The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-06-23 Joint Board Packet((water. THE B R TmeethigomitmeESOTA Stillwater City Township Joint Board City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Wednesday, June 23,1999 Roll Call: David Johnson, Louise Bergeron, Jay Kimble, Terry Zoller Approval of Minutes from meeting of May 19, 1999 Agenda Items 1. Case No. ZAM/99-2. Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment designating 14.20 acres of land located on the east side of Long Lake in the 62nd Street North Planning Area, Lakeshore Residential, LR, (minimum lot size 20,000 square feet) from Agricultural Preservation, AP. City of Stillwater, applicant. 2. Case No. ZAM/99-3. Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment designating 11.90 acres of land located west of CR 5 at Curve Crest Blvd in the 62nd Street Area Planning Area, Townhouse Residential, TR, (minimum lot size 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit) from Agricultural Preservation, AP. City of Stillwater, applicant. 3. Case No. PUD/99-18. Concept Planned Unit Development review of 26.18 acres of land comprised of single family lots (13 lots on 9.27 acres), 86 Townhome units on 11.90 acres and approximately 5.01 acres of park land, Green Twig Villas Development, located west of County Road 5 and east of Long Lake in the 62nd Street North Planning Area. Tim Nolde, applicant. 4. Case No. SUB/99-19. Preliminarily plat review resubdivision of 4 existing lots consisting of 26.18 acres into 16 lots, 13 single family lots (20,000 square foot minimum), 2 townhouse lots of 6.62 and 5.28 acres and 5.01 park located in the 62nd Street North Planning Area between County Road 5 and Long Lake. Tim Nolde, applicant. Other Items Discussion of appointment of neutral for alternative dispute resolution for Bergmann Comprehensive Plan Amendment and accompanying applications. Discussion of Comp Plan amendment process and relationship to overall expansion area housing density and population. Update Items: - Tree Ordinance - Brown's Creek Natural Area Park - Phase I Rezoning CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 MEMO To: Joint Stillwater City/Town Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Green Twig Villas Development Review Date: June 10, 1999 The Green Twig Villas project site is located within the Phase I expansion area. This area as annexed to the City in 1996. The area is currently zoned Agricultural Preservation, AP. The City of Stillwater decided to have a specific area plan prepared for the area to better address street access, drainage, park and trail issues. A 62nd Street North Area Plan was prepared last summer. The plan located street access points to the vacant lands, provided direction for management of on -site and off -site drainage that impacts the site and area and provides a plan for trail improvements and park dedication. The Plan also better defined land use between the single family Nightengale single family neighborhood and proposed townhouse residential area located along CR 5. Land use and residential density was related to street access and existing residential character as well as proposed use. The 62nd Street North Area Plan is a refinement to the Comprehensive Plan. The Joint Board approved the Comp Plan Amendment for the 62nd Street Area on January 20, 1999. The Stillwater Planning Commission first reviewed the Green Twig Villas application at their meeting of April 12, 1999. At that meeting, they approved the zoning amendments and continued the PUD and subdivision request. The PUD was referred to the City Council for private/public street determination at their meeting of April 20, 1999. Between the Planning Commission meeting of April 12 and May 10, 1999, the project design was reviewed to address city street, utility and trail and park concerns. Attached to this report are Planning Commission staff reports for the following related Green Twig Villas cases. 1. ZAM/99-2 Rezoning Lakeshore. 2. ZAM/99-3 Rezoning Townhouse. 3. PUD/99-18 Planned Unit Development, 13 Single Family Lots, 86 Townhouse units and Park. 4. SUB/99-19 Sixteen Lot Subdivision, 13 Single Family Lots, 2 Townhouse units and Park. Recommendation: Decision on above applications. The Joint Board must approve the ZAM's and review and comment for consistency the PUD and SUB. Attachments: Staff reports ZAM/99-2, ZAM/99-3, PUD/99-18 and SUB/99-19. MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Rezoning 14.28 Acres of Land Lakeshore Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum per lot, from Agricultural Preservation, AP. City of Stillwater, applicant. Case No. ZAM/99-2 Date: April 9, 1999 The request is to rezone lands within 1,000 feet of Long Lake Lakeshore Residential, minimum 20,000 square feet per lot (see map). This designation is consistent with the recently adopted 62nd Street North Area Plan and the Shoreland Ordinance (see attached proposed land use map). A 9.27 acre, thirteen lot subdivision is part of a larger 26.18 acre subdivision application. A 5.01 acre lakeside park is also designated Lakeshore Residential. Case SUB/99-19 considered later on the Planning Commission agenda. Recommendation: Approval Attachment: Lakeshore Residential Zoning Ordinance and proposed map. CPC Action on 4-12-99: +8-0 approval. NORTH 62ND PLANNING AREA CONCEPT PLANS NW ' J2IVM1111S L _ 1. NNING AVE.- COUNTY 15 STEV iS c GIST/ Tau. Ur.. 000 =Ma" 1r. UT0. 3 1TTZ 370 nwcx, s�er� la7)w-mn hu}se.-641, 11L17111p04- accr OCSOWD 3 PRU.wwutr PLAT SMI.wATER, w(90TA ilr, Oa0 Yr dRC! ..C.1 060 TWA! km A our acir m oot, 0.401 1.av F{ 4M V Ci TU16 0+ M+W 4 oeam ,ro ir}te1 Cramp Grp II 1/2.211.1 9 rat § 31-1 STILLWATER CODE be the average of the setback of the two adjacent main build- ings; or if there is only one adjacent main building, the set- back of the main building shall govern, but in no case shall a setback less than 20 feet be allowed or greater than 30 feet be required. 2. Corner yard. For corner lots where the corner side yard set- back or front yard setback for the main building on the adja- cent lot on the same street is less than the required setbacks, the corner lot setback for the adjacent main building shall govern, but in no case shall a setback of less than 20 feet be allowed. 3. Side yard. When there is an attached garage on one side of the dwelling, the garage set- back is five feet, provided that no habitable floor area is closer than ten feet from the property line and provided that the ga- rage is a minimum of 15 feet from the nearest structure on the adjacent lot. 4. Side and rear yard. An acces- sory structure located entirely in the side yard at least six feet from the main building shall have a minimum side and rear yard setback of five feet. (Ord. No. 669, 9-15-87; Ord No. 860, § 1, 5-19-98) Subd. 11.1 LR lakeshore residential district. (1) Residential buildings and uses. In the Lakeshore district, the following build- ings and uses and their accessory build- ings and uses are permitted: a. Dwelling houses each occupied by not more than one family. b. Parks, playgrounds and other open space areas. (2) Permitted uses with special use permits. In a Lakeshore residential district, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permit- ted by special use permit. a. Home occupations subject to all pro- visions of the zoning ordinance reg- ulating home occupations. (3) Accessory buildings and uses. Uses and buildings incidental to permitted or spe- cial permitted uses are subject to the following regulations: a. All accessory structures must meet the requirements for the bluff and shoreline set forth in subdivision 33, shoreland management regulations. b. No retaining walls may be con- structed to create yard areas or sites for swimming pools. c. No accessory buildings or uses that result in the cutting of trees or clear- ing of vegetation are permitted. (4) Development regulations. Area, setback, and height regulations: Provision 1. Maximum building height: Main building Accessory building (garages) 2. Minimum lot area Supp. No. 1 CD31:12 Single Family 21/2 stories and 35 feet 1 story and 20 feet 20,000 square feet is ZONING § 31-1 Provision 3. Minimum lot width 4. Minimum lot depth 5. Minimum front yard requirements Front yard —House Front yard —Garage (front facing)1 Front yard —Garage (side loading) 6. Side yard Interior House Garage Corner House Garage 7. Rear yard (any building) 8. Frontage Requirement2 Single Family 80 feet 170 feet 25 feet 32 feet 20 feet 10 feet 5 feet 25 feet 25 feet 85 feet from OHW 35 feet 'Front facing garages must be setback at least six feet more than the front wall or porch line of the house. House and garage setbacks are strongly encouraged to meet special design guidelines for variety of garage types and locations (front loaded, side loaded and recessed) and front and exterior side house elevations. 'Where two or more adjacent lots do not meet street frontage requirements, the driveways must be combined. (5) Design review. Administrative design re- view by the community development di- rector is required for all permitted and specially permitted buildings or uses in the Lakeshore district. Building siting, grading, drainage, tree protection and ero- sion control measures must be reviewed by the community development director for each development site. (Ord. No. 854, § 2, 2-17-98) Subd. 11.2 TR traditional residential district. (1) Permitted buildings and uses. In the tra- ditional residential district, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted: a. Dwelling houses each occupied by not more than one family. b. Parks, playgrounds and other open space areas. (2) Permitted uses with special use permits. In a traditional residential district, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permit- ted by special use permits: a. Home occupations subject to all pro- visions of the zoning ordinance reg- ulating home occupations. Supp. No. 1 CD31:13 b. Accessory dwelling units are permit- ted special uses in the TR district subject to the following regulations: 1. Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. 2. May be located on second floor above the garage. 3. The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary struc- ture setbacks for side and rear setbacks. 4. The accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. 5. Off-street parking requirements for an apartment and single family residence (four spaces) must be provided. 6. Maximum size of accessory dwelling is 800 square feet. 7. The application required de- sign review for consistency with the primary unit in design, de- tailing, and materials. MEMO To: Planning Commission A / From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Rezoning of 11.9 Acres of Land Townhouse Residential (TR), 8.7 du/acre, located west of CR 5 and Curve Crest Blvd. Case No. ZAM/99-3 Date: April 9, 1999 The request is to rezone 11.9 acres of land Townhouse Residential ( residence per 5,000 square feet). The proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see attached proposed land use map). A related concept PUD is proposed for the site and appears next (Item 8) on your agenda. Recommendation: Approval Finding: The rezoning is consistent with the Comp Plan. Attachment: Maps proposed land use and zoning and townhouse residential zoning district requirements. CPC Action on 4-12-99: +8-0 approval. NORTH 62ND PLANNING AREA CONCEP 0_a ifbain.. Lwm ar,,. V e WOO. nr wY no I..a uam MOON1 § 31-1 STILLWATER CODE must have habitable space above the garage and 25 percent must have front porches extending in front of the residence. House and garage setbacks are strongly encouraged to meet special design guideiines for variety of garage types and locations (front loaded, side loaded and recessed) and front and exterior side house elevations. 2 Where two or more adjacent lots do not meet street frontage requirements, the driveways must be combined. (Ord. No. 854, § 4, 2-17-98) Subdivision 11.4. THtownhouse residential dis- trict. (1) Permitted buildings and uses. In the townhouse residential district, the follow- ing buildings and uses and their acces- sory buildings and uses are permitted: a. Single family residences. b. Parks, playgrounds and other open space areas. (2) Permitted uses with special use permits. In a townhouse residential district, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings uses are permitted by special use permit: a. Attached single family residences. b. Home occupations'subject to all pro- visions of the zoning ordinance reg- ulating home occupations. (3) Development regulations. Provision 1. Maximum building height 2. Minimum lot area per unit 3. Minimum setback Residence Garage front facing Garage side facing 4. Minimum side yard setback 5. Minimum rear yard setback 6. Minimum setback between buildings Area, setback and height regulations: Single Family 21/2 story, 35 feet 5,000 square feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 25 feet 25 feet 15 feet (4) Design review. Design review is required for all permitted and specially permitted buildings or uses. (Ord. No. 854, § 5, 2-17-98) Subd. 12. RB-two-family district. RB-two-fam- ily districts shall be regulated as follows: (1) Permitted buildings and uses. In the RB- two-family district the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted: a. All buildings and uses permitted in the RA -one -family district as set forth in subdivision 11(1) of this section. Supp. No. 1 CD31:16 b. Dwelling houses, each occupied by not more than two families. c. Customary home occupations car- ried on for gain in the main building, provided that no nonresident help is employed for the purpose, no more than 25 percent of the total floor space of the building is used for the purpose, no articles offered for sale shall be displayed so as to be visible from any street and only articles made upon the premises shall be sold or offered for sale thereon. !fc MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Request for Concept PUD and Preliminary Plat Approval for 13 Single Family lots and 86 Attached Residential Units. Cases PUD/99-18 and SUB/99-19 Date: May 7, 1999 This item was before the Planning Commission at the regular April 12, 1999 meeting. At that time, issues regarding right of way/street width, public or private street and park dedication were discussed and plans referred to the City Council and Parks Board for comment. The April 12, 1999 staff report is attached. Since that meeting, the PUD request has been reviewed by the Parks Board and City Council. City engineering, fire and planning staff have also met with the developer to review public utility and project design issues. The Council reinforced their policy for public streets and Parks Board supported the proposed park. Attached to this report is a set of revised plans. The new plans reflect the direction of the City Council and Parks Board and input from the City Engineer and Fire Chief. Changes to the plans include establishing a 50 foot right of way including 24 foot street, 5 foot sidewalk (1 side) and a landscape boulevard area along major streets with 20 foot minimum building front setbacks. The streets would be public. Hammerheads have been added to the ends of the streets to accommodate turn arounds. The wider right of way has pushed some townhouses to within 11 feet of the rear property line along the south side of the entrance road. This area overlooks the City owned stormwater ponds. The width of the cul de sac extension off of Nightingale has been reduced although the right of way width remains at the City standard. The width is consistent with Nightingale width. A revised preliminary landscape plan has not been submitted but should be provided before final concept plan approval. The landscape plan should show how the single family lots will be screened and buffered from the ends of the streets with street and site landscaping. Additional off street guest parking has been incorporated into the street design to accommodate special event activities. The sidewalks/pathways system is consistent with 62nd Street, Nightingale Blvd, through the neighborhood to CR 5 and on one side of most development streets. The proposal shows 5.01 acres of park space. Based on the development density and park Planning Commission Page 2 June 9, 1999 dedication policy, 3.12 acres of parks is required for dedication. The attached map shows the total acres of park outside of the 100 foot drainage easement at 4.12 acres. A neighboring property owner holds a scenic easement over approximately .63 acres, resulting in 3.49 acres of land shown as unincumbered park dedication. The difference between required dedication and proposed park subtracting land already incumbered by scenic or drainage easements is .37 acres. The City will purchase that additional park land using in lieu park fees from other projects. The Fire Chief and City Engineer may have additional comments on the revised plans that will be presented at meeting time. Recommendation: Continued review of proposed development with additional information. Conditions of Approval: 1. The feasibility extent, phasing, costs and method of construction of public improvements shall be approved before any final PUD or subdivision approval. 2. The final design of the attached townhomes and apartments shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before final PUD approval. 3. A preliminary landscape plan with berms and screening of hammerheads and street trees shall be submitted and approved before concept PUD approval. Attachments: CPC staff report 4/12/99 and revised plans. CPC Action on 5-10-99: +7-0 approval CITY OF STILLWATER MEMORANUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Russell, Community Development Director DATE: April 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Request for Private Streets in 86 Unit Townhouse Attached Housing Development, Green Twig Villa Located West of CR 5 at Curve Crest Blvd. DISCUSSION The developer for the site is requesting that the private street be allowed for the development. The normal street right-of-way width for local streets in a subdivision is 60 R/W and 32 foot streets. Streets in the Legends/Liberty Development were allowed to be narrower to establish a more pedestrian related streetscape. For the Legends/Liberty Project areas the RIW is 50' with a 10' utility easement. In that area, typically streets are 28' with 8-foot boulevards and 5' sidewalks. Sidewalks are on one and both sides of the street depending on street use and adjacent residential areas. The PUD Green Twig Villas Project was presented to the Planning Commission April 12, 1999. Staff expressed concerns for street width and other utility improvements. (See attached staff report). After hearing the proposal, the Planning Commission continued its review until their May meeting to get input from the council on the private vs. public streets issue and the Parks Board on the purchase of the 5.01 acre lakeside park (3.12 acres would be dedicated based on subdivision park dedication standards). See attached memo from the developer. RECOMMENDATION Decision on private street. request. Attachment: Planning Commission staff report — April 12, 1999. Memo from Fire Chief Memo from developer MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Approval for 86 Townhouse Attached Residential Units (PUD/99-18 and SUB/99-19) Date: April 9, 1999 Background The PUD is for the 86 attached residential units on the 11.90 acre site. The subdivision request is to resubdivide 26.18 acres of land into 16 lots, 13 single family lots, a 5.01 acre park and two outlots of 6.62 acres and 5.28 acres for future townhouse development. The 11.90 acre townhouse area is separated into two townhouse development types. One area is next to CR 5 consisting of 5.2 acres and 50 residences. A second townhouse area is located between the denser housing site and the single family area and consists of 36 residences on 6.62 acres. Two wetlands impact the site, Brewers Pond and the City Pond. The development plan shows the proposed structures setback the required 50 feet. The development plan shows a 5.01 acre park area adjacent to Long Lake and next to the drainage easement leading from the City Pond to Long Lake. A trail and sidewalk system is proposed connecting the area to a future 62nd Street, Nightengale and CR 5 trails as called for in the Comprehensive Area Plan. Proposed Development The development type townhouse residential and density is called for in the Comprehensive Plan but the number of units proposed will probably need to be reduced to meet required public street right of way and paving standards. The City Council has recently directed that no private streets be allowed in new developments after problems with private street and utilities in the Oak Glen neighborhood. The proposed development streets do not provide the required right of way width (60 feet or roadway width of 32 feet) and building setbacks. It is recommended that the street pattern and development pattern be reconsidered to reduce the number of dead end streets and meet street width standards. This could reduce the number of units that can be accommodated on the site. A 5.01 acre park is proposed, 3.14 acres of park is required for park dedication based on the development density. The 5.01 acre park is called for in the Comp Plan. Terms for dedication/purchase of the site will have to be determined before final plat approval. Planning Commission Page 2 April 9, 1999 Utilities The utilities plan for the subdivision have been reviewed by the Fire Chief and City Engineer and determined to be substandard (see attached letter from Fire Chief). With the substandard plans, approval for the subdivision and PUD can not be recommended. Recommendation: Denial or continued for redesign. Conditions of Approval: 1. The utilities improvements shall be redesigned to meet city public utility standards as contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. Findings for Denial: The proposed subdivision and PUD is not consistent with subdivision public improvement standards. Attachments: Application and plans. Memo To: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Cc: Klayton Eckles, City Engineer Jim McKnight, Water Department From: Kim Kallestad, Fire Chief Date: April 7, 1999 Subject: Green Twig Villas, Concept Plans The Green Twig Villa Preliminary Plat and P.U.D. PIan dated March 26, 1999 does not meet the following Subdivision Code Standards of the City of Stillwater. Chapter 32 Subdivision 6, Section (3): g. Dead-end streets h. Private streets k. 1. Pavement width k. 3. Alternative street standards k. 4. Special conditions, parking for intensive use k. 13. Corner radii 1. Cul-de-sac streets, 600 feet maximum Dead-end streets Nightingale is already an extremely long dead-end cul-de-sac. I strongly recommend against any extension of Nightingale as a dead-end. Private streets Private verses public is not an issue for the fire department, however minimum design standards remain a fire department issue whether private or public. Pavement width City code requires a minimum roadway width of 32 feet. I understand there is desire by planners, developers, and some people in the community to narrow roadways. We must remember that we do live with a wintry climate. In a spirit of compromise, I can accept some narrowing; however, as Stillwater Fire Chief speaking for the good of the community and public safety, I will not support roadway widths less than twenty-six (26) feet. Even on a twenty-six foot wide roadway, I will request Council to restrict parking to one side of the street only. It goes without saying that the Planning Commission can recommend and the Council can accept designs not meeting the standards recommended by the Fire Chief Alternative street standards As stated, alternative standards are open to discussion. Special conditions Do to the intensive use (high density), additional parking stalls are recommended interspersed throughout the complex. Otherwise, emergency vehicles would likely have restricted access due to excess parking on streets at times. Corner Radii The farther a street is narrowed from the 32 foot standard, the more the corner radius must be lengthened to allow larger vehicles to navigate the street. (i.e., garbage trucks, school buses, fire engines, and ambulances) Cul-de-sac streets City Code limits them to 600 feet in length. Nightingale is already exceedingly long. I oppose extending it unless it is connected as a through street. Also, I recommend minimum cul-de-sac roadway width standards be established at diameters of seventy-four (74) feet in residential zones, and eighty-four (84) feet in commercial zones. Fire Hydrants The submitted plan does not meet acceptable standards for fire hydrant locations as provided for in the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code (M.U.F.C.), Section 903, and Appendix III-B. Using Appendix III-B as a standard, a hydrant shall be required every five -hundred feet along roadways, and every four -hundred feet on dead -ends. P.S. I'm sorry my schedule did not permit me to attend the meeting with the developer. I'll gladly meet with the him at your request or his. I'm at 3514.951. To: Stillwater Planning Commission From: Tim Nolde Re: 62nd Street Planned Unit Development Date: April 12, 1999 Dear Commission Members: I am appearing before you tonight to request various approvals for our proposed development. You are probably aware we have been working on this concept for the past 18 months. We have dealt with four different land owners, various public bodies, and the various concerns of the neighborhood. Tonight we submit a plan complying with those elements. We have worked closely with city staff for over a year in devising various alternative solutions for these parcels. It now appears we have resolved the vast majority of the concerns. However, Mr. Russell's memo to your commission recommends denial of this project because of the substandard public improvement standards (i.e. the lack of 60 foot rights -of -way for public streets). The key word here is "public". We assumed that our project is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and that under such PUD, the streets are allowed to be narrower if they are "privately" owned and maintained. This is one of the major purposes of the PUD process. There are many developments in Stillwater area who have the exact types of streets and utility configuration. We have always planned on maintaining our streets under the private domain. In fact by not allowing such arrangement would be contrary to the city's Comprehensive Plan and the City Councils mandate to allow for affordable housing, if such developments had to adhere to strict city standards of 60 foot right-of-ways, the density's allowed under your own Comprehensive Plan could not be achieved and therefore the cost of the housing would be out of reach to that many more people. The way it stands now, is your Plan allows for 6-10 unit per acre density. Our -present plans have an average density of 7.22 units per acre. Anything less would seriously affect this development. We negotiated with the property sellers based on these allowable densities and applicable Planned Unit Development Standards. This should not have to be a "stumbling block". Last Friday we visited with city staff and discussed other alternatives. It seems the council has recommend these changes because of other developments in the city. I suggest ours is much different. The majority of the units will be owned by our company (58%). The other units will be individually owned and controlled by a Homeowner's Association. During the course of sale it is legally required for us to disclose to the prospective buyer that our streets are private and the city has R.Q obligation to maintain or service them. We will have a Deed Restriction placed on all transfers, which would effectively notify all persons of this. In any event our lenders place very restrictive reserve requirements on our Association to have adequate monies in reserve for such repairs and replacements. I mentioned to Mr. Russell that we would be able to accommodate his desire for the boulevard atmosphere (and therefore increase our right of ways by at least 5 feet) if we could move our units that much closer to the city owned property to the south of our project This would allow us to provide a very desirable walking trail with nice trees between the trail and the street. Also, provisions can be made to provide turnarounds for emergency vehicles on our dead -ends streets. We have also agreed to provide a buffer between our single family development and the townhomes. This would include a combination of berming and tree transplantation. Another solution to the problem would be for the city to allow for less of a right -of way area. We could then allow the streets to be public, thereby alleviating those concerns. A valid argument could be made for this idea, .especially since the city is so concerned about runoff and the Long Lake watershed problem. There is no valid reason for 32 foot streets in our development. There are no through streets or connecting'.roadways. All of the extra blacktop would just be wasteful and harmful to the surrounding environment. Please keep in mind the affordability factor is rendering your decision. Many people have already expressed an interest in our townhornes. A tremendous need exists for townhomes in the $1 15,000-$125,000 price range and $600.00-900.00 rental range. Everyone would like to sell there home and downsize, please give them the opportunity. Therefore, 1 respectfully ask that you approve our development as submitted with the changes I suggested in this letter. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. cc Stillwater City Council Members LAW OFFICES OF Eckber , Lammers. Briggs. Wolff & V ierling, P.L.L.P James F. Lammers Robert G. Briggs** Mar- J. Vierling* Gregory G. Galler. Thomas J. Weidner* Susan D. Olson* Dewid K. Snyder l.rosh Piletich* 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-2878 FAX (651) 439-2923 Direct Dial No. (651) 351-2115 Mr. Steve Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Steve: April 9, 1999 In Re: South Long Lake Bay General Plan of Development %T - LyJ. £ -berg see Paul A. Wolff (1944-1996) *Qualified Neutral arbitrator & Mediato •Qualir cd Neutral Art' afor *Geri; Lea 'e. Estate +peoialist •Q.all iC Cal Mediator I wish to advise you that I represent Richard Huelsmann who, as you are aware, owns a parcel of property located just westerly of the proposed South Long Lake Bay Development. I have been provided with a copy of the general plan of development of the proposed South Long Lake Bay Development, and it appears that the plan as drafted does not recognize the fact that the property lying just northerly of Mr. Huelsmann's property is encumbered by a perpetual scenic easement. As Mr. Huelsmann has previously advised you, the parcel of property lying directly easterly of his property is encumbered by a perpetual scenic easement dated May 20, (.1 1992 which provides in relevantpart that that.parcel shall not be developed or altered in P P any manner, that no improvements, including public trails, shall be constructed within that parcel, and that the purpose of the easement document is to assure that the parcel will remain in its natural undeveloped state. The easement has been recorded in the office of the Washington County Recorder, and runs with the land, and by its terms is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the original parties who signed the easement agreement. I have reviewed the North 62nd Street Planning Area Concept Plans, and the preliminary report for the Curve Crest Boulevard Extension Public Improvement Project, both of which recognize the fact that the subject parcel is encumbered by the perpetual scenic easement. April 9, 1999 Page 2 In order to remove any uncertainty as to the status of the subject parcel and the perpetual scenic easement, I respectfully request that the subject parcel be deleted from the general development plans, and that it not be designated as park dedication. Should you or any member of the City Staff disagree with my interpretation of the status of the subject parcel, or should there be some problem in accommodating our request to remove the subject parcel from the development plans, I would appreciate your giving me a call. I also request that you include this issue in your recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. above. Thank you for your consideration and anticipated cooperation regarding the Yours very truly JamesrF. Lam JFL:dmr Enclosures c: Dick Huelsmann Tim Nolde PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES TOWNHOMES (FOR SALE) TOWNHOMES (RENTAL) DEDICATED PARKLAND 9.27 AC 6.82 AC 5.28 AC 5.01 AC / ,,#3EDLfC1l'i'foN . S A I lf�tl F_S .. — �, tr. • _-- :7:3ad ca...` '^ �.. J .2,. 4� '-+SU/ , ~-C �SUZANNg . aCRNR OXKES C_`1-1 RRN R DENSITY 1.4 UNITS/ACRE 5.44 UNITS/ACRE 9.47 UNITS/ACRE EXISTING ZONING AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL 1999 1999 2000 1999 GARY A. RITZER Crt U tr } I } S 2 a 0 4 Eng Gi]w m 0 0 [!f N 4EET WI 3 of 8 p I T.C. — 906.00 LE. — 901.84 Elr 13 0 Cu STRU \ 12 11 • 15' UTIUTY EASEMENT R 10 0/ �\l Do 4 . / 0 5 T.C. — 907.80 I.E. — 900.74 70 LF. 8' 907.80 I.E. = 900.46 7 T.C.= 908.10\ I.E. — 899.90 25 UTILITY EASEMENT 11 r 8 T.C. = 905.00 I.E — 899.04 \. \ \ \ OUTLET —77 1 Wow -r a matt** 1.1 ea oval t 0 •Q 50 100 150 0 0 0 0 �/ 1 i 0 i ® 4 T.C. = 909.00 • I.E. = 899.92 0 tO �\ r.c. LE = 895.88 0015LEV - it T.C. ,a • 1 /4 ot. ® 910.30 NOTE: SANITARY SEWER — TO CITY SYSTEM WATER MAIN — TO CITY SYSTEM O T.C. — 910.00 I.E. = 901.35 / / r U C C c CJ7 I ri F sn y SnLLWA1ER, MINNESOTA PAX:(715)988-5879 C Pt O F .I 0 0 1d a v. gU w 20 w s s WTI I40. 8OF8 T.C. - 906.00 I.E - 901.64 70 LF. 8" T.C. •- 907.80 I.E. - 900.46 905.00 I.E - 899.04 1i3 ZF.-r. Y T.C. = 909.00 • I.E - 899.92 BO T.G. - Stae, �i.E. 94.72bJ �7t. T.C. - 910.30 I.E. = 895.86 20 -?0 .10T NOTE: SANITARY SEWER - TO arr SYSTEM WATER MAIN - TO CITY SYSTEM T.C. - 910.00 I.E.-901.35 .7; 8 OF 8