Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-29 Joint Board MINStillwater City and Town Joint Board August 29, 2006 Present: David Johnson and Linda Countryman, Stillwater Township David Junker and Mike Polehna (7:50 p.m.), City of Stillwater Others: Stillwater Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Stillwater City Attorney David Magnuson Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Case No. 06-45 A request by Tim Freeman of Folz, Freeman, Erickson Inc. for annexation, zoning map amendment, comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat approval for a 15-lot development on 8.9 acres (Brown’s Creek Reserve) located on Neal Avenue and McKusick Road. Mr. Turnblad briefly reviewed the site. He noted that the Joint Board reviewed Concept PUD plans for this development and held a public hearing in May. Only minor details have changed since that time, he said, and staff would recommend approval of the current application with the 23 conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing, and no testimony was offered. Mr. Freeman explained the various treatments for runoff from the development – rainwater gardens, settling ponds and infiltration ponds to capture and treat all water from the development. Ms. Countryman asked whether the trail system could be constructed of pervious material rather than bituminous in order to further mitigate runoff. Mr. Turnblad noted there had been lots of discussion regarding trails and the use of pervious/impervious material. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that as a result of Watershed District reviews, the trails have now been taken completely out of the buffer zones in order to address runoff concerns. Mr. Junker noted there had been lots of discussion and review of these plans not only by the Joint Board but also by the City’s Planning Commission and Park Board and moved approval of Case No. 06-45. There was a question about the removal of the temporary trail once the Millbrook development connection is made. Mr. Johnson asked why the temporary trail couldn’t be left in place. Mr. Turnblad explained that the temporary trail would result in one homeowner having trail easements on three sides of his property if the temporary connection isn’t removed. There was a question as to whether Mr. Junker intended his motion to include all four requests – annexation, zoning map amendment, comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat approval. Mr. Junker said his motion included all four requests, with the 23 recommended conditions of approval. Ms. Countryman seconded the motion; motion passed 3-0. Case No. 06-49 A request by Bruggeman Properties for annexation, zoning map amendment and comprehensive plan amendment for concept development plan of 45 single- family lots located between Boutwell Road and Country Road 12 at Newberry Court. Mr. Turnblad introduced the request. He noted this property is in the South Boutwell Plan area, which is in the Phase 4 annexation area where early annexation is discretionary if certain criteria are met. Mr. Turnblad said this request does meet the criteria for early annexation. He Stillwater City and Town Joint Board August 29, 2006 2 pointed out that the Stillwater City Council and Planning Commission have been debating the appropriateness of several recent requests for early annexation, both bodies identifying a concern for developing a vision for the area in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update before allowing any additional annexations. However, Mr. Turnblad suggested that this request is different in that it is in the South Boutwell Plan area where there is a plan in place, a plan developed after extensive study. The second issue of concern to the Council and Planning Commission, Mr. Turnblad said, is the transportation infrastructure. The South Boutwell Area Plan and associated traffic studies, he said, called for a revised intersection of Boutwell and County Road 12, signalization of Manning/12 intersection, improvements to Boutwell Road and Deer Path before annexation would be considered. All of those transportation elements have been satisfied, Mr. Turnblad stated. Mr. Turnblad explained that the action needed of the Joint Board was a yes or no decision on annexation and a recommendation regarding the comprehensive plan amendment. The proposal then will go to the City’s Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Preliminary plans and final plat would both come back to the Joint Board for review, he noted. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. Steve Fisher, Bruggeman Properties, noted they have been working with the City for the past six years and have participated in studies at every level. He noted the necessary traffic improvements have been made, sewer and water is available, the proposed zoning is consistent with the South Boutwell Plan and both the County and Watershed District have commented positively on the development plans. He concluded that they believe the time is right for the City to consider annexation. Mr. Johnson asked about park plans. Mr. Turnblad pointed out the City’s Park Board has not reviewed plans at this time. A spokesman for Bruggeman Properties n oted these are concept plans and details regarding the park have not been ironed out. The Bruggeman spokesperson said trails are envisioned, as well as a connection to the westerly neighbor, for perhaps a joint park. Mr. Johnson encouraged developers to consider active recreational uses. There was considerable discussion about the City’s need for a north/south connector street, likely Neal Avenue, and how that need affects this property. It was noted that in South Boutwell Plan discussions, there was a concern that there be no direct through connection at Neal/Northland, a concern that resulted in plans for a median at a future Neal/County Road 12 intersection. Mr. Polehna said he had a concern about how this development ties to County Road 12 (Myrtle Street) and said he wasn’t sure that the City’s Planning Commission has had enough time to review how this development ties to properties to the west. He stated he was a proponent of addressing transportation concerns first, before annexation. Mr. Junker noted that a future Neal Avenue extension will have a big impact on this site. He also noted the City is beginning to work on updating its Comprehensive Plan. He expressed a concern that the proposed CCR (Cottage Cove Residential) for this development is too dense and said he would be hesitant to consider the zoning component until the Comprehensive Plan update is complete. He also pointed out that until a Neal Avenue connection is provided, there is only one way in and one way to exit this development of 40+ lots. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the proposed density is consistent with the Boutwell South Plan. Mr. Turnblad also noted that the density is consistent with the number of units used for the transportation figures in the South Boutwell area studies. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the Stillwater City and Town Joint Board August 29, 2006 3 proposed development plan offers flexibility in providing for future Neal Avenue connections and connections with properties to the west. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Joint Board could agree that the request qualifies for consideration of annexation and let the City determine what happens regarding zoning and other considerations. From the Township’s view, he said he could see no reason not to vote for annexation and allow the plans to move forward to the next level. It was agreed to take action on this request in three separate motions. Mr. Junker moved to deny the request for annexation, expressing a concern about the lack or a Neal Avenue connection and a concern about the need to develop a vision regarding zoning and how zoning might fit in with each future development in the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Polehna seconded the motion to deny annexation, saying he was concerned that the City did not have its whole act together until the Neal Avenue connection is settled. Mr. Junker agreed that once Neal Avenue is more defined there would be no reason not to annex the parcel. Mr. Johnson stated that from the Township’s standpoint, the proposal meets the requirements for annexation, and he pointed out that the Neal Avenue connection will be made on a different parcel of property out of the City’s control. There was some discussion regarding tabling the issue, but Mr. Junker noted the City will not be in any better position regarding the Neal Avenue issue in 90 days. Steve Fisher reiterated that the developer has identified a Neal Avenue connection with consultants and reviewed the proposed layout in view of that issue. Streets will be constructed to MSA standards, Mr. Fisher pointed out, and the layout is flexible for the City to be able to iron out where the Neal connection is made. Mr. Johnson noted that even if the Joint Board approves the request for consideration of annexation, the plans do not have to go any further, it moves the development proposal to the City and tak es the Township out of those considerations. Motion to deny the request for annexation failed 1-3, with Mr. Junker in favor of denial and Mr. Johnson, Mr. Polehna and Ms. Countryman against. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Countryman, moved to approve the annexation request. Motion passed 3-1, with Mr. Johnson, Ms. Countryman and Mr. Polehna voting in favor and Mr. Junker against. It was the consensus to take no action on the other requests. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that those action would go to the Council with no recommendation. Mr. Johnson noted that the other requests would have to come back to the Joint Board if the City Council approves the annexation. Other items A request by Nicholas Henton to approve a lot split at 12340 McKusick Road – Mr. Turnblad explained that this property, a 5-acre parcel, is located in the Township and is in the transition zone, which allows parcels of 2.5 acres if the property is ghost platted. Due to potential future development issues, he said there is the requirement for an easement dedication to the City to provide for future road/utility locations. Mr. Turnblad said the Hentons are asking for an alternative to the easement. Mr. Henton spoke of the cost to them of a “donation” of 0.9 acres of land to the City of Stillwater. Mr. Johnson pointed out there is a difference between a “donation” and an “easement.” Attorney Magnuson suggested that the Hentons could dedicate the easement to the Township if that would be more acceptable to them. Mrs. Henton asked for an explanation of the reason for the easement. Attorney Magnuson explained that the easement is to provide for a reasonable way Stillwater City and Town Joint Board August 29, 2006 4 to develop the property, location of roadways and utilities, if it is urbanized at some point in the future. Mrs. Henton said the restriction determines where they can build their new house. She also noted the easement requirement will make it difficult to sell the property and said she thought there were other options, such as covenants, to accomplish what the City wants. Mr. Henton questioned why they should dedicated 0.9 acres to the City and not be compensated for that. Mr. Johnson explained the intent of ghost platting is to provide for changes that will happen over time and is trying to be respectful of the “City growing in our midst.” Mr. Johnson also said he didn’t believe that ghost platting determines the direction of house or the type of house that the Hentons can build. Attorney Magnuson explained that if the Township allows a subdivision of property, it must be ghost platted to provide a feasible plan for urbanization. Mr. Magnuson reiterated that the easement could be dedicated to the Town, and he noted the Hentons could use the easement in any way they want, as long as the use is consistent with the purpose of the easement. Sheila Marie Untiedt, Town Board member, asked if the Hentons could position their house as they see fit as long as they meet setbacks; the answer was in the affirmative. There was some discussion about the Hentons redrawing the proposed lot division so the future road could be placed on the new parcel. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that if the lines are redrawn, the easement still has to be provided. Without the easements, a ghost plat has no effect, Mr. Turnblad concluded. After discussion and being asked how they wanted to proceed, Mrs. Henton asked that the request be approved as submitted. Mr. Johnson suggested that if the Hentons want to “tweak” the plans somewhat, they would not have to come back to the Joint Board as long as the City is OK with the plans. Ms. Countryman, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval of the requested lot split with the five conditions of approval, changing the wording of the easement conveyance to the Town of Stillwater, rather than the City of Stillwater, with the 6th condition that the Hentons can make minor revisions of the plans as long as the ghost platting meets the requirements of the City. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Polehna, moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary