HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-01 Joint Board Packet Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater
Joint Board Meeting
September 1, 1999
Rutherford Elementary School
115 Rutherford Road
Stillwater MN 55082
7 p.m. - 10 p.m.
Agenda
Purpose of Meeting
• To present information and discuss Comprehensive Plan Changes
• To continue the Joint Board Public Hearing for the Bergmann Comprehensive Plan
Amendment request.
I. Background on Comprehensive Plan Amendments
- - Why Comprehensive Plan Amendments,who evaluates changes and what criteria is
used - Tom Simonson, City Planner, City of Shoreview.
- Recent regional and Washington County Area demographic and housing trends and
conditions -Michael Munson,Demographer,Metropolitan Council.
- Regional and Sector Blueprint growth and housing policies -Patrick Peters,
Metropolitan Council, Sector Representative.
- Stillwater Comprehensive Plan and reason for request for Bergmann Property- Steve
Russell, City Planner, City of Stillwater.
- Concerns for Comprehensive Plan change from Township perspective -Meg
McMonigal, Town Planner.
(15 minute recess)
II. Public Hearing on Bergmann proposal.
- The development concept, Comprehensive Plan consistency, City Open Space
Committee and Planning Commission involvement. John Baer, Chairman Open Space
Committee, Jerry Fontaine,Planning Commission Chairman and Steve Russell, City
Planner.
- Presentation by developer
- Township Comments -Meg McMonigal, Town Planner
- Public testimony and response
III. Adjournment.
/ZØ ,,1 5 M/k -tizr.A.„
(-94-TioittAef 1 II C4.04. 174
Plan Update Process
The City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan update process began in August 1993 with City
Council adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program. The work program
scheduled the plan update to be completed in one year- August 1994.
The update process was comprised of three phases: (1) issue identification, data
collection and goal formulation, (2) alternative plan development and review and (3) final
plan selection and adoption.
The first phase included a city-wide opinion survey to help identify community planning
issues. Growth and environmental quality were key issues identified. During that phase,
a city-wide land use GIS system was developed and socioeconomic census information
analyzed and mapped for fifteen city planning areas. From the information, the Existina
Conditions Report was prepared. The report identified twelve key planning issues,
provided existing conditions information and proposed preliminary goals and objectives.
The report was presented to the community at a public hearing. The public hearing
confirmed the key issues and provided an opportunity to describe the interrelatedness and
complexity of the Comprehensive Plan.
The second phase, alternative plan preparation and review, resulted in the developed of
four plan alternatives, A, B, C & D, that evolved into eight alternatives. The alternatives
ranged from full development of the planning area to a "no-growth" Alternative "D".
Impacts of alternatives were considered along with existing conditions information and the
goals and objectives developed during Phase I. A major concern expressed during the
Phase II review process was the impact of growth on the Urban Rural Transition Planning
Area, URTPA, semi-rural area and on existing city, streets and small town-feeling.
Stillwater is viewed as a "freestanding growth center" in context with the region and
Washington County. The greater regional and county-wide growth issues were considered
during this phase of plan development and the role Stillwater can play as an urban area
within the county and regional.
Phase II, alternative development and consideration, took over a year. During Phase II
time, neighborhood meetings were held and a city-wide ward network established to
comment on the plan. A joint Stillwater City/Stillwater Township planning task force was
established to work together on common planning issued for the city expansion area. All
this community input was a part of alternative plan selection. As an indication of the extent
of community input, over 50 community public meetings were held. Attended by an
estimated 3,000 participants.
The alternative review process was carried out over a sixteen-month period from June
1994 to October 1995, and resulted in the section of the final plan.
1-4
•
Phase Ill includes public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council on the
selected comprehensive plan alternative and its adoption. After the City Council adopts
the City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, it will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council
for review with regional blueprint and liveable community act polices and approved. After
approval by the Met Council, the comprehensive plan will be officially approved and in
effect.
The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan
The City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan contained in this document is organized in
twelve (12) sections based on subject area. A thirteenth (13) section provides examples
and direction for preparation of special area plans. The sections are:
Community Character (2.0)
Land Use (3.0)
Transportation (4.0)
Natural Resources and Open Spaces (5.0)
Housing (6.0)
The Local Economy (7.0)
Parks, Riverfront and Trails (8.0)
Historic Preservation (9.0)
Public Services and Facilities (10.0)
Fiscal Impact (11.0)
Implementation (12.0)
Special Area Plans (13.0)
The combined sections "tell the story" of the Stillwater plan.
First comes Community Character (2.0), the thing that makes Stillwater so special and
provides direction for the remaining plan sections. Community character includes both the
physical character of its natural setting and buildings as well as the more subtle character
of activity patterns and neighborhoods. From community character,the other sections flow
like the St. Croix flowing under the lift bridge. The next two sections Land Use (3.0) and
Transportation (4.0) provide the framework or backbone to the plan. The land use plan
map locates the type and intensity of activities across the community. For Stillwater, the
land use plan in large part reflects existing land use patterns for existing developed area
and extends those existing patterns to new areas with more emphasis on natural resources
and public spaces.
Transportation and land use are closely tied. Land uses in the immediate area and
throughout the region and county create the demand for travel. The transportation section
tries to accommodate that land based travel demand; cars, transit, bikes and pedestrian
by developing a transportation system made up of streets, roads, highways and trails.
1-5
Natural Resources (5.0) , Housing (6.0) and the Local Economy (7.01 describes types of
land use in more detail and provides city policy direction for each area. Natural resource
policy provides direction for the identification and protection of natural resources for all
areas of the community but particularly the URTPA expansion area. Existing city
ordinances, i.e., shoreland, tree preservation, wetland, flood plain, sloped areas, provide
regulation to protect those natural resources. Special area planning, environmental review
and the planned unit development process provide other methods to account for and
preserve natural resources.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of Stillwater land use is housing. The emphasis in the housing
section, Section 6.0, is on providing a variety of housing types (single family detached and
attached and multi-family) in appropriate locations. The challenge for Stillwater will be to
maintain its diversity of housing types, densities, tenures and affordability.
The Local Economy Section (7.0) is key to the financial health of Stillwater. Less than 10
percent of land use is commercial or industrially use. Yet businesses pay 30 percent of city
taxes.
The Local Economy Section and land use plan designates locations for economic
expansion north of Highway 36 between County Road 5 and County Road 15.
The Parks. Riverfront and Trails Section (8.0) provides overall policy direction for parks and
trails planning in Stillwater. This is just the start of parks planning. Much has to be
accomplished through park acquisition, new and existing park planning, and trailway and
ravine planning and implementation.
The Historic Preservation Section (9.0) is a summary and status report on historic
preservation planning in Stillwater. Much has been done particularly in the downtown area
to preserve the historic character of old Stillwater. In Stillwater historic preservation is at
the heart of community character and its importance is reflected in past city efforts.
Public Services and Facilities Section (10.0) must be planned and supplied to
accommodate land use. For Stillwater, services and facilities include: police and fire
protection, streets, water and sewer services, storm water control, parks and trails and
administrative services. The phasing of city growth and expansion with the provision of
public services and facilities is described in this section.
The Fiscal Impact Section (11.0) examines the plans impact on city government and
resident taxpayers. The section views fiscal impacts as added property value from plan
development versus added city costs of providing services and facilities. Policies and
recommendations are made in this section to minimize city costs and financial risks.
The Implementation Section (12.0) describes the actions; programs, new regulations,
1-6
detailed plans and studies, capital improvements that are needed to carry out the
comprehensive plan as described in the preceding sections. The zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations and capital improvements program implement many of the plan
policies and programs.
Special Area Plans Section (13.0) is one way to carry out general city-wide comprehensive
plan goals, objectives and polices. To date, area plans have been prepared for Downtown,
West Stillwater Business Park and Brick Pond Area. The comprehensive plan calls for
special area plans in city expansion areas and in existing neighborhoods. Area plans are
a way to implement the comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan is contained in sections 2.0 - 12.0. Each section begins with a
brief introductory statement. Then key goals are listed. Following the goals is a discussion
of conditions and issues that relate to the goals for the subject area and provide a rational
policy direction contained in the objectives, policies and program statements.
An implementation index that lists the responsible agency(s) and project or action for each
policy or program ends each section. The entire, combined implementation program is
contained in Section 12.
1-7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joint Planning Board of Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater
FROM: Meg McMonigal, Town Planner,NFRA and Steve Russell,
Community Development Director, City of Stillwater
DATE: August 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Meeting of September 1, 1999
Background
On May 19, 1999, the Joint Board voted 2-2 on the Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The process following such a vote is to hire an arbitrator/mediator to mediate the issue and if it
cannot be mediated,make a decision on the issue. This meeting is an attempt to resolve the
Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment,prior to having the chosen mediator cast a deciding
vote on the issue.
The Joint Board meeting of September 1, 1999 has two purposes:
1) to present general information on Comprehensive Plan changes; and
2) to continue the public hearing on the Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment
request.
Following this meeting, another Joint Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 15,
1999, at which time another vote on the Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment request will
be taken. If the vote is 2-2, the appointed arbitrator/mediator will cast a deciding vote.
Speakers
For information on Comprehensive Plan amendments, three speakers in addition to City and
Township Planners will present information. Tom Simonson, City of Shoreview,will talk about
what compels a Comprehensive Plan change and how communities can evaluate a proposed
change. Tom will share the process the City of Shoreview uses to evaluate a requested
amendment.
Michael Munson, demographer for the Metropolitan Council,will talk about demographic and
housing trends in the region and Washington County and how these changes may effect
Comprehensive Plan changes.
Patrick Peters, Metropolitan Council sector representative,will talk about the Washington
County area and changes that relate to Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Steve Russell, City of Stillwater,will present the background reasons on the request for the
Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment. He will talk about the amendment process and the
existing Comprehensive Plan for phase City expansion area.
Meg McMonigal, Stillwater Township,will present the Township viewpoint and why there were
objections to the Bergmann amendment request from the Township. She will review the
understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan and its relationship to the Orderly Annexation
Agreement.
Meeting Agenda
The meeting will consist of two (2)parts: the first is to be entirely informational and the second
is the opportunity to make comment and advocate a point of view. Following public comments
and Joint Board questions, the meeting will be closed. The Joint Board will not discuss the issues
or take action at this meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m., and hopefully finish by 10:00
p.m. The speakers in the first part will only talk for 10-15 minutes each to try and keep the
timeline.
Next Steps
On Wednesday, September 15, 1999,the Joint Board will meet to discuss and vote on the
Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment again. With a tied vote,the appointed
arbitrator/mediator will cast a vote on the amendment.
Engineering • Planning • Surveying
MFRA
McCombs Frank Roos
11, Associates,Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joint Planning Board of Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater
FROM: Meg McMonigal,Town Planner, MFRA
DATE: August 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Township Comments on Bergmann Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Request
The purpose of this memo is to present the Stillwater Township viewpoint and
perspective on the Bergmann Comprehensive Plan amendment request.
Summary of Township Decision
Stillwater Township is opposed to the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from
"Single Family Large Lot" and "Single Family Small Lot" to "Single Family Attached" because
it changes the land use concept in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and represents an unjustified
expansion of land use density for the property. After an arduous planning process that resulted
in the City of Stiliwater Comprehensive Plan and the Orderly Annexation Agreement, the
Township perspective is that unless there is a compelling reason to change the planned land
uses, the Plan should remain as is.
For this area, the Plan includes a "greenbelt" along County Road 15, which was included to
"preserve the natural semi-rural appearance" [City Comprehensive Plan]of the expansion area
by keeping a rural edge on the west side of the City. This edge, County 15, is a major entrance
to Stillwater Township. The concept in the City's Plan is to transition from rural to urban, by
having large lot single family development on the western edge, moving to small lot single family
development to the east. The Township did not think the City or Developer demonstrated
compelling or strong enough reasons to justify a change to the Plan's land use concept, density
and the resulting impacts along County Road 15
Process
The Orderly Annexation Agreement anticipated requests for changes to the City of Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan(among other items) and made provisions for such a request. The Joint
15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
phone 612/476-6010 • fax 612/476-8532
mfra@mfra.com
Joint Planning Board
September 1, 1999
Page 2
Planning Board has approval authority over amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan for
property in the annexation area. The Joint Planning Board is made up of two Town Board
Members and two City Council Members. If the Joint Board does not certify approval, a
qualified neutral from the Minnesota Supreme Court Certified Neutrals list conducts an
Alternative Dispute Resolution process and if it fails, issues a recommended decision.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Requests to change the Comprehensive Plans are expected. Plans are intended to be dynamic
documents with the ability to change as conditions change. In reviewing such a change, plans
are usually reviewed in respect to such items as: the reasons for the request,the overall impact on
the community, the impact on the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, impacts on
adjacent property, impact on transportation and city services, impact on water bodies, impact on
the overall land use pattern of the community.
In this case, not only is density proposed to be changed on a parcel of property, but the Land Use
Plan concept is also changed. The transition that was set up in the City's Comprehensive Plan—
from rural along Manning Avenue (County Road 15) to more urban with higher densities to the
east- would be changed with this concept.
To make a change to this land use pattern and concept,the proponents must convince the
decision makers that there are compelling reasons to make the change.
In its arguments, the City has stated that to save the Gadient Woods, additional density on this
property is needed. The Township struggled with this argument as the Gadient Woods is on
another property and the two properties are not tied together in any legal manner. It was not
shown how increased density on this property could save the Gadient Woods. Further,the City
suggested that the Gadient property would also likely be proposed for a higher density
development. The Township thought that this was a little alarming and premature. Alarming
because in thinking that additional property could also be amended to allow more density, the
Township thought that this further eroded the City's land use concept and pattern, and wondered
if a lot of Comprehensive Plan changes were intended in the Orderly Annexation Area.
Premature because the property was being planned for a different density without a
Comprehensive Plan amendment application.
The City also indicated that there are other reasons that the City needed higher density, including
such items as paying for sewer extensions. To the Township, this is not a compelling reason to
make such a change in land use and density.
Joint Planning Board
September 1, 1999
Page 3
Several text items in the Comprehensive Plan should be changed with this amendment, and to
date, have not been discussed as a part of the amendment process. These include:
1. Page 3-1 Goal 4. "A greenbelt shall be established around the ultimate Stillwater
planning area to separate suburban and urban development from semi-rural and rural
Washington County areas. It is uncertain if the greenbelt is adequately established in
this proposal.
2. Figure 9 on page 3-4 should be amended to reflect the changes if the plan density is
amended.
3. The expected changes in population should be reflected in Figure 10, Page 3-4.
4. Page 3-5 Policies 1, 2 and 3 address screening and a greenbelt. Page 3-9 defines
greenway buffers as 100-200 feet in width; it is unclear if this width is met in this
proposal.
5. Page 3-6 Policy 12, Program 3 discusses the greenbelt separation.
6. Page 3-8 and 3-9. The text states"north of 62°a Street is a combination of single large
lot and single family smaller lot development. This text should be amended if the plan
is amended to reflect changes.
7. Page 3-9 identifies the greenway buffer definition and indicates that"buffers shall be
established along Manning Ave....(and) shall be 100—200 feet in width, depending on
the location and site conditions. The purpose... is primarily to preserve the natural
semi-rural appearance of the URTPA by site and screening new development from
major public roads. The greenway shall appear informal and natural using native
indigenous plant material adapted to existing topographic conditions...."
Summary
The position of Stillwater Township is that the Township is opposed to the request for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment from"Single Family Large Lot" and"Single Family Small
Lot"to "Single Family Attached" for the Bergmann property, because it is changes the land
use concept of City's Comprehensive Plan, and represents an unjustified expansion of land
use density for the property.
=`.` la..nn aer.•cu. - ._ -. '' '2'`- � -j 1248'53 ' °:--•'::
e - -.•I t,
Coll+3...Is a•h.•,0;c G
} \ s `! o as n P . ... I t{ _ GOPHER STATE ONE CALL -a -
-/ ,., / e,y r >D I`---- Twin G:y Mas 651-wSa-CfA2 �-J `J
ILLI-LI --11.----
r I 1 nrea.1-ODD-sz-naa
'/ . \�\ a \ll ` 1 u'dcu nz, ! E1 _ _ _.i_
N.
\\ S �/I �,—
111 11 /
.1,111111116 e,,,, z7.,22,.,..... 5*----,, ittiii, I IT
qm
all WWII VAII9 11111111" i_/-
/, ira. \ _\ \ .\ •� it '�'�� .r41 i �- /� ♦� 1. 1a41111 •1/ !,f- `�JpL^.� tn. �tae eer„Do-y
Alt
Z �L \ �' _ I r_ ! I � �.s.-* - --- "•/ -1 (dt 2)957-07184 4
--t
�_> ' -6 �' /►-Q_ - ` _ �� /I�� �f9� ' `J.♦ �\ (,`k/,'"` Wes Prof ' *I s04 We
\\€ a�''�' " `' ®A!u — -� � ; t {\ Eden roific M.
5 4
� / Ear D DY- wf. 557.4 E
A.
, .
,:x....mow.� , .� 1
�' ! `+' !Aiiim �� , \ v. =�— Tartii €\..1( (61z)9n-sw
�A jar- -� \ o �!a I .E
> S Y
woo_ --..............4062.sria—. \
•
\ \ g 2 \ grUA„, o .� ��11 / � -'•' J�� m.lee dmwumnao•6 r.ea onma2 'g l11r -rrW t`• _ oDrmet..R.fr to N!F d RIatMei /A�• o � �� we �11
r _ f an, e•.10.11 -_0103,- t� ,�/l- 0�� \�\ I „f„,,
� -�- - 1 /t\ e:eanawna ars ones.
-" 2 ♦ •\ / 1I� \.\ \�\ \ '>4•PI.ate t /I `:\ D[VBAPa�lT DATA
_.---- --
/_ JLcx Lart 1� 1' N\. ° ' ,\ R97 -�� •// - /�� '\ 1 - � 1� I ' I St stet, 3f.79 e
♦ /8. ® { - �q11 i Pudic zaw.D�ens s.ao e�
•
\ ` I { OT G a� i ,' 1 (csAK a ons exna)
`? 11`\; \ p� do .31 ./ j R I 1 I N.t DMWae4 Are., 27.99 a
,) �` . CAIS PA M..!'(TIP. rIAI ��y� / • `G 30 a�� �-g I 1 J toted Units 112 units it
_�.1 cd ir �t1 \����. \ __ i5r' r / 97f� / j. ■l 1G i �i !\ c.navtr s.o7 wi:a/eo,. y0
1 I N Iet ' i R w ^
F / tl O `� ti/ 1 ` �/' ' � ' ii .t I I Pa<.oaacou<n o 7.J9 0�(1-47
.39 QI
�� % ! S l it�� I t (soots.a e) g
ja I `( .��. •e Pr Unit 0.12D �it VD la
1 \ \ 1 d Dk4u1 strect:a a9z« (71z1
;'M1�- i/ - , \ \I \t /, P� ^+ g ` j'Ih i �CDi �la,.or iAc da.�rz�
illifilf 1 ='I,, ( L-t-
#/twaill
•
/ > ` !♦ /' /'� / 1 1 / l l ( ‘ r_ '�_U� y a.3Je.pn.L „-_.;' t tI JI
ar^/j $ ♦is
• �• 4-.:,,,
�`, q. c vf�i(pr-) r/ it \ n� "5",.,.. m a §:
S 9' ) I (//
■■ i I ffii 8 .
•s stay'w/eaaw I f// / rT. g
''! I % rm.,rte ' �'� '� ���" .-___- ��f �T4 • �! Lz
i // - I`rrt j'I 1 . �"N
f ' �I__sea--
- ' - a 1 t 11-1
� i ! 1 t '`�I 5
: :'
, ,
„ !,... ,,,,,
TI'AND /.� / 1s I I Iw / ! '•`\ - j�r "� to . ,, ,.., ,, j/ - I t, I i~ - ¢ b
. ,
mr........./ • ..,L.; i ,0.0 , , i
MEI ilia \ .. r - ., ..._............. ,,„ .fq . ,, „
�� �� SII sus '7 R -� ®� g I rii, t� ;'
o.
. ��• a I III �. ■� .1 ®■ I \ \ :I• Nrco it V' /
• \ V....,, *6\
li NO \ ,, A 'i f .1 / 1 ....ii
CO 1,1
i • \ Ill It 110111 •®)AO?, .0# " i
i„ ..„., ii,„
i a; ' ( "INP--HA
Y . (I •
''., , gifAct .,:ia._ _.,. .w.---,,1\ Nis 1 -wit ,
INil
/ 7'. s • Y
/ ♦ ./ .\\...-----..._ „I x:r6Z',ti 1. 60t 3.4.262 n. I r �..!"... 1 Ill 1 4 --..
• \ Jzu9\r kw. - t 1 Z L^."f- >".::.J
- ---� ` \ 4 5 j J6Jld q.d. I .. • t t
r ` a'D ) I .412 T.ORIVTEI CURB k GUTTER .6� ♦ I I I I �•t-•tom Edge of Woods
/ k.� • / • 1J /Ar i ` : 'RIVAL ORI`.i:'KPY(irP.) w f ra I ' -•- Stating Corteurs
I E:qe of wetlena
- V WC/4` TRAIL sr OTHERS q�� 114/.--...,, Y I �--' ° Pumper of units Dar e.,aemq
. jl
= ..� — =--�_ r —
1 ——
_ r
—'- — .4AAIPI/PIG— n VE.—lam— lS !AIQ fS1— — _ - — —.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1232 72tr • 6"<!1 s , ,v - - im�
+- M1'.i mango 30.. .D r!!,
3
_._— -'��. �---______-__—_.— ___ _ ` .".!� .___ _---_� �_.__u J _.-_—__—__-_'-. _-..__z-.— ——— C' S0' IDD• ISD' S a
,.,, ---:,,,.-',„,5:3,,' �• .-/ > - 'Y1_I r 1{ `" tACwr `YAP `ai At..
:ave �', aa. .' -'- s... ....J/ !':..2-j ,;4,:.,- -.....c.„< I __ - -, ` `.. \ _ - .. '- , i • _ �.+ a-/
_Ss. Mi r-"_'-_"^,� "'�_"��\"� ^•�f/i• % 9?�<3',?'..,. ". 1299.•!"__. -_-- ..�:'j"aN• J - 1,..;,-
■■ -6:2,114.
."ry�{� �,�
Y Illit�..--��,Jtl4i ` � } 14 4` { ...! �,li ■+t;'r i '1(T- ♦ M'W'.
l* 10 , .
L. T\.-
--sem. p9 Ow A __
' .
it
l ; a it • �\ L, ;� 1""" r 1 �-� tiJ y .i ` -
0 p
te
�r�r.r1 --' 1101701k,
' \ ►1r...+/ a�1 j r._j+ WJE! ` If
01111111111......"11110...
M;,. � 191111 > "ilito , othstat Porter 1/4).... „
''"� N«t tr(SW 4 at s«lion
Z 1orst, // ���' ---s. f1 the c that of lying,Prot a et
�+j17 T wir--44., -,,_ , - ..'vr+��l� =� /, �,ir ,,.,".e � x _ J 8:.�. ma c«t.n.,e of exla Prost w naw.a
rprth,of Ron.Essaty(VD Pest.
\�r��� 1 / ` \ _.. '� t�, wilt m-33.1 .Ass.
1•i /� /"• r Tota t to-essay Ass.
/!c �.� �,, r. rl, riff
\ \ ` '.4 \ _ �� i I '' Tota w.naae Area-oaa nr«
4 if
`'n fZ� w� 3 •
�.— I. 1 ` / ` / + Yud;e Ddu
6y'..
4iN \\ \ -----
II
` �'.�,. \� \\ \ .sQ f + i i 1' 39Tsr - -ro Z!. ``\. it, I "Val VRI'�7 (/}wTm1 E ?
/aG J , aY 1pn 1 '+ '\ 1 i t kKtdYt 6.0t.AG. i
ti
Z.
revx
S i i' c , t Cover' 3.'t1'a4-{i2.,t1
•
,,, A / _ 6rit .„... a _ 1L,, , , * , ,„ ,„
, , „J., , o,,
:11!
1 " 1
.,,) ,
lt
t 'J r� ,� /j _� 1 f 4101. ‘, i $ /'i 1q.-, t I p
1 i:-:• ••••-:.. - , ,--- . .7-- , • 1 '4. it ill- ;11 \ 10 ----:::s 4
r- 1 t, ,,-ipi 1 At '..:::::•.
..... / . / / ' ) 7 ' i'
,.. itt/ ( .'...' ' .'
Ci
?wwa
. K
__ • •.
. ...:,!,..,, /
��l , , J� . ,
} ., ,
,..
.v a - Ii:. . i ` 1 . f�E
f.. , / ,� 01.11101 : pill # � Ito `1k �„I ” � � ii;? .
...
+ p �-� �� J I �'` i r--c......._........,ii �
...
' r / it -'"r lGj /�,� I'I; ! r"�•'r-Yv1 DENOTES APPROXIMATE TREE REMOVAL
1}, 1r_ i:. �yy t\/} � { .{ �'� rIr iumTsS ,,Zj y�! r.~ • ' ;rT.�t�i.!t . ❑ 10 ❑ 1Z l F3 ❑ 14-- e.✓ !,'' 1 i ', ! f i —...._.... DENOTES DELINEATE°WEILAND /.
Trl
l' r r ; I �+ Tom.
�:
.. -_ et-
1231 .. i -
1
iI
MEMO
To: Joint Planning Board
From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director 7Z—
Subject: The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan and Basis for Bergmann Property Amendment
Date: August 26, 1999
Stillwater Comprehensive Plan
The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan revision process that led to the orderly annexation agreement
and establishment of the Joint Planning Board began in August of 1993. The update process was
comprehensive and intense with over 100 Planning Commission,Joint Planning Board,
neighborhood meeting and with final City Council (December 1995) and Metropolitan Council
(March 1996) adoption.
After adoption of the plan, an orderly annexation agreement was crafted by Township and City
representatives to oversee the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Joint Board is charged with reviewing and approving Comprehensive Plan amendments and
zoning changes and reviewing and commenting on the actual development projects such as
subdivisions or PUDs. Attached to this report is pages 1-4 to 1-7 from the Comprehensive Plan
that describes the update process that was followed and summarizes the Comprehensive Plan
contents. --
The Comprehensive Plan contains 112 policies and 107 programs organized in 10 elements as
listed below:
Community Character
Land Use
Transportation
Natural Resources
Housing
The Local Economy
Parks, Rivers and Trails
Historic Preservation
Public Services and Facilities
Fiscal Impact
The 1995-2020 Comprehensive Plan was prepared by the Stillwater Community Development
Department with city department and consultant assistance in the areas of traffic,public facilities
and fiscal impacts. The Stillwater Planning Commission was the primary planning body along
with the Joint Planning Board (with Township representatives) and ultimately the City Council.
Since its adoption in 1995, the Comprehensive Plan has been updated three times. The orderly
Joint Planning Board
Page 2
August 26, 1999
annexation agreement was adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan(1996). In 1998,the
62nd Street North Specific Plan was prepared and adopted amending the Comprehensive Plan to
provide for land use changes and more specific planning direction for the areas of parks,trails
and open space, stormwater drainage, circulation and public facilities. A third Comprehensive
Plan amendment was the Greenways,Parks and Trails Plan for the City expansion area. The plan
refines and carries out the policy and program direction of the Comprehensive Plan and locates
specific trails,parks and greenway corridors.
Besides the Bergmann Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment currently before the Joint
Board, another amendment can be anticipated for the 56-acre Brown's Creek Natural Area
located south of McKusick Road and west of Neal Avenue. The current designation for the
natural area is small single family and rural residential. The change would be to parks and open
space.
Implementation
The Joint Planning Board has been active since being established in 1996 overseeing
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Listed below are implementation actions,
Comprehensive Plan amendments, Zoning Ordinance amendments and other studies or projects
that have been reviewed and/or approved by the Joint Planning Board. Of particular note is the
Greenways, Parks and Trails Plan and special road setback ordinance. The actions designates CR
15 as a greenway and provides for greater building setback-to accommodate landscaping.
Comprehensive Plan Updates
-Orderly Annexation Agreement- 1996
-Greenways, Parks and Trails Plan- 1998
-62nd Street North Area Plan- 1998
Zoning Ordinances
-Campus Research and Development Zone District
-Village Commercial Zone District
-Lakeshore Residential Zone District
-Traditional Residential Zone District
-Cottage Residential Zone District
-Shoreland Management Ordinance revision requiring wetland buffer area
-Special Road Setbacks (greenways)
-Fertilization Ordinance
-Accessory Unit Ordinance
-Agricultural Preservation Ordinance
-Tree Preservation Ordinance(draft)
Joint Planning Board
Page 3
August 26, 1999
Other Studies/Actions
-AUAR for expansion area and Brown's Creek Mitigation Project- $4 million
-Phase II Expansion Area Natural Resource Inventory
-Greenway Grant Application-$300,000 (approved DNR)
-Gadient/Bergmann Property Cluster Concept
-Update Park Dedication and Trail Requirements
Expansion Area Development Review
Since Comprehensive Plan adoption, four residential development projects have been reviewed
and approved by the Joint Board and City Council. The Joint Board reviewed, commented on
and approved each project as provided for in the orderly annexation agreement.
The four development projects comprise over 250 acres of land and account for 624 housing
units. Of that number, 498 are single family detached housing unit sites and 126 are townhouse
attached housing units. The densities of the projects are below the Comprehensive Plan
allowable densities as show in the attached table Expansion Area Development 1996-1999.
To date, 71 residential building permits have been issued. The orderly annexation agreement
place a maximum of 120 residential building permits per year cumulative. Development activity
has not come close to the permitted number.
Future Phase Development
The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Orderly Annexation Agreement provides direction
for future phased development. Phase II annexation and development could have occurred after
January 1, 1999. Talks are beginning with US Homes regarding Phase II development.
Annexation and plan approval can be anticipated in 1999-2000 with development beginning in
2000. Phase III expansion area annexation and development can begin as early as 2002
according to the orderly annexation agreement with Phase IV following after 2015.
The future development table below shows phased areas of development, density and estimated
housing units based on Comprehensive Plan land use density and land area.
Although Phase IV Expansion Area development is scheduled for after 2015, areas within the
Phase IV area can come in to the City earlier if contiguous to the City boundary,petitioned by
100 percent effected property owner(s) and approved by the City of Stillwater. So far, two Phase
IV areas have been annexed to the City(Creekside and Bergmann). Much of the Phase IV
Expansion Area is designated Rural Residential on the land use map so a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezoning will be required as a part of annexation and development review
process for the area to urbanize.
The Comprehensive Plan estimates 1,270 new housing units will be added in the Phase I, II and
Expansion Area Development'1996 - 1999
Actual Permits Issued Max#HU/OAA*
SF DUP Townhomes/Attached Housing
1996 0 0 0 120
1997 0 0 0 120
1998 10 0 0 120
1999 61 0 0 120
Total 71 0 0 480 HU
Approved Subdivision(preliminary and final plats)
Density
Project Date Acres Approved HU Single Family Attached Actual Comp Plan
Liberty on Long Lake 2/98 142.70 ,350 310 40 2.46 3.0 HU/ac
Legends of Stillwater 2/98 74.77 156 156 2.10 3.0 HU/ac
Creekside** 8/98 19.98 19 19 1.37 2.0 HU/ac
Green Twig Villas** 7/99 w 26.17 99 _13 86 3.78 2.0 & 6.0-10.10 HU/ac
Total 263.62 624 498 .126
*Maximum number of housing units permitted based on orderly annexation agreement.
**Not included in Comprehensive Plan estimated housing units becuase of Phase IV Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Joint Planning Board
Page 4
August 26, 1999
III Expansion Areas. (This is an estimate. The number does not account for Phase IV
development).
Future Phase Development 2000-2020
Phase II Expansion Area (1999)
Properties Area Comp Plan Density Estimated HUs*
US Homes 128 acres 4-6 HU/acre 200/250 SF 60-100
TH
Rivard 23 acres 2 HU/acre 50 SF
Krowning 15 acres 6 HU/acre 60 to
90 TH
Phase III Expansion Area (2002)
Properties Area Comp Plan Density Possible HUs*
US Homes (Palmer) 173 acres 2, 4 & 6 HU/acre 250-350
Phase IV Expansion Area (2015)
Other areas, as shown on Comprehensive Plan Map, are designated rural residential. Future land
use/zoning shall be determined based on availability of utilities, existing area land use and
coordinated overall area planning for the Phase IV development area.
Note: The Comprehensive Plan estimates 1,270 new housing units in the Phase I, II and HT
expansion areas. Of that number, 475 are large lot single family, 605 small lot and 190 attached
with no multifamily (apartments).
*Dependent on site constraints and project design.
Proposed Bergmann Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment before the Joint Board and City of Stillwater, is a
request to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from
single family large lot(2 du/acre) and single family small lot(4 du/acre) to townhouse residential
(6 du/acre). (See following concept plans maps for single family development at existing
Comprehensive Plan density and cluster housing proposed at proposed townhouse density.) The
requested Comprehensive Plan amendment was initiated by the City in order to better accomplish
Comprehensive Plan policy. The City's Planning Commission, Open Space Committee and
Parks Board have all approved the cluster townhouse development concept and Comprehensive
Plan amendment for the Bergmann and Gadient Site (see concept plan map).
Joint Planning Board
Page 5
August 26, 1999
The proposed amendment implements Comprehensive Plan policies in the area of community
character, land use, transportation, housing ,parks and trails and public facilities and services as
listed below. Forty Comprehensive Plan policies and programs are implemented by this
amendment as listed in the attached Review of Proposed Cluster Project with Comprehensive
Plan Policy Report.
Major Comprehensive Plan policies implement through the proposed amendment relate to range
of housing opportunities, compact development and lifecycle housing,neighborhood character
and parks as listed below. Although the current proposal is for the Bergmann Property,the
cluster concept can be applied to the adjacent Gadient Property to preserve the oak woodland.
(The Gadient Property is not included for this review in difference to the homestead owner.)
Housing
"Provide housing opportunities for all economic groups". (Page 6-1)*
"Provide range of housing types and tenures". (page 6-1)
"Cluster development to allow increase density on portions of the development site to reduce
structure costs and preserve open space". (page 6-5)
Community Character
"Create new, interesting quality designed neighborhoods that relate to their natural settings and
surroundings, developed areas, protect natural resources,provide central parks and open spaces
and are interconnected by trails to neighborhoods and community destinations". (Page 3-1).
"A greenbelt shall be established around the ultimate Stillwater planning area to separate
suburban and urban development from semi rural and rural Washington County areas". (Page 3-
1).
The orderly annexation agreement which is a part of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan contains
the following guideposts (policy directions) for joint planning.
Attached Housing
Attached or compact housing areas are located in pockets separated visually and physically from
single family areas. These locations have good direct access to major roads and are more closely
tied to existing urbanized areas. Sites for compact housing area located on County Road 5, 62nd
near 15, Myrtle Street south and west of Long Lake,possibly McKusick Road(west of the
mitigation site and pockets south of Dellwood Blvd(TH 96).
The Comprehensive Plan guidepost policy refers to the Bergmann site located along 62nd Street
near CR 15 as a potential site for attached or more compact housing.
*Comprehensive Plan Reference
Review of Proposed Legends Cluster Development
with
Adopted Stillwater Comprehensive Plan
Community Character
In making land use decisions recognize the importance of open space and the presence of open
space as a dominate feature(page 2-4).
Enhance the function, safety and appearance of Stillwater's streets and highways (page 2-5).
The City will make every effort to build new street at a scale comfortable to pedestrians (page 2-
5).
The amount of paving and the apparent width of streets shall be reduced physically and visually
in new developing areas (page 2-5).
The City shall encourage public and private landscaping along all major streets (page 2-5).
At street tree planting plan shall be developed for major streets (page 2-5).
Establish neighborhood identity through subdivision design,preservation of natural resources,
public improvements and parks (page 2-5).
Prepare specific area plans for appropriate areas to promote quality and diversity,preserve view
corridor and shared natural resources in well-planned developments (page 2-5).
Land Use
Create new interesting quality designed neighborhoods that relate to their natural settings and
surroundings, developed areas,protect natural resources,provide central parks and open spaces
and are interconnected by trails to neighborhood and community destinations(page 3-1).
A greenbelt shall be established around the ultimate Stillwater planning area to separate suburban
and urban development from semi-rural and rural Washington County areas(page 3-1).
Determine the desired growth rate and phasing of urban services to accommodate planned for
growth to 2010 and 2020 (page 3-5).
Establish an open space environmental framework to separate urban from semi-rural areas, retain
the loosely developed open space character of the URTPA edges and preserve natural resources
(page 3-5).
1
Maintain open space separation between Stillwater and surrounding semi-rural township areas
with zoning regulations, open space dedication, development design review and land purchase as
appropriate.
Establish a permanent greenbelt around the City planning area(page 3-5).
Screen views from Manning Trail using existing vegetation and land forms,new landscaping,
wetlands and greenways (page 3-5).
Use wetlands,woodlands, wind breaks and sloped areas to form a natural framework and help
define new development (page 3-5).
Coordinate the planning and phasing of new development of the URTPA with Stillwater
Township (page 3-5).
Use land use intensities of the land use plan as a basis for actual new development(page 3-5).
Encourage use of the innovative development concepts,where appropriate such as mixed use
development and cluster housing to provide life cycle housing opportunities, minimize the need
for and use of the automobile,protect natural resources and maintain open space(page 3-6).
Provide a range of housing opportunities from large lot single family to multifamily(page 3-6).
Support the Open Space Committee in identifying critical open space resources and the
development of a mechanism to obtain related open space lands (page 3-6).
Require planned unit development or specific area plans to coordinate park and trial
developments, traffic systems, buffering and application of design standards (page 3-6).
Require that new development pay for their share of parks, trails and infrastructure
improvements (page 3-6).
Establish a greenway along Manning Avenue (page 3-9).
Trails neighborhood and community parks and open space areas shall be provided throughout the
URTPA (page 3-9).
Transportation
Plan new development areas to coordinate with planning for the roads that provide access to the
development sites including County Road 15 (page 5-4).
Protect wetlands and wetland buffer areas (page 5-4).
2
Implement existing environmental protection ordinances as a part of specific plan preparation
and subdivision or PUD review (page 5-4).
Housing
Provide housing opportunities for all economic groups (page 6-1).
Provide a range of housing types and tenures (page 6-1).
Cluster Zoning. Allows increased density concentrated on portions of proposed development
reducing infrastructures costs and preserving open space (page 6-5).
Provide neighborhood parks for existing and new residential areas consistent with adopted park
dedication standards and park plans (page 6-8).
Use the planned unit development process for reviewing innovative development concepts and
protecting natural resource areas (page 6-8).
Parks. Riverfront and Trails
The City shall require all new development to dedicate land or pay a park fee according to park
dedication requirements (page 8-2).
In considering the location and redevelopment of parks, the City shall select sites based on
maximum accessibility, proper topography and visibility(page 8-2).
Use subdivision regulations and the development review process to locate parks in central secure
portions of subdivisions and to promote the safety of park users in the design of parks (page 8-3).
Use bikeways and pedestrian pathways to provide access to parks from adjacent residential areas
(page 8-4).
Identify sites for parks at the outset of a given subdivision process rather than accepting a
residual piece of land (page 8-4).
Use neighborhood park location and design to create neighborhood identity in new areas (page 8-
4).
Public Facilities and Services
Plan for the phased expansion of public services and facilities consistent with the growth and
expansion of the URTPA (page 10-5).
3
a"^aKt! *tom
l33NS
1160 1105040
/04047
3LYq •+"..,lif
mr - mn uu�tarYtag . .
m,
J5u
,r c��� `Mw,. ,,
PuiT�tma t Du r. -
•
> W+. 'w '
:" w- ; +.."... " fiy, Poona$gam
Ai
'
kf.0.9.,
•
•
/1 •
h ' � .• .Nie''''.
��Ie' a' ., try 2... -------1-4----._,--‘,---___,
...- tr �~Fi),r C'.'T# � • t , ( ...11�' = kYJ11 -,rJ 7
/�f `' • . � ¢ • `i~ .w ,,Et ^"�Jlt ;t'�! r — —'a ____..4.,„....,:,,, ,....,,,--...1„,„ ,-•_-_,I
% 4 r,, ,"" 'C.. 1 t .i 1
/1 1 ,, .._t_, , z..5:14,:o./4,:tifei
.,i i �� 4 .. , 1 - , - s :s�' K '_s=e -moiy\ { YiF4,r K1 tE / --'— t - c �'q'd .„,�Y Nate,. t• r �vC
j \\ / lt�t :~'r } ry t t'"rs �jv :5 $3 ry�� IL.C '1.• i! I! 1 rz. t r -Y s.NC 1
__ i it, 'AiraiiivAlt.,,i' _,ei.1 -'', \ 4'1' ',Z, ) P-10 1'' iVi ‘..4%. if: ' ,y,i• ,,, \, r-461),/---..,,„ita ‘ N
l I l.• '� ..r 'I..--' ' f rti',f:,..* , •{y ,, .. 'fay. 41k„;-4:4.(r,„;-,-
' b ..a .r. /6:-. -, — \.,, \ ()t? / �b{ ( ,`J •,°��/ .
- lir • `' r:�J;�---r.,�� _ "2,141;.:::4.1,Nc `b� i�.6%- '*ysy�"' _ , / `= Ny . '. '.\ �` i\J 1s,' ///l , / / !/
..mayy. Jry�y /
0.
Fi ' s "r;. •�w . �--/ , ',.:1...� M ... -- ���t Ei \ \ \/-"•� / )1 / /!///1/ �j42#d� ' fi N i , \ r_-_t—/ ', ptl 418 LW i:( 4 I L h / g \� 1 ( Y 1=i ' 'IJ it 1!I r I Ifs
Rjl'$.' i LM•rr� i l / `' j —i- / '� r ; _ .' a ' , *, •`' i ,�?_ � ,1^'!• ,j`n" r / ,Ii' ' ''..11•1A-411,^t' 7 ( ly , AW' p°1r�`T��"/�� w `v. x `� (—. / � ,<<,�, y `l 1/./J j i ji)�i I
.1 1 3, ., i " {1 .r� � S ct It -- ( :• - k�Sl r=r�//. r l , /' /�_/ / J(/(J
lit \ Cit. s d �` / p .rr Lit _ / r„ /%— / ( ! J// r'I(
rr -- 11 . r / `ib as / ! _ 1 f 1
�1 t: / br x.,:. . l `---'-
_ /
`\\\ ,1�. :.. � l'�"�; - hr_____, c-,Igf.,,.. „,x,..4,p4re,r- y _ / / / / . c�. � 'r'''.(7-/:- .•)� ._ — — / J! i / "1111/1 1/ JJ
,�\ a P tr 4� per. a . • / / -. 1!/' --.' •- `1 f I l
} /4/44144 -0*
1�r 11)JA Y7yy( i S 5+ti t� }a ^ t 1 1 ! ! \ 1 - - \~ /11 1
.,'\ +F`�,:y�r<J 40*',".+• • 'r , „;A 4.•;: ftFr.c +.,r sp,� 1.4 '''0-/t.*:,.,,--
!• r ---07'
- ......^' '../ /••'— -r �� -:,-,,,,..„00.,: ---------"z:-
• _/ J l
r3- r4. ,,F - .,fit +rte' > r rar.7� . F` .M t i _ - .._.- •'�/ �� \�♦\�` ~ `"„ ' / 1 4
• f iR' ���'�' �,T�! ", ,� t J� 2 4A I• r P L l f \* i r "`.••.\ Il
7: Imo` 5�' '� r z t i�aT ey�xi t<i J�` '1 �t�, 151 ,;'' "%�Y` •.~ 1 / /,;� 0/ \ a ,�.r, \ I i /
I i 4 i -" ,' GPi ti \i ',.. .k11.'f' 2!' a !' -- //.•/,. d \j i i 1 y _ 7 J `l 1
A,---... t,� r N.-0,-0$' e:t.Y .1a5 _�. 4 ►'zt' ( 11111 .�l'� f • wit
��: ,J{ t` """'ra;;.- , / r '' -l'ii' �� ,.,,•, . V-, J ,t l, ,,• // \V/J(l i I J/j !► , ,..1,07,,,,,46,„aa. r,:•.Y> 1 s!
' .,�; 1rMI }� �� i 1 \ : i \, fir xv ���yr, J.. 1 /I� \
\), ,1}'%! "...--r--.,. / �f(' (c ,yam,; ' "4--...',,:�wi C'�3r fr 1 \y \ \ \ — = h- i/ +d//,, /ay*"
a y r }Air iv/ ,1
f! /( -'`''''''sr-.---,.3\J---i * / ` / a" �Jrfi �1 + \ \ #" f ' 1\\)\‘\111 /4'wr"e 11'• sr.,,-...".:16(J
/ t „1 Zt1/ `� r r I 1) I •j. �( ,4d_ Jz,� raw' 1\ - '7"."-- \,i �e+fVr 1� r f i
J V 1 -. 1Y CJI tt 1 s Al ��/ ��r I 1 1 \ �Z���r � t �_ ;r• 5 / r`lr, ( \`f i1h11t.— Ae 1,7 1 a ... ;. \�➢ cmc 4 L�p 11 h -_T a y, , l 1 ,�,/� / � '_1,,c_ ...t.-1. J> Id it g'I - 1 r
Joint Planning Board
Page 6
August 26, 1999
The guideposts also address the subject of greenways.
Greenways
Greenways shall be established along Manning Ave, Dellwood Blvd,Myrtle Street, McKusick
Road and Boutwell Drive. The greenways shall be 100 - 200 feet in width depending on the
location and site conditions. The purpose of the greenway is primarily to preserve the natural,
semi-rural character of the transition area by screening new development from major public
roads. The greenway shall appear informal and natural using native indigenous plant material
adapted to existing topographic conditions. Enhancement of existing topographic or vegetative
conditions is encouraged to the extent the enhancement appears natural. Wetland mitigation sites
may be used as part of the greenway. Pathways may be located along side or in the greenway but
not appear as a primary design element of the greenway. The green way will provide a landscape
separation between newly developing residential areas and high volume traffic corridors.
The greenway is designated on the City Greenway Corridor Parks and Trail Plan and
implemented through specific project design review for any development that occurs along the
designated greenway. The special roadway setback along CR 15 is 100 feet to accommodate
greenways landscaping as required by ordinance.
Impacts of Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The impact of the Comprehensive Plan amendment is more housing units, 5 du/acre rather the 3
du/acre and more park land, 7.39 acres vs 2.8 acres. The amendment would provide housing at a
cost estimate of$120 - $150,000. Single family homes would be expected to cost $200,000+. A
detailed impact analysis of traffic,population and school aged children is attached.
Additional comments on the proposed Bergmann PUD, subdivision are included in a separate
project staff report.
Smart Growth
From a"smart growth"point of view, the townhouse development would provide for a more
efficient use of land (5 du/acre rather than 3 du/acre) and add to the availability of lower priced
more affordable housing. The site is located adjacent to CR 15, a proposed principal arterial just
north of an area designated Campus Research and Development (office park). This location
provides housing within walking distance of future jobs and/or CR 15 a major road where transit
service could be available in the future. The cluster development design reduces land coverage
and reduces impacts to Brown's Creek, minimizes the visual effect of automobile and emphasis
the pedestrian with sidewalks, trails and park space. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment is consistent with the AUAR for the expansion area.
Finally, the development provides for clustered compact housing development reducing the need
to grow into surrounding semi urban and rural areas.
. tiera,vr 4 /ij,
Bergmann Property
Single Family Townhomes %Difference
Site Area
Gross 31.79 Acres 31.79 Acres
Net Development 27.99 Acres 27.99 Acres
Number of Homes 84 142 69%More
Internal Public Streets 5.01 3.03 40%Less
Impervious Surface 8.92 6.24 30%Less
Building Cover 3.93 3.42 I3%Less
Linear Ft. of Public •
Street 4,365 2,865 34%Less
Number of Buildings • 84 20 76% Less
•
Number of Buildings
, - djacent to CR I.5& 62 24 13 45%Less
/ v , 9 ,�
�^�y" >pear Setback for
S � fanning 30' 40'-100' 116%More
�✓�' �f 65'
vs` *C.,k Park Dedication 2.8 7.4 Acres 164%More
Population 297 312 5%More.
Traffic ADT 816 838 3%More
Peak 89 77 13%Less
School Children 106 35 67%Less
Sources:
• Household populations provided by Met Council and the Office of the State Demographer,
(all categories of single family and multiple family are inclusive).
• Trips per Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997.
• Mary Louise Poquett,demographic consultant to Metro arca school districts.