••• • ••I ITII Legends Emerson Long Lake Villas Swager Stillwater Marketplace Stillwater Crossings Forest Ridge •••.. •••.••• Rose Garden :Y•••...• Calibre Ridge WW1, iii.-.-..-.++.L+_.-.s..r s,...... •.................. ...... Community Development Department PUD Permits Final PUD Active Concept PUD County Offices February 21, 2008 Slilwater Planning, Department Sec. 31-210. Planned unit development permit. Planned unit developments shall meet the following requirements: (a) Purpose. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for a means of: (1) Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its improvements. (2) Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living environment. (3) Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between building and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as is the case in monostructural development. (4) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas. (b) Qualifications and requirements. Qualifications and requirements shall be as follows: (1) Land to be improved as a PUD: i. Shall be at least three acres in size; ii. Shall be at least one complete city block in size; iii. Shall have a density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre; or iv. Shall, when fully developed, contain upon it at least two principal buildings. (2) Smaller lots may be improved as PUD's if they: i. Are adjacent to or across the street from property which already has been approved for a PUD; ii. Contain unusual physical features; or iii. Are of special historical interest. (3) Lots under separate ownership meeting the above requirements may be considered eligible for a PUD permit if a plan is submitted for the entire area and if financial accountability can be provided and shown for all aspects of the plan. (4) Permitted uses in a residential PUD must include detached, semidetached, attached, clustered or multistoried dwelling unit structures, or any combination thereof, and any nonresidential use designed to serve the residents of the PUD and of the vicinity, but which is not deemed to be objectionable. (5) Permitted uses in nonresidential PUD are limited to those permitted either specifically or by special use permit in the zoning district. (6) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located. (7) Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of common open space must be filed with the community development director. When a corporation is formed to maintain space or facilities, the city is empowered to abate any nuisance resulting from the lack of maintenance and has the authority to assess the cost of the abatement of the nuisance to all property owners holding membership in the corporation and to 1 of 4 pages spread the costs as an assessment and to certify the costs to the county auditor for collection with the real estate taxes. (8) The PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's comprehensive plan. (9) Land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes consistent with the standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy. (10) All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed underground. (11) A building setback from property which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used for a less intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed building's height. (12) A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved. (13) All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in accordance with city standards and specifications. (c) Submittal requirements. The following information must be presented for review in accordance with the procedures outlined in (d) and (e) of this Section 31-210 (1) A certified plot plan (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) showing all information required by the subdivision chapter of this Code. (2) A vertical aerial photograph of the site at a scale of one to 200 or larger. (3) The legal description of the property. (4) The nature of the applicant's financial interest in the land to be developed and the proposed methods of interim and long-term financing to the project. (5) A statement describing ultimate density of the proposed development and the expected impact upon the city school district. (6) A schematic drawing and map of the proposed development area, including street layouts and lot size and locations. (7) Proposed allocations of land use expressed as a percentage of the total and in acres. Uses to be indicated must include: Streets, both public and private, and other transportation facilities. ii. Open space, both public and private. iii. Commercial uses. iv. Industrial uses. v. A stratification of residential use in terms of number of single-family detached, single-family attached and multiple -family dwellings. (8) A certified map (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) of existing site conditions, that include at a minimum: General topographic features. ii. Location and extent of tree cover. iii. Slope analysis. iv. Location and extent of swamps, wetlands and streams. v. Significant rock outcroppings. vi. Existing drainage patterns and ponding areas. (9) 2 of 4 pages A general development site plan (at a scale of one to 100 or larger) indicating all circulation elements, pedestrian and vehicular, all natural open space, recreation space, structures, landscaping, fences and other onsite improvement features. (10) A certified utilities plan, indicating street lighting, storm drainage pending, runoff and disposal facilities and the placement of water, sewer and electrical, gas and communications. (11) A staging plan for any project involving more than one year's construction time. (12) Tables and graphs indicating the gross square footage of commercial or industrial floor space by specific type of activity and the number of residential dwelling units by the number of bedrooms. (13) Preliminary architectural plans, indicating the floor plans, elevations and exterior wall finishes of all proposed buildings. (14) The plan for solid waste disposal that meets city, county and Pollution Control Agency requirements. (15) Firefighting and other public safety facilities and procedures. (16) An economic benefit analysis if required by the planning commission or city council for aid in evaluating the impact of the development on city facilities and services. (17) A recreational plan. (18) A public buildings plan providing for school, administrative or public safety quarters. (19) Other plans or information required by the community development director. (d) Concept approval. Concept approval procedures are as follows: (1) The applicant must file a statement of intention to develop property under the PUD provisions along with the application fee and a review deposit to cover estimated legal and engineering costs. Any amount remaining after administration, engineering and legal costs have been paid will be refunded to applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient, the applicant must submit an additional amount to the city. (2) The request must be referred to the planning commission. The applicant must present at least 12 copies of the information listed in subsections (b) and (c) above. The commission must make a recommendation to the city council within 45 days. (3) Upon receipt of concept approval and any modification to the plans required by the city council, the applicant may proceed to file a request for final approval. Failure to do so within six months of the date of the receipt of the concept approval, will be cause for revocation of concept approval. (4) Concept approval will not bind the city to grant final approval. (e) Final approval procedures. Final approval procedures are as follows: (1) The applicant must file a request for final approval along with the required fee to cover the costs of checking and processing plans, plus a deposit to cover estimated administration, engineering and legal costs. Any amount remaining after administration, engineering and legal costs have been paid will be refunded to the applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient, the applicant must submit an additional amount to the city before final approval may be granted. (2) 3 of 4 pages (0 (g) 4 of 4 pages The request must be referred to the planning commission. Unless waived specifically by the commission, 12 copies of all information listed in (c) of this Section 31-210, and required data must be submitted for review. The commission must make a recommendation to the city council within 45 days of the submission of the final plans. (3) The city council may hold a public hearing on the request. (4) The city council must evaluate the PUD request using all criteria consistent with this subdivision, the needs of the city, and common land use planning principals and standards and must make its decision within 60 days of the date of the public hearing. Staged developments. If it is proposed to develop a project during a period which will exceed two years, the applicant may request concept approval for the entire project and permission to submit detailed information respecting only the first stage of the project. If permission is granted by the city council, a separate public hearing may nevertheless be required respecting each stage of the project as it is reached. Detailed plans must be submitted in accordance with the approved phasing schedule. Final approval and issuance of PUD permit. Final approval by the city council and the issuance of a PUD permit will occur when: (1) All agreed upon public open space has been deeded to the city and has been officially recorded; or an agreement has been reached between the city and the applicant for cash payment in lieu of land donation. (2) Design and construction specifications for all public utilities and street improvements have been approved by the city engineer. (3) A plat of the development site, if needed, has been filed and recorded both with the city and the county register of deeds. Failure to register the plat, within 120 days of final approval is grounds for revocation of the PUD permit. (4) An agreement has been reached between the city and the applicant specifying the standards to be used in the construction of all streets and utilities, storm ponding, runoff and disposal facilities, landscaping, final grading and the provision, use and maintenance of privately owned recreational facilities. To ensure that these improvements are completed under the terms of the agreement, the applicant must post a corporate surety bond or cash bond equal to 125 percent of the cost of the improvements guaranteeing the faithful performance of the work specified in the agreement or the payment of any costs to the city in a sum equal to the total as recommended by the city engineer and approved by the city council. The bond must cover all requirements; provided, however, that part of the bond may be released when any part of each phase is completed, upon the recommendation of the city engineer. (5) All other plans and conditions of final approval have been approved. Stillwater 1995 Land Use Categories SFLL Single Family Large Lot up to 2 units/acre SFSL ASF MF Single Family Small Lot up to 4 units/acre Attached Single Family up to 6 units/acre Mutli-Family up to 15 units/acre 2030 Residential Land Use Plan Categories 2030 Future Land Use Categories 1 Densities represent the maximum permitted LDR LMDR MDR HDR Low Density Residential 1- 4.4 units/acre Low -Medium Density Residential 4.4 - 9.7 units/acre Medium Density Residential 6-14.5 units/acre High Density Residential 12+ units/acre -no max. Low Density Residential (LDR): This classification provides a range of lower density residential opportunities. This land use category is the largest in the city with 1,612.2 acres. It is the predominant land use type in western Stillwater. Single family homes are the main use found in the LDR category. Other uses that relate well to single family homes are permitted (usually by Special Use Permit) including parks, playgrounds, churches and schools. The zoning districts that are consistent with the LDR category have a density range of 1 to 4.4 homes per acre. Much of the LDR category is already fully developed. Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR): This classification provides a broad range of low and medium density residential opportunities and is the second largest in terms of acres (936.6). This category encompasses a range of zoning districts that aim to provide flexibility in lot size and density. LMDR guided areas will develop at 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre. This classification has been applied to all the existing lower to medium density properties zoned RB in the older neighborhoods of the city, as it best reflects the density at which development has occurred in these traditional neighborhoods. In addition many of the remaining vacant parcels in western Stillwater have been guided Low Medium Density Residential as a way to provide the most flexibility in new neighborhood design and in promoting increased density. Corresponding Zoning Districts) RA One Family 4.4 units/ac TR Traditional Residential 4.4 units/ac LR Lakeshore Residential 2.2 units/ac CTR Cove Traditional Res. 3.1 units/ac CCR Cove Cottage Res. 4.4-6.2 units/ac RB Two Family 5.9-8.7 units/acre CR Cottage Residential 7.3-9.7 units/ac TH Townhouse 8.7 units/ac CTHR Cove Townhouse Res. 14.5 units/ac RCL Low Density Multi -Family 6.2 units/acre RCM Medium Density Multi -Family 15.6 units/ac RCH High Density Multi -Family 29.0 units/ac Met Council Categories SRES- Single Family Residential SRES- Single Family Residential MRES- Multi-Family Residential MU - Mixed Use MRES- Multi - Low Density Residential Example Low Medium Density Residential Example PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑ Chapter 2 : Land Use 2-14 Site C Site C is located east of Manning, on the south side of CSAH 12/Myrtle Street, and just north of Long Lake. This site has good transportation access, some access to Long Lake, but limited natural resource areas. Some of the Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs that relate to this site include: • Designate residential densities and housing types sensitive to natural resources and land use conditions. • When new development occurs adjacent to a designated trail and pathway corridor, the city should require the development to install and maintain the trails. Figure 2.7C : Site C Given the character of surrounding land uses, it was determined that this site is appropriate for the expansion of low density residential land uses. Site C consists of 12.0 LDR acres. ❑❑ PLAN OF STILLWATER ❑❑ 2-29 Chapter 2 : Land Use Community Bayport Cottage Grove Forest Lake Oak Park Heights White Bear Lake General Information The city council may grant a planned unit development (PUD) from the provisions of these [subdivision] regulations, as defined in the zoning ordinance, provided that the city council shall find that the proposed development is fully consistent with the purpose and intent of these regulations. This provision is intended to provide necessary flexibility for new land planning and land development trends and techniques. Purpose includes 'to include lifecycle housing to all income and age groups" Intent: To encourage variety in the organization and site elements, land uses, building densities, and building types and to promote higher standards of site and building design for all PUD projects Established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the Summary of Community PUD height and density regulations October, 2016 Height The development standards for PUDs shall be guided by the underlying zoning district and established with PUD approval (with the exception of density, as noted). Density The maximum allowable density in a PUD zoning district shall be determined by standards negotiated and agreed upon between the applicant and the city. Each residential PUD or the residential portion of each mixed use PUD shall have a density within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the PUD site. If the site is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the City based upon the City Council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of the PUD and of the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum allowable density in a PUD District shall be determined by standards negotiated and agreed upon between the applicant and the City. Not to exceed 125% Additional Information (2) Residential densities. A PUD may provide for a variety of housing types in any one of the basic residential zoning districts. The total number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall be determined by either of the following: (a) The area standards of the underlying zoning district in which the proposed development is to be located; (b) The density specified by the PUD is consistent with the intent of the city's Comprehensive Plan. A plan may provide for a greater number of dwelling units per acre than would otherwise be permitted by the Comprehensive Plan. However, the applicant has the burden of showing that such increases in units will not have an undue and adverse impact on existing public facilities and on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property owners of their properties. The city, in determining the reasonableness of the increase in the authorized dwelling units per acre, shall recognize that increased density may be compensated for by additional private amenities and by increased efficiency in public facilities and services to be achieved by: 1. The location, amount, and proposed use of common open space; 2. The location, design, and type of dwelling units; and 3. The physical characteristics of the site. No deviation from height or density within applicable zoning districts for PUD conditional use permits. Allowing variation from the strict provisions of this Code related to density, setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. Woodbury development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications as part of a PUD conditional use permit or a mixture of densities/intensities, or use types when applied to a PUD district May allow modification to zoning and subdivision requirements such as lot size and dimensions, rights-of- way and street widths, housing types and building setbacks as well as allow private streets and driveways or zero lot line development. Summary of Community PUD height and density regulations October, 2016 In any PUD the maximum number of dwelling units allowed shall not exceed the base density identified in the land use districts in the comprehensive plan, except that: (a)Density bonuses consistent with the comprehensive plan and any adopted city policies may be granted if the proposed project meets certain objectives of the city as identified in the comprehensive plan. These objectives include but are not limited to affordable housing or other identified housing needs, sustainability, increased open space or greenway development. (b)Density transfers within the PUD may be allowed provided the project area is at least 40 acres; however, this area requirement may be reduced when the project provides for the dedication of needed public infrastructure. October 10, 2016 Dear Planning Commission Members and City Council Planning Commission Representative Reference: Croix Bay Northland Real Estate Group Case # 2016-38 Northland Real Estate Group is seeking approval to allow development of Croix Bay, a senior living community on the 50 -acre site in the western area of Stillwater. It is believed that we are all aware of the pressing need for senior housing and care. As Stillwater property owners for almost 45 years, we have been approached by developers numerous times and have carefully studied their various development proposals. Northland Real Estate Group is not the first to have approached us with a plan for senior housing. We have elected to turn down prior prospects for senior housing even though they were from major players in that arena, and even though their purchase offers were far more lucrative personally than this current offer from Northland. However, we did not believe those previous developer's plans were right for our property, and did not feel those plans were the best fit for the needs of the City of Stillwater. After meeting with members of the Northland Real Estate Group team and reviewing their Senior Housing proposals for the several anticipated adjoining properties, we realized the benefits for seniors in their overall lifecycle campus concept plans. We saw this as the right future use for our property and we believed their plan would well serve the City of Stillwater and surrounding areas. Since word of this proposed senior living concept has spread, we have personally been approached by a number of Stillwater residents, and several nonresidents, who are excited about the prospects of this Stillwater location. The convenience, tranquility and the beauty of this location for senior lifecycle living and care seems to be igniting their excitement. In fact, no one has personally approached us with any negative views of the proposed project. We are writing to you today to elicit your considerations, and hopefully your support, in the efforts of the Northland team in moving closer to making this senior lifecycle living campus a reality. Respectfully Submitted, Don and Rosemary McKenzie October 10, 2016 Subject: Case # CPC/2016-38 Dear City Planner, We would like to go on record as fully supporting the necessary zoning changes (ZAT) requested by Northland Real Estate Group to allow development of Croix Bay senior living community. The landowner, Mr. Lamprecht, has done a fabulous job of clearing the property of Buckthorn and other invasive trees/shrubs, seeded the entire area and planted over 10,000 native trees, shrubs and wild flowers, making the entire 50 acre expanse a greatly improved landscape. The senior housing complex would be a terrific use of the western half of the property, with the eastern half remaining attractive open space. As this area's population ages, Stillwater desperately needs senior living options and a 3 - story facility at this location would be ideal. The City Council approved a 3 -story building on this property in 2014 (Select Senior Living) and we ask that the City Planning Commission fix the ordinance to allow other senior housing projects, like Croix Bay, the same option that Select Senior Living was granted. Sincerely, Gary & Mary Anne Jacobsen 198 Northland Ave Stillwater, MN 55082 Abbi Wittman From: Elden Lamprecht <eldenl4@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:48 PM To: ryanjcollins@hotmail.com; jenna.fletcher@tpl.org; seanhade@comcast.net; eric.fsci@gmail.com; ckelly@stillwaterestateplanning.com; mikekocon@aol.com; lauerathon@gmail.com; afsundberg@yahoo.com; Doug Menikheim; Abbi Wittman; Bill Turnblad Subject: Northland Real Estate Group Case No. 2016-38 support To: Planning Commission and City Council Planning Commission Representative Reference: Case No. 2016-38 PUDs for Senior Housing ZAT Northland RE Group "Hardly Able Acres" at 12630 72nd St N is approximately 29 acres that contributes around 3/5 of the acreage for the proposed Croix Bay senior housing development. I purchased the property from the State of Minnesota and proceeded to enhance its potential and appeal for residential housing under a MN DNR "Forestry Stewardship Plan". Contrary to some of the testimony you have heard, my strategic labors and investments are consistent with responsible soil and water quality enhancement practices. Actions such as burning were carried out under the appropriate DNR variances, City permits, and purview. One year ago Northland Real Estate Group met with me to review a plan that potentially involved my property in a 50 acre senior housing development. That plan instantly appealed to me because, instead of 12-15 households enjoying my efforts, there was the potential for a large number of seniors plus their visiting family members to enjoy access to the natural vistas and grounds. The present plan converts my current Private Property to a natural open -space public park under the ownership of the City of Stillwater. No new streets and services. No major new traffic safety issues. No public hearings. Just natural public open -space! The Zoning Text Amendment before you has merit as a tool allowing the City Council to consider potential highly desirable development opportunities, like Croix Bay, as they offer to both meet the City's senior housing benchmarks and, through reasonable density proposals, more fully utilize desirable land parcels for senior housing sites. The ZAT gives the City Council discretion on the basis of each site's potential vs. making subjective decisions based on feedback; ["1 think it is too high." "I think it is too dense." "I can still see it." "When I moved into the neighborhood they said.... ] The ZAT allows maximizing land utilization on a case-by-case basis vs. unnecessarily limiting the number of seniors who can access the amenities of that same land. The specific Croix Bay site is well suited to high density three story lifestyle senior housing because of its acreage and recent enhancements. The site is now reforested with over 7,000 up and growing new trees; White & Red Pine, Black Walnut, Red & White Oak, White Birch, Tamarack, Butternut, Black Cherry. The permanently seeded land blossoms with new plantings of wildlife shrubs, wildflowers, blue stem and pollinator friendly seedings. The 50 acre site distinguishes itself for high density senior housing. I support the use of my property for the Croix Bay senior housing development. I desire your thoughtful consideration and support in favor of approving the PUDs for Senior Housing zoning text 1 amendment. I look forward in anticipation of my property being used by many seniors residing at Croix Bay, their guests and the general public. Sincerely yours, Dr Elden Lamprecht 2 Abbi Wittman From: Brian Farrell <brian@northlandregroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:33 PM To: Abbi Wittman Cc: Darren Lazan; AICP Kendra Lindahl Subject: Fwd: Croix Bay Project FYI Abbi... Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Michael Reichert" <mnlreichert@toast.net> Date: October 11, 2016 at 2:25:24 PM CDT To: <brian@northlandrearoun.com> Subject: fw: Croix Bay Project Reply -To: mnlreichertna,toast.net Brian: FYI...same text sent to each Council Member. We definitely plan to attend the November 2nd neighborhood meeting. Linda From: "Michael Reichert" <mnIreicherttoast.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:20 PM To: tkozlowsku ci.stillwater.mn.us Subject: Croix Bay Project Dear Mayor Kozlowski: Although we currently live in White Bear Township, we shop, eat out, visit with friends and purchase services in Stillwater. We have been actively looking for senior housing, and options in Stillwater are limited. We are very interested in the proposed Croix Bay senior development and would love to make Stillwater our home if the development proceeds as planned. Northland Real Estate Group is currently requesting your approval to allow development of the 50 acre site near Rutherford Elementary. The plan proposed by the developer calls for a 3 story structure (I believe the new fire station is 3 stories?) with buildings clustered in the northwest corner of the site. I understand this would preserve approximately 1/2 of the site as open space. This plan, with ample open space, is perhaps the most thoughtful plan for a senior housing complex we've seen. (We, along with our senior friends, don't want to live on a freeway, under giant power structures or surrounded by pavement). I urge you to vote YES to the text amendment allowing three story buildings (November 1st), and YES to the Croix Bay project (December 6th). This development would be a needed and attractive addition to the Stillwater Community. Sincerely, Linda and Mike Reichert White Bear Township 651-429-7997 1 October 10. 2016 Mayor Ted Kozlowski Stillwater City Hal] 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 Dear Mayor: ECIElVE) OCT 12 2018 BY: I am writing to encourage you to support the proposed development of Croix Bay, a Senior living community on the 50 -acre site near Rutherford Elementary School. The City of Stillwater needs more senior housing and this is the only site large enough to support a modern senior complex with quality amenities. I have seen the developer's plan, and support the text amendment to allow them to build a 3 -story building and preserve the eastern %z of the property as open space. A 3 -story building would be similar in size to the nearby Rutherford Elementary School and the Fire Station. The council approved a s 3 -story building on this property in 2014. The developer worked hard and did a good job clustering the project in the northwest corner of the site to keep the building far from Long Lake and preserve more than '/2 of the site as open space. The building is well designed and will provide a new housing option for Stillwater residents. I urge you to vote "yes" for the text amendment to allow 3 -story senior building on November 1 and "yes" to the Croix Bay project on December 6 so that Stillwater Seniors (I'm 81) have a needed option. Sincerely: Lenard Huebscher 2647 Hawthorne Lane Stillwater, Minnesota October 12, 2016 To Members of City of Stillwater Planning Commission:. We are extremely disappointed that the Stillwater's City Planning Department is recommending approval of a zoning text amendment related to the PUD regulations as they pertain to Senior Housing, and as they specifically relate to the development proposed by Landform and Northland Real Estate Group. Further, we believe that since the change has the potential for affecting many neighborhoods in the city, notification of the proposed change should be disseminated more widely throughout the city before the amendment is discussed. In addition, we believe that when changes to large tracts of land are proposed, the city's 300 -foot neighbor - notification rule is inadequate. Although we live only one block from the proposed senior housing development, we learned about it only because we subscribe to city emails about council and commission meetings. We thought the commission and council had listened to our neighborhood's concerns and settled the case months ago. It appears the developers and the city are doing an "end around" with this proposed change. Why is this being rehashed? Why were we not officially notified? Is the city willing to risk a lawsuit? Apartment buildings, for that's what senior housing is, will likely bring additional traffic to an already dangerous road around the north end of Long Lake. The apartments will bring noise and Tight pollution to an area that is special in part because it is quiet and dark at night. We fear the development authorized by the proposed text change will diminish our property values. We are not opposed to senior housing. We are seniors who may move to senior housing some day. But we are opposed to dropping Targe buildings that may exceed 35 feet in height into an established neighborhood of single family homes. Amending the zoning text will trample the rights of neighboring homeowners in favor of people who won't be living next to the high density, high profile development. Many of those neighboring homeowners, like us, have lived in the neighborhood and paid taxes to the city for more than forty years. Unfortunately we cannot attend the planning commission meeting this evening, but we urge members of the planning commission and the city council to reject the proposed zoning text amendment. David and Louise Jones 7079 Mid Oaks Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 651-439-9760 To the Mayor and Council Members of Stillwater, I am writing to support the approval of the text amendment, which would allow Northland Real Estate Group to develop the Croix Bay project. As far as I can tell, this project is "as good as they get" in terms of minimal impact on the environment and providing quality housing at market prices to Stillwater residents. Therefore, I commend you all for your initial support of it. I hope to be able to attend some of the public meetings this fall. In regards to the 35' height of the proposed structure and related issue of density, I would like to point out to the Mayor and Council that the comparative properties in Oak Park Heights are both 4-4%2 stories high with slanted roofs. In the scale of economies, we cannot ask the Croix Bay property to provide comparable housing with half the height allowed, and while being able to build on only 25% of the land. The fact that the City has also allowed both Rutherford School and the Stillwater Fire Department to have higher height allowances in this neighborhood demonstrates precedent for slightly higher heights where real need exists, such as this present situation. Finally, consider that the need for such housing is real. The Washington County Housing Authority recently stated that the Stillwater area will need an additional 650 units for senior housing in four years—by 2020. If approved, Croix Bay will provide approximately 30% of that figure. The ugly alternative would be to force most of our elderly residents move to Oak Park Heights, Woodbury, Oakdale, etc. None of us want that. I urge to you vote "yes" for the text amendment to allow 3 -story senior buildings on November 1 s` and "yes" to the Croix Bay project on December 6th so that Stillwater residents have needed housing option! Thank you all for your work. I love living in Stillwater, and part of the reason is because of all the work that you folks do. Thank you! Kind regards, Stephen L. Huebscher 703 Wilkins St. N., Stillwater Cell: (651) 210-0225//email: huebscher@juno.com Disclosure: I am a member of Grace Baptist Church which hopes to sell part of its land for the Croix Bay development. Mayor Ted Kozlowski Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mayor Kozlowski, ECEIVE� OCT 14 2016 BY: As a senior and former Stillwater resident hoping to move back to Stillwater, I am interested in the Northland Real Estate Group proposed senior living community known as Croix Bay. It is important that Stillwater allow this project to move forward by approving the text amendment to allow 3 -story buildings for senior housing -- for this project and future ones as well. Its size does not seem out -of -line compared to the nearby school and new fire station. I was taught that building up not out is more efficient, uses less energy and materials, and helps save green space. The developer has designed the project to preserve quite a bit of the natural areas and to keep buildings set back from the lake. Stillwater truly needs the independent living and care options this development offers. The location is a great one for seniors to enjoy their later years - water, woods, wildlife. All close to the good health care facilities, churches, shopping, restaurants and cultural activities that senior Stillwater residents support. Please encourage approval of the Croix Bay project as it will enhance the entire Stillwater community. Sincerely, Carolee Orth Abbi Wittman From: Bill Torgerud <btorgerud@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 4:10 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Case number 2016-32 Abbi Jo Witmann , City Planner Living just across the street from the project is not a good feeling . in fact we talked about selling our town home. It is imperative that if this passes , there needs to be a large buffer zone on the north end of the project along 62 Nd. Street .Maybe even a sound wall. And for sure no entrance or exit on to or off of 62Nd. Street . Thank you. Bill Torgerud 1173 Bergmann Drive Stillwater Mn. 55082 Abbi Wittman From: Dionne Meisterling <dionne@Meisterling.com> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:31 AM To: Abbi Wittman; ryanjcollins@hotmail.com; jenna.fletcher@tpl.com; seanhade@comcast.net; eric.fsci@gmail.com; ckelly@stillwaterrealestateplanning.com; mikekocon@aol.com; lauerathon@gmail.com; afsundberg@yahoo.com; Doug Menikheim Subject: Correction Planning Commissioners, Thank you for all of your time spent on the Croix Bay project last night. It was a long night with a lot of detail to get through. I am not sure the formal process for adding a correction to incorrect information given by staff at last night's planning meeting (10/12/16) so I am sending this to all of you with a request that you please add it to the formal record so that anyone who refers to or relies on the meeting minutes will not be misled. Abbi showed you only half of this chart at the meeting last night. She incorrectly indicated the land for the Croix Bay project would be able to have a density of 4.4 units per acre. As you can see from this chart, the range of 1-4.4 is for the entire category of LDR. If you specifically look at LR there is a density of 2.2 units/acre. 1 Stillwater 1.995 Land Use Categories SILL Single Family Large Lot up to 2 Units/a..-re SFSL AEF MF Single FaM4y Small LI up to 4 units/acre: Attadied Single ra-nily up to 6 uniLsfacre tlutHrn up to 15 unitsiatre 2030 Residential Land Use Plan Cate-gories 2030 Future Land Use Categories ' Densities represent the maximum permitted LDR L.MDR MDR MDR RA Low Density Resduptia! TR LR rrp. CCR RE TH CTHR RC! 1-44 up.itse'acie Lw-gediLtra Derisity Residential 4.4 - 93 units/acre Medium Dwsity Residential 6-14.5 units/acre High IDerty Rosidential RCM 12+ tinitqacre -no rrx. RCM Low Density Residential (LDR): This classification provides a range of lower density residential opportunities. This land use category is the largest in the city with 1,6122 acres, It is the predominant land use type in western Stillwater. Single family homes are the main use found in the LDR categoty. Other uses that relate well to single family homes are perrnitted (usually by Special Use Permit) including parks, playgrounds., churches and schools. The zoning districts that are consistent with the LDR category have a density range of I to 4.4 homes per acre. Much of the LDR category is already fully developed. Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR): This classification provides a broad range of low and medium density residential opportunities and is the second largest in terms of acres (936.6). This category encompasses a range of zoning districts that aim to provide flexibility in lot size and density. LMDR guided areas will develop at 4.4 to 9.7 units per acre. This classification has been applied to all the existing lower to medium density properties zoned RB in the older neighborhoods of the city, as it best reflects the density at which development has occurred in these traditional neighborhoods. In addition many of the remaining vacant parcels in western Stillwater have been guided Low Medium Density Residential as a way to provide the most flexibility in new neighborhood design and in promoting increased density. 2 Corresponding Zoning DistrittS1 One Family 4.1 urit,4ac Traditional Residential 4.4 unitSlac Lalk.eshort Residential 2.2 units/at ceive Traiditiool Res, 31 unitsf co,& catagd'ReS. WI alc TWO Family 5.9-83 uniWatre Cot -Jane Residential 7.3-9.7 units/et Townhouse 8.7 units/,ac COrt Teiwnhouse Res. 14.5 uniWat tow Density Multi -Family 6,2 iirlitgaae. Medium Density Multi -Family 15.6 unitstac Minh Density mdti-FatrAv 29.0 unitSfac I4et Counc Categorie 5RES- Saigle Patna Residential SRE5- Sing1,2;FariJ 11RES- Multi-ram* MU - Mixed Use MRT5- Mult Low Density Residential lixample Low Medium Density Residential Exanwie ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SEC. 31-210, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is allow for greater development flexibility in senior living PUDs. 1. Amending. Stillwater City Code Section 31-210(b), Qualifications and requirements, is amended to read as follows: 1) Land to be improved as a PUD: i) Shall be at least three acres in size; ii) Shall be at least one complete city block in size; iii) Shall have a density in excess of 25 dwelling units per acre; or iv) Shall, when fully developed, contain upon it at least two principal buildings. v) Smaller lots may be improved as PUD's if they: 2) Are adjacent to or across the street from property which already has been approved for a PUD; i) Contain unusual physical features; or ii) Are of special historical interest. 3) PUDs for Senior Housing: i) May be approved if the project area is at least 20 acres in size. ii) Must include permanent open space. iii) Shall be designed as senior housing. Accessory service/retail uses may also be permitted. iv) May allow density above that allowed by the underlying land use classification and zoning district. v) May allow building heights/stories that exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district. vi) May allow other development flexibility as needed to meet the purpose and intent of this section. 4) Lots under separate ownership meeting the above requirements may be considered eligible for a PUD permit if a plan is submitted for the entire area and if financial accountability can be provided and shown for all aspects of the plan. 5) Permitted uses in a residential PUD must include detached, semidetached, attached, clustered or multistoried dwelling unit structures, or any combination thereof, and any nonresidential use designed to serve the residents of the PUD and of the vicinity, but which is not deemed to be objectionable. 6) Permitted uses in nonresidential PUD are limited to those permitted either specifically or by special use permit in the zoning district. 7) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned properly may not exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located. 8) Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of common open space must be filed with the community development director. When a corporation is formed to maintain space or facilities, the city is empowered to abate any nuisance resulting from the lack of maintenance and has the authority to assess the cost of the abatement of the nuisance to all properly owners holding membership in the corporation and to spread the costs as an assessment and to certify the costs to the county auditor for collection with the real estate taxes. 9) The PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's comprehensive plan. 10) Land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes consistent with the standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy. 11) All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed underground. 12) A building setback from properly which is adjacent to the PUD site and that is zoned or being used for a less intensive use must be at least equal to twice the proposed building's height. 13) A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved. 14) All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in accordance with city standards and specifications. 2. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk , 2016. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Shawn Sanders,'Director of Public Works DATE: October 28th, 2016 RE: Feasibility Study for 2017 Street Improvement Project (Project No. 2017-02) DISCUSSION Engineering staff would like to proceed with the 2017 Street Improvement Project. Authorization of a feasibility study is the first step in the process. Street, utilities, drainage, and sidewalks improvements will be looked at part of the study. The following streets be considered for the 2017 Street Improvement Project: Street Name Industrial Boulevard, Myrtlewood Court, South Sixth Street, (Pine to Olive) Benson Boulevard East, Trotter Court, Paddock Circle, Surrey Lane, Driving Park Road E. St Louis Street, E. Burlington Street, E Dubuque, Fifth Ave S, Fourth Ave S, Third Ave S, Hillcrest Ave, Second Ave S Brick, Grove, Center, and Seeley Street between Olive and Pine , Oak Street (west of Sherburne) Moore Street, William Street (Myrtle to Oak ) S. Sixth Street ( Hancock to Orleans) Anticipated Construction Method Pavement mill and overlay Pavement mill and overlay Pavement mill and Overlay Partial Reconstruction Partial Reconstruction Streets were selected based on the condition rating in our 2013 Pavement Management Study and additional inspection this fall. In all there are 4.6 miles street improvements proposed; 3.0 miles of mill and overlay and 1.6 miles of partial reconstruction. The budgeted amount for the 2017 Street Improvement Project is $2.4M. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends council pass a resolution authorizing the preparation of a Feasibility Study for the streets listed above for the 2017 Street Improvement Project. ACTION REOUIRED: If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2016- , RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR 2017 STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Project 2017-02). 2017 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FEASABILITY STUDY AREA LEGEND (PROJECT TYPE) PROPOSED MILL/OVERLAY PROPOSED PARTIAL RECONSTRUCT l MYRTLEW4OD CT. (:--1 12 OAK ST.'. W SEELEY ST. S BRICK ST, S HEMLOCK ST. S GROVE ST. S CENTER ST. — ,; I CURVE _ CREST BLVD. !INDUSTRIAL BLVD.() I hvatt THE BIRTHPLACE IF MINNESOTA 0 1000 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET IL IMOORE ST. W I 4 BENSON QLVD.E �. DRIVING PARK RD SURREY LN.. PADDOCK CIR. TROTTER CT. r STATE, HWY. -36 8 ;' 6[TH S ORLEANS STa 0' 0 0 m 2ND AVE. S 3RD AVE. S 41RD AVE. 5 5TH AVE. DUBUQUE BURLINGTON . LOUIS .. d 41.1411101141.14111011t 1 - BERQMANN DR Co ,I t N 0) Cr: to A ET Jay lisxm r DITERI.AD1 1A:, -DE , 8 1.-1 08 - DF,W :EWE srt DWTT DN148DD W,u.EY F cT 4V-'. ��n ° 4, diY-::a. 'A9 Y0 80 $ s7 QI"+z�3 NEWBE NRY r 4- 1 i fRTNWESTERNAVE INDUSTRIA: BLVD ER WET RI❑ E i RID E EA T TUENGE DR y 5 YS all' OREN AVE N CALTTTAGE DR WM, R 7 x at'Iiz AVE.N GREE 6 TT ST., O 0 co CD S NA MUT IET s. an i Q AVE..N __ S. _ DANA Sih AVE MI S �� IE ST. 0 k N C71 0 A Tr f r — .N 8 V,o n O 8 P G RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR 2017 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT 2017-02 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the Council this 1st day of November 2017. ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Ted Kozlowski, Mayor