Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-06 Joint Board Packetf ter THE BIRTH PLACE OF MINNESOTA Corrected Agenda Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board Thursday, July 6, 2000 7 p.m. City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Approval of April 18, 2000 Minutes Public Hearings: Case No. SUB/00-30. A subdivision of 22.75 acre lot into four lots consisting of 6.16 acres, 3.37 acres, 3.24 acres and 3.15 acres with two outlots consisting of A=2.49 and B=-4.34 at the northwest corner of Hwy 36 and Hwy 5 intersection in the CRD, Campus Research and Development District. Coen and Stumpf and Associates, Inc., representing Jim Bradshaw, applicant. 2. Case No. ZAM/00-3. A zoning map amendment to rezone from Agricultural Preservation, AP, to Single Family Residential District, RA, a 55,254 square foot parcel at 7970 Neal Avenue North, Lot 3, Block 2, Neal Meadows. Wesley Investments, Inc., Jon Whitcomb, representing Michael G. Gibson, applicant. Case No. SUB/00-34. A subdivision of Lot 3, Block 2 Neal Meadows, 7970 Neal Avenue North, into three lots of 31,254, 12,001 and 11,999 square feet. Wesley Investments, Inc., Jon Whitcomb, representing Michael G. Gibson, applicant. 4. Case No. CPA/00-1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use designation of lands in the Phase II expansion area located between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue east of Manning Avenue in the following ways: (1) From Large Lot Single Family to Townhouse Residential (24 acres); (2) From Townhouse Residential to Small Lot Single Family (19.4 acres); (3) From Small Lot Single Family to Parks and Open Space (16.9 acres). US Homes, applicant. Case No. ZAT/00-02. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) District. US Homes, applicant. 6. Case No. ZAT/00-03. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR). US Homes, applicant. Case No. ZAT/00-4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Traditional Residential (CTR). US Homes, applicant. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 8. Case No. ZAM/00-4. A Zoning Map Amendment designating 48.1 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue in the Phase II expansion area. US Homes, applicant. 9. Case No. ZAM/00-5. A Zoning Map Amendment designating 16.1 acres of land located in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR). US Homes, applicant. 10. Case No. ZAM/00-6. A Zoning Map Amendment designating 4.5 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue. US Homes, applicant. 11. Case No. PUD/00-41. A Concept Plan Unit Development approval for mixed use residential development consisting of 160 townhouses, 209 coved cottages, 11 traditional residential and parks and open space located on 150 acres of land in the Phase II expansion area east of Manning Avenue between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue. US Homes, applicant. 12. Case No. SUB/00-42. Preliminary plat approval for a subdivision of 152 acres of land into 220 single family lots, 15 townhouse lots (150 HUs) and 8 outlots (parks open space and CR 15 right of way) located east of County Road 15, north of Boutwell Avenue and south of McKusick Road, Phase II expansion area. US Homes, applicant. Other Items Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board April 18, 2000 Present for Stillwater Township: Supervisor David Johnson and Supervisor Louise Bergeron Present for City of Stillwater: Council Member Terry Zoller Others: Town Planner Meg McMonigal, Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies, Community Development Director Steve Russell, Bill Pritchard and Bob Swanik of Orin Thompson Homes, Greg Frank of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, and Kevin Norby of Norby and Associates. Township Attorney Tom Scott and City Attorney David Magnuson. Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval of the minutes of February 17, 2000; all in favor. Discussion of Phase H Development Com rehensive Plan Review Community Development Director Russell provided the Board with an overview of the Phase II Development located north of Boutwell, south of McKusick, Neal Avenue and east of Manning Avenue. He stated that US Homes has purchased most of the property. He stated that the issue before the Joint Board is a Comprehensive Plan Land Use issue and asking for clarification from the Board at this meeting. The issue that needs to be addressed is the configuration of the patterning of the proposed land use by US Homes. The developer has moved the townhomes residential development sight from just south of McKusick to the corner of Boutwell and Manning Avenue which is one of the changes that is being proposed conceptually and what is actually designated in the Land Use Plan. Other than that change the single family, small lot residential area is what is designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The park area to the north, south of the railroad tracks, is designated single family small lot residential in the Comprehensive Plan and the City is pursuing purchasing of that land for open space so there would be no residential development on that site. Mr. Russell reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs. the proposed development. Mr. Russell requested that the Joint Board make a decision on if these changes represent a change in the Comprehensive Plan and does the City need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate these more specific land use or address these more specific land uses in terms are they appropriate based on the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Johnson stated that there was a consensus at the Town Board level that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be in order. He stated that he felt the process should fault on the side of being more cautious and proceed with an appropriate process because it could be a credibility issue more than anything else. Ms. Bergeron reaffirmed Chairman Johnson's statement on the Town Board's consensus in that it is a matter of moving the townhomes from one location to another. Page 1 of 5 Mr. Zoller asked City Attorney Magnuson his thoughts on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Magnuson stated he felt that politically it is a necessity, legally it is discretionary because it is not a profound change. If the Board felt they didn't need to go through the process of a Comprehensive Amendment he stated that the Rivard property would have to be rezone and rezoning has to be consistent with the plan and it is not shown in this plan as townhomes. Mr. Zoller stated that the extra effort should be taken and walk the steps. Mr. Bill Pritchard, Vice President of Land Development for Orin Thomson Homes introduced colleagues in this proposed development. He provided information on the conceptual drawings before the Board. He stated that he concurred that the process for a Comprehensive Amendment should proceed. He explained the reasoning behind the Rivard property, in that they saw an opportunity to get better exposure to the internal property and felt that the higher density would be better at that location and that it allowed a larger land area for park use. Mr. Johnson stated that he agrees with the consensus of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion by Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the development by USA Homes. All in favor. Mr. Zoller asked about the road off to the north if it crosses the railroad tracks. Mr. Pritchard stated the details of that have not been completed, but it is the desire to work with the Zepher line and collectively with the homeowner develop a swap for crossings and then bring it to a grade crossing that is already existing. Mr. Pritchard stated that the overall concept of the development is called "coving." Basically this means that the streets are winding and allows the flexibility of variation of home setbacks so that it does not have a "tunnel" effect driving down the street. He also explained the reasoning for moving the townhomes and of the design of the townhomes along Manning Avenue. He stated that USA Homes has a lot more to do regarding the landscape and amenities, but that will be done through the public process. He also stated that the purpose today is to come up with a time schedule that they are able to meet and live with. Mr. Zoller asked how this development compares to the Liberty and Legends development. Mr. Pritchard stated that one of the features that coving allows is that because homes are setback the driveways end up being more ramped. It allows more homes with walkouts. He stated that in order to accomplish this would have architectural challenges because garages can not be behind the home. Their attempt is to offset the garages on the side of the house. That information will be provided when completed. Mr. Russell stated that one of the benefits of working with US Homes is that they are the developer as well as the builder. We are not working with one entity in the subdivision process and another for the design. He stated on the conceptual drawing all the garages are turned or recessed. Page 2 of 5 Mr. Zoller asked if coving is being done in the area. Mr. Pritchard stated that it is becoming popular in that it provides curved streets and not a straight thoroughfare. It determines how the homes are set and with this design the setbacks will be varied and flow with the streetscape and curves of the street. Mr. Russell stated that the development pattern is more informal and trying to emphasize the natural element of Browns Creek and its tributaries using the topography to meander the road through the site. It is different than the Legends and Liberty project, but the site is different and dictates another type of development to use the land and water features in order to create the neighborhood. He stated it is appropriate for the site. Chairman Johnson stated that one of the sensitivities in regard to townhomes on County Road 15 further south was how the land original was before development and feeling that inclusion of townhomes in the area would be obvious. The berming in that area has been positive. He is interested in seeing how the berming in this development disguises these townhomes. He explained that the County Road 15 corridor has been a rural corridor and the township wishes to preserve that. He encouraged US Homes to look very hard in the berming and buffering of the townhomes along County Road 15 and design so that the building that are seen have some variety to their architectural interest so that it looks more individual home like than looking like one of twelve units that are all the same. Chairman Johnson also asked that US Homes be sensitive to the township homes along this subdivision to be respectful to the homes existing in the area. He also mentioned the need for active recreational opportunities and would like to see a creation of playing fields rather than just open space. Schedule for Phase II Development Review Ms. McMonigal stated that she would not be reviewing the project because her firm, McCombs Frank Roos Associates is working with Orin Thompson to complete the civil engineering on this development. Mr. Dean Johnson, of Resource Strategies Corporation will be acting in her place. She stated that she prepared a process of review and that Community Development Director Russell added the specific dates. Mr. Russell reviewed the proposed scheduled with the Board. Mr. Scott expressed concern separating the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process from the rest of the process. He stated that it does not work well because to many people the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be based on what the development will look like and it will be confusing to the public. You end up doing things twice and it is confusing to people. Mr. Zoller agreed that the issue could confuse issues and the process should not be separated. Page 3 of 5 Mr. Johnson stated he felt the path of least resistance is the way to proceed and if it gets confusing to people it may alienate them more. He felt that this project's level of detail should be shown and deals with both issues at the same hearing. Mr. Pritchard stated that the information that will be available for the May 8th meeting will be similar to what has been presented with some addition information but that for the June 12 meeting they will be providing information with significant detail as it relates to landscaping, architectural, grading and infrastructure, etc. After board discussion, motion by Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, to adopt the following schedule: April 18 Joint Board determination of necessary project review elements and schedule May 8 City Planning Commission and Stillwater Township Planning Commission initial review of project. June 12 City Planning Commission review necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning and subdivision review (public hearings). June 15 Stillwater Township Planning Commission meeting June 22 Stillwater Township Board meeting July 6 Joint Board holds necessary public hearing(s) and reviews project July 18 City Council hold public hearings for project approval (Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, preliminary plat, concept PUD). Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Limiting the Size of Garage in the TR, Traditional Residential and LR, Lakeshore Residential District. Mr. Russell explained that when the Lakeshore Residential Traditional Residential District zoning regulations were adopted, they did not have a maximum garage size. The ordinance for Single Family Residential, RA, has a limit size of 1,000. This text amendment would provide consistency in that it would be the same as other areas of the City. Chairman Johnson stated that the Town Board did not have any problems with this issue. Motion by Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron to approve the zoning amendment. All in favor. Update Tree Ordinance Mr. Russell informed the Joint Board that the Tree Ordinance has been adopted. Letter to County Regarding Use of Brown's Creek Park Chairman Johnson asked if a response has been received from Washington County regarding the Brown's Creek area. Page 4 of 5 Mr. Magnuson stated that the County needs a commitment from the City that we would abide by the wetland mitigation rules in effect for the parcel because that was part of the mitigation for the County Road project. It is just a matter of formalizing an agreement to be bound by those restrictions and they would transfer it to us. Mr. Russell stated that on Boutwell the County Historical Society has the property of Boutwell Cemetery and they have indicated they are willing to sell that to the City and the township park is next that with the Newman property abutting that and that the City is interested in all of that area. If the City could work with respective parties would that be enough for a soccer/ballfield, function for the neighborhood. Instead of having a few acres throughout the development this would provide approximately 10 acres for this facility. Chairperson Johnson appreciates the idea of a public works facility next to a recreation area to keep an eye on the investment. He also stated he endorses the concept, but would like to see what could be developed within the development itself. There are needs for a place to practice that is big and flat enough to hold these practices. He also stated that when Mr. Russell works to obtain these parcels to get the township involved. He believes the township would be supportive and use this as a way to promote public support. Ms. Bergeron stated that the township considered putting playing fields in their park, but they felt it would be better to communicate with the City. Mr. Scott wanted clarification regarding the setback along County Road 15. Mr. Russell stated that this development is approximately 100 feet from County Road 15. Motion by Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Ward Page 5 of 5 MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Planning Reviews for Phase II Expansion Area Date: June 21, 2000 There are nine cases for the Phase II expansion area including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA/00-01), six zoning amendments, a Planned Unit Development approval (PUD/00-41) and a subdivision, SUB/00-42. The staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission public hearing on June 12, 2000 are enclosed along with minutes of that meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of the nine expansion area plan reviews with conditions. On June 15, 2000, the Town Planning Commission reviewed the plan applications. After presentation of the plans and discussion, the Town Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the application to the Town Board for approval. The Town Board will review the proposal and recommendation at their meeting of June 22, 2000. A traffic study for the project is being prepared by SEH and should be available for the Joint Board. Recommendation: Action on expansion area plans 1. Comp Plan Amendment - CPA/00-1 2. Zoning Amendments - ZAT/00-02, 00-03, 00-04 and ZAM/00-04, 00-05, 00-06 3. Planning Unit Development - PUD/00-41 4. Subdivision - SUB/00-42 Attachments: Phase II Expansion Area Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes of Meeting, 6/12/00, Stillwater Township Planning Commission Minutes of June 15, 2000. To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Proposed Land Use Map Changing the Land Use Designation of Phase II Expansion Area Land Uses (Case No. CPA/00-1) Date: June 7, 2000 Background The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Stillwater City Council on December 15, 1995. The Comprehensive Plan includes policies and a proposed land use map that provides direction for the future development. This amendment is the third land use map amendment proposed for the expansion area (the other amendments were for the 62nd Street North Planning Area and the 62nd Street North Manning Avenue, Stillwater Crossings Project). Amendment Designations 1. Change designation of 24 acres of land located at the corner of Boutwell Road and Manning Avenue from large lot single family (2 dus/acre) to attached single family (6 dus/acre). 2. Change the land use designation of 19.36 acres of land located south of the railroad tracks and McKusick road from attached single family (6 dus/acre) to small lot single family (4 dus/acre). 3. Change the land use designation of 16.86 acres of land located south of the railroad tracks and west of Neal Avenue from small lot single family (4 dus/acre) to open space (0 dus/acre). Other policy areas of the Comprehensive Plan regarding natural resources, parks and open space, transportation, housing, public services and facilities and community character are not changed and are used to guide development of this area and the expansion area generally. The results of the land use plan amendment in terms of dwelling units allowed by the current land use designation and amended designation are listed below by land use category. Large Lot Single Family Small Lot Single Family Single Family Attached Large Lot Single Family Small Lot Single Family Single Family Attached Open Space Existing Land Use Map Acres Units 26 52 91 364 16 96 133 512 Land Use Map Amendment Acres Units 15 30 75 300 26 156 17 0 133 488 Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 As can be seen, the amendment results in 24 fewer dwelling units. This is the result of the increased townhouse area and open space designation. (The actual cove development proposes 380 dwelling units.) Plan Amendment Review The proposed amendment increases the number and changes the location of the attached housing but does not result in an overall increase in dwellings. The proposed townhouse location of Boutwell and Manning is along a minor arterial county road designated for future widening. Usually sites next to major roads are attached housing or multifamily sites. Access to the sites off of McKusick Road or Boutwell, both collector roads, are adequate although improvements will have to be made to Boutwell as development occurs to the east. A special 100 foot greenbelt setback from Manning Avenue will buffer the housing from road noise and housing views from the road. Both sites assist the City in providing a range of housing opportunities in terms of type and price. Townhouse sites provide housing for older and younger households with fewer children then single family detached development. Existing residences next to the site in both the McKusick and Boutwell site areas are single family large lot development. More residences are in the vicinity of the McKusick townhouse site than the Boutwell site. Other Considerations Adequate urban services are available for either land use designation and environmental review was completed for the Comprehensive Plan area with the Expansion Area Alternative Urban Area Wide Review, AUAR. The development will contribute to the Brown's Creek Mitigation Account to address run off impacts. The City is planning a community recreation and open space site south of Boutwell adjacent the area. Amendment Process The Comprehensive Plan amendment process is described in the orderly annexation agreement. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission reviews the request and makes recommendation to the City Council. In the case of amendments in the orderly annexation area, the Stillwater Joint Board, comprised of Town Board and City Council members, must approve the change before it can be approved by the City Council. The Town Board and Town Planning Commissioner was invited to the Planning Commission meeting on May 8, 2000 and to this public hearing to be informed on the amendment and participate in consideration of the request. After Planning Commission review of the amendment request, it is scheduled for Joint Board public hearing on July 6,.2000 and City Council public hearing on July 18, 2000. According tot he approved project review schedule, the Town Planning Commission will consider the request Planning Commission Page 3 June 7, 2000 at its meeting of June 15 and the Town Board at its meeting of June 22. Recommendation: Approval Findings Land use plan map amendment designation is consistent with the polices and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Application, maps and resolution. CPC Action on 6-12-00: Recommended Approval Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Case CPA/00- 1 ASF = Attached Single Family N 0 0.25 Mies LLSF = Large Lot Single Family OS = Open Space _ RR = Rural Residential - SLSF = Small Lot Single Family Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance $70 or Special Use Permit 550/20 _ ,Conditional _ x Design Review $25 X Planned Unit Development* $500 Variance $70120 x Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 X Zoning Amendment* $300. Subdivision* $100+ Resubdivision'. $100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attach+ The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supportin material submitted in connection with any application.20 Al 0001 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION R19.030. 42.000= 41.0001 34.000-- Address 4.000= Address of Project COFNTER OF MANNINGAVE/80TH ST NO Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District RA Description of Project _ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 152.33 AC CONSISTING OF MIX -USE OF TOWNHOMES AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY; TOTAL 380 UNITS. "l hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewi all respects, to the gest of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. 1 further certify l will comp! with the permit if it is granted and used." BURT & JO ALICE RIVARD Property Owner ORRIN THO'SON HOMES I Representative Mailing Address 8421 WAYZATA BLVD #300 Mailing Address f -?-052 -,n%d,4� 901' SLr Telephone No. 763-544- Telephone No 4 s Signature's �.;��c�c Signature 1/1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Principal Accessory Revised 5/22/97 X Total building floor Area sq. Existing sq. ft. Stories Feet Proposed sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided _ J,q-08-00 05:14P Resource Strategies Corp_ 612 513 9549 P_02 r1 P. RESOURCE STRATEGIES CORPORATION L5 TO: Stillwater Township Planning Commission / Town d FROM: Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies DATE: June 8, 2000 RE: Orderly Annexation Area - US Home Corp. PUD As you are aware, I have been asked to sit in on this development review for Meg McMonigal, MFRA, on behalf the Township. I attended the OAA joint Board Meeting on April 18 and the concept development presentation by US Home Corp. before the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2000. I have reviewed the development plan, the Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City and Township and the City's Comprehensive Plan. The process that involves the public hearing on June 12, Township Planning Commission review on June 15, Town Board review on June 22 and OAA Joint Board review on July 6 and City Council review on July 18 is consistent with the process outlined in the Orderly Annexation Agreement. The June 12 public hearings deal with a Comprehensive Plan amendment and corresponding Zoning Map amendments; zoning text amendments; concept PUD review and preliminary plat review. The Joint Board has the authority to approve or deny the comp plan amendments and amendments to official controls related to OAA. The Joint Board also has the authority to review and comment on the consistency of any development application with the City's comp plan. The Township took the early position that changes in land use designations within the development required a comp plan amendment. My comments focus on the existing comp plan land use designations and the proposed amendments. I received a City Planning Commission Packet for the LIS Home Corp. development, yesterday. I have copied it and attached it in its entirety, for your review. Very briefly, the development includes 160 townhouse units and 221 single-family detached units, located on 152 acres. The current comp plan designates the majority of the site as "small lot single- family residential." A 19,36 -acre area in the north -central portion of the development is designated "attached single family residential." A 26.01 acre parcel along Manning Avenue is designated "large lot single-family residential." These designations are shown on about page 13 of the handout (not numbered). The proposed development concept re -designates the 26.01 -acre site to attached housing, the 19 -acre parcel as small lot residential and a 4.46 -acre area as large lot residential. .'-in-08-00 05:15P Resource Strategies Corp. 612 513 9549 P.03 Stillwater Township June 8, 2000 Page 2 of 2 There is a memo from Steve Russell to the City Planning Commission, dated June 7, 2000, which explains the amendment (about page 21). Some of the acreages referenced above and in Steve's memo don't match because he has used net acres to calculate density: The memo essentially concludes that the pian amendment is consistent with the intent of the comp plan because it results in overall lower density and Manning Avenue is a better location for the townhomes. I am at a disadvantage for not participating in the development of the land use plan within the OAA. My impression, however, is that the land uses generally transition to the west to the single family large lot designation. This makes complete sense. Everything west of Manning Avenue is rural in nature. Manning Avenue is a gateway to permanent rural areas within Washington County. The relocation of the high-density area proposed in the plan amendment is not conducive to such a transition. The thought process that went into the original comp plan designations should have bearing on this issue. Having said the above, I am conscious that the developer is maintaining large setbacks along Manning Avenue and will install a berm with landscaping (shown on about pages 16-17). The townhome buildings are oriented with the narrow end to the highway, which may reduce the appearance of the larger buildings. In effect, the ends of 5 or 6 structures will be prominent. This could be compared to 10 or 12 large lot homes or as many as 15-18 coved homes in the same frontage area. My primary concern is that if there was a conscious effort to locate lower density development along Manning Avenue, this plan amendment is not consistent with that concept. The current net acreage in the comp plan would allow 94 attached units. While the example has been made that the overall density in this area will be reduced through the amendment, the number of attached homes will increase from 94 to 160. On a technical note, the proposed 26 -acre attached housing amendment would allow 156 units, according to the City Zoning Ordinance. The developer is proposing 160 units I am not entirely certain whether these thoughts should be presented at the City's public hearing on June 12 or whether you prefer to develop positions at the June 15 and June 22 Township meetings. I would be happy to make brief statements at the City hearing, if requested. I would be content to be a mouse in the comer, if you prefer. For the record, I have verbally conveyed these comments to the developer and will copy this memo to the City. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. STILLWATER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TOWN HALL — JUNE 15, 2000 PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Hannon, Planning Commissioners Lois Cutler, James Fagrelius, Tim Hassett, Jim Hiniker, Meg Jungbluth, Kirsten Spreck and Carole Yoho. Also, Supervisors Louise Bergeron, David Johnson and Ken Laboda and Town Board Liaison Jerry Hicks, Planner Dean Johnson And City Planner Steve Russell. 1. AGENDA — M/S/P Spreck/Hiniker moved to adopt the agenda as written. (6 ayes) 2. MINUTES — M/S/P Hassett/Jungbluth moved to approve the 8/5/99 Stillwater Township Planning Commission Public Hearing and Regular Meeting minutes as written. (6 ayes) 3. COVES OF STILLWATER — Planner Dean Johnson introduced himself and reviewed the process that has been involved to date and the context of the Township reviewal of the proposed development which will need a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment. (James Fagrelius arrived.) (Paul Hannon arrived.) Bill Pritchard of Orrin Thompson Homes and Greg Frank of McCombs Frank Roos presented the project and outlined how it fits with the city comprehensive plan. The land use plan would allow for 540 dwelling units and this plan has 380, being 209 small lot, 13 traditional lot and 160 town house. The overall density is 2.45 units per acre. They are looking for a PUD. The town house location has been selected because of Brown's Creek environmental concerns, soils in the area selected are the poorest for single family development and the fact that the highest density would be placed along the busiest street. The ends of the units will face the street so people won't see the length of the buildings as they drive by. He had a cross section drawing of the proposed berms along Manning Avenue and computer generated photographs of the area after the landscaping is in place. There was discussion with the following questions and comments: @ Jim Hiniker — How many units are in the town houses? Pritchard — 8 to 12 units per building, mostly 10. • Meg Jungbluth — How old are the trees in the photograph? Pritchard — They show about 10 years growth. They propose using not just 2 inch trees. v James Fagrelius — What is the average cost of the town houses? Pritchard — Uncertain because all issues have not yet been resolved. In other communities these units are $130,000 to $150,000. s Fagrelius — Could single family homes be built there? Pritchard — It would not be as conducive, but they could be built with extra earth work. Louise Bergeron noted that the homes along Mayfield have had problems with water in their basements. 5 Carole Yoho — What does the city plan to do to mitigate the increased traffic along Manning Avenue? Pritchard — There will be another access to the north that will cross the track. There will be additional review and the County has requested a traffic study. There will be an upgrade Stillwater TWP Plan. Comm. Mtg. — 6/15/00 Page Two of Boutwell. Steve Russell — The County plans to widen Manning Avenue between Highway 36 and Highway 96 within 3 to 5 years. A stoplight is planned at CR 12 and Manning. The city plans to extend Curve Crest to Manning Avenue. ■ Paul Hannon — Are the trails located along roads and are they paved? Pritchard — He pointed out the location of trails and discussed the park areas. The city also owns land abutting this property. m Dean Johnson — He reviewed the role of the Township as set out in the orderly annexation agreement. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates a transition area from more rural to more dense from west to east. The City Planning Commission has recommended approval of this change to the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the points in his memo dated June 8. m A neighbor — he has heard no compelling arguments for the higher density than the soils. Why make these changes? Pritchard — They are making additional berming and landscaping and they have tried to be sensitive to Brown's Creek. a Lois Cutler — Would the height of the single family homes be a concern along Manning? The town houses look higher. Frank — The town houses are on grade, so they are somewhat lower than two story houses. o Fagrelius — How does the Brown's Creek Watershed District protect the Creek? Frank — There are set backs, infiltration basins and they are concerned with the temperature of the water. They want to contain run-off as much as possible. a Fagrelius — Why have town houses at all in this development? Pritchard — This helps in overall costs and conserves land. Russell — The existing land use plan includes attached housing in this area. i Fagrelius — Where else in the annexation area could high density housing be located? Russell — There are other areas designated along McKusick, on Neal and the former Palmer property. They are looking at purchasing a parcel along Boutwell for a park. 0 A neighbor — She is concerned about tragic along Boutwell. She sees this as a rural road. Russell — Boutwell now is a collector road and with additional traffic it will need improvement, but they do not want to change the character of the road. d David Johnson — The orderly annexation agreement had tried to preserve the rural feel along CR 15, but with additional set backs and berming, this achieves much the same feel that large lot single family houses would have. O Jerry Hicks — Asked Steve Russell for a clarification as to how many acres are used and how many are left within the city itself that are available for attached housing. Russell — He will have numbers available for the township before their next board meeting. * Louise Bergeron — With respect to the overall traffic, this location makes the most sense. She is sensitive to the water issue. This allows for open space and park. David Johnson — With respect to the traffic, how does the city anticipate people in this development will travel and how will the city deal with this? Russell — They are doing a specific traffic study with respect to this development and will coordinate with the County. The study will be incorporated with the approval of this project. • Ken Laboda — This particular plan makes sense with respect to the sensibilities of Brown's Creek. Is the city concerned with liability issues with the pond around the park area? Pritchard — They are normally dry or shallow. Stillwater TWP Plan. Com. Mtg. — 6/15/00 Page Three ® David Johnson — How large are the open spaces? Pritchard — The large area is 6.8 acres and would be large enough to accommodate a large soccer field. David Johnson said he would like to see the developer prepare the area as an active park as much as possible. M/S/P Spreck/Hiniker moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan and related zoning text and zoning map amendments and if substantial changes occur in the concept PUD of 380 units, then the township would like to revisit the plan. (8 ayes) M/S/P Spreck/Yoho moved that they find the PUD and plat consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. (8 ayes) 4. NEW BUSINESS — There was none. 5. TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT — Jerry Hicks reported on recent town board activities. 6. ADJOURNMENT — M/S/P Yoho/Cutler moved to adjourn the meeting. (8 ayes) The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by: Kathy Schmoeckel Planning Commission Clerk City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Present: Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Glenna Bealka, Robert Gag, Russ Hultman, Dave Middleton, John Rheinberger, Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent: Karl Ranum Mr. Fontaine called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Wald, seconded by Mr. Rheinberger, moved approval of the minutes of May 8, 2000; all in favor. Case No. CPAl00-01 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use designation of lands in the Phase II expansion area between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue east of Manning Avenue in the following ways: 24 acres from Large Lot Single Family to Townhouse Residential; 19.4 acres from Townhouse Residential to Small Lot Single Family; and 16.9 acres from Small Lot Single Family to Parks and Open Space. US Homes, applicant. Mr. Russell reviewed the land use plan for the expansion area designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Phase II and the requested amendments. With the exception of the three requested changes, the land use will remain the same. He further noted the City is interested in purchasing a 60 -acres parcel near Boutwell Cemetery, across Boutwell Avenue from the proposed new development, for a public works facility and active park; he said the City is working with the Township in developing park plans. Mr. Russell stated that Washington County has some concerns regarding access to Boutwell and will require a left -turn lane on Manning Avenue to Boutwell. He noted that generally flat sites close to major roads are better suited to higher density use, as is being proposed. The townhouse units will be setback 160 feet from Manning Avenue and there will be a substantial berm to minimize the views on Manning; there also will be some berming on Boutwell, though not as extensive. Bill Pritchard of Orrin Thompson Homes noted the proposed development has an overall density of 2.5 units per acres, well under the City's guidelines. He stated the requested changes were an effort to minimize environmental issues and move the higher density development to closer proximity to a major arterial and to a flat site where soils are more compatible to such development. He showed graphics to illustrate the potential impact on views from Manning and Boutwell. Dean Johnson, land use consultant for Stillwater Township, asked that a memo he had sent regarding the requested changes be included in the record. City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Steve Ogberg, 7940 Neal Ave., questioned the size of the park by the townhome units; he suggested the area is not large enough to be a usable park, just large enough to require mowing. Mr. Pritchard responded that Orrin Thompson Homes has dedicated 42 acres of land for park/open space use. Mr. Russell said a major park of seven acres will be provided. It is the City's responsibility to improve the parks, and the City will be working with neighbors in an effort to provide the amenities they desire. The resident of 1220 McKusick Road asked where the new access road off McKusick would be located and whether it would impact his property. Mr. Pritchard explained that all of the right-of- way is located on US Homes property abutting the property at 1220 McKusick Road. Mr. Rheinberger moved approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment changes based on geography and environmental issues. Mrs. Bealka seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. ZAT/00-02 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential District; Case No. ZAT/00-03 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Townhouse Residential District; Case No. ZAT/00-04 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Traditional Residential District. US Homes, applicant. Mr. Russell explained the Cove Traditional District would include lots of 15,000 square feet; accessory units would be allowed as conditioned as they are in the Liberty on the Lake development. The Cove Residential District lots would be a minimum of 7,00 square feet and would average 10,000 square feet as proposed. The Townhouse Residential units would be 3,000 square feet and have a maximum height the same as the Traditional District; 160 townhouse units are proposed. Following review of the proposed Planned Unit Development, Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of ZAT/00-02; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of ZAT/00-03; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval of ZAT/00-04; all in favor. Case No. ZAM/00-04, a Zoning Map Amendment designating 48.1 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Cottage Residential (CCR); Case No. ZAM/00-05, a Zoning Map Amendment designating 16.1 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR); Case No. ZAM/00-6, a Zoning Map Amendment designating 4.5 acres of land From Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Traditional Residential (CTR). US Homes, applicant. Following review of the proposed Planned Unit Development, Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of ZAM/00-04; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Wald moved approval of ZAM/00-05; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of ZAM/00-06; all in favor. Case No. PUD/00-41 A Concept Planned Unit Development approval for mixed use residential development consisting of 160 townhouses, 209 coved cottages, 11 traditional residential, and parks and open space located on 150 acres of land in the Phase II expansion area east of Manning Avenue between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue. US Homes, applicant. Mr. Pritchard of US Homes reviewed the coving concept and provided preliminary design elevations. He said the development will incorporate the natural features of the site. US Homes will be working with city staff in developing streetscapes. Greg Frank, also of US Homes, explained the curvilinear design of coving, in which lot setbacks are varied to give the impression of spatial change. It was noted there are only 11 traditional residential lots. The intent is to give these homes a separate identity due to their proximity to existing homes. City Engineer Klayton Eckles noted the site is not sewered or watered and it will be quite an undertaking to provide services to the development. He also noted there are some issues with the traffic capacity of Boutwell Avenue, and there may be some improvements to Boutwell in the short-term. Mr. Eckles pointed out Washington County had proposed a traffic signal at County Road 12/15, and he said that will be important to improving the access for the US Homes development. Mr. Eckles further noted that the City is trying to protect Brown's Creek and the developer will be required to contribute to the mitigation project fund. Mr. Eckles also stated that the developer is incorporating an infiltration system into the design in addressing environmental issues. He stated the developer has been very cooperative in working with the City. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval with the 21 conditions of approval; all in favor. Case No. SUB/00-42 Preliminary plat approval for a subdivision of 152 acres of land into 220 single family lots, 15 townhouse lots (150 HUs) -and 8 outlots (parks and open space and CR 15 right-of-way) in the Phase II expansion area. US Homes, applicant. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval; motion passed unanimously.. Case No. SUB/00-24 A resubdivision of a lot located at 1221 N. Broadway into three lots of 17,292 square feet, 29,580 square feet and 36,764 square feet in the Single Family Residential District. Tom Brownson, representing George Middleton, applicant. The applicant was not present 3 MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments (6) for the Phase II Annexation Area located between Boutwell and McKusick Roads east of Manning Avenue as Listed Below Date: June 7, 2000 Text Amendments: 1. Case No. ZAT/00-02. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) District. US Homes, applicant. 2. Case No. ZAT/00-03. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR). US Homes, applicant. 3. Case No. ZAT/00-4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Traditional Residential (CTR). US Homes, applicant. Map Amendments: 1. Case No. ZAM/00-4. A Zoning Map Amendment designating 48.1 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue in the Phase II expansion area. US Homes, applicant. 2. Case No. ZAM/00-5. A Zoning Map Amendment designating 16.1 acres of land located in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Townhouse Residential (CTHR). US Homes, applicant. 3. Case No. ZAM/00-6. A Zoning Map Amendment designating 4.5 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Cove Traditional Residential (CTR) in the Phase II expansion area located east of Manning Avenue and between McKusick Road and Boutwell Avenue. US Homes, applicant. The six zoning amendments create the new Cove Zoning Districts and apply the districts to the Phase II Expansion area lands. The proposed zoning map and zoning district texts are attached. Because Planned Unit Development and subdivision is proposed, the rezoning will be applied specifically to districts in the development area. Other park and open space areas will remain Agricultural Preservation for park and open space use. The three new zoning districts are Cove Cottage (CCR), Cove Traditional (CTR) and Cove Townhouse (CTHR). Single family residences is allowed in the three districts. The minimal lot Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 size for the three districts are 14,000 square feet, 7,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet per lot or dwelling unit., The zoning regulations have special garage setbacks and driveway limits to help minimize the impact of the auto on neighborhood design. Through PUD final plan review, the specific designs of the single family residents and townhouses will be design reviewed. The zoning map amendments apply the new zone districts to the land use districts single family large lot, small lot and attached. The application of the zone district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment (CPA/00-1). Recommendation: Approval Findings: The zoning amendments, text and map, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Attachments: Proposed zoning texts (CCR, CTR, CTHR) and proposed zoning map. CPC Action on 6-12-00: +8-0 approval Proposed Zoning Case ZAM/00, 4,5 &6 Sovrh T qui n -Lake Park Park WN f CCR = Cove Cottage Residential N 0 0.25 Aes CTHR = Cove Townhouse Residential _ CTR = Cove Traditional Residential k ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING BY ESTABLISHING THREE (3) NEW ZONING DISTRICTS ENTITLED "COVE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT" (CTR); "COVING COTTAGE DISTRICT" (CCR); AND "COVE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT" (CTHR) The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: The Zoning Ordinance of the City, found at Chapter 31 of the Stillwater City Code is amended by adding the following provisions: A new District is added as follows: CTR Cove Traditional Residential District. Permitted Buildings and Uses. In the Cove Traditional 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 with a garage no larger than three stalls.. b. Parks, playground and other open space areas. 2. Permitted Uses with Special Use Permits. In a Cove Traditional Residential District, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted by Special Use Permit: a. Home occupations subject to all provisions of the zoning Ordinance regulating home occupations for the Single Family Residential, RA, District. b. Accessory dwellings subject to the following regulations: 1. Lot size must be at least 15,000 square feet; 2. May be located within or attached to the primary structure, or within an accessory structure (detached from the primary structure); 3. Off-street parking requirements for an accessory unit and single family residence must be provided; Four off-street parking spaces, three shall be enclosed. All four spaces must be provided within the setback boundaries of the property; 4. A detached accessory dwelling must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence; 93 4. 5. Detached accessory dwelling units shall not have roof dormers that face the nearest residential lot side yard property line. 6. Detached accessory structure will not result in the loss of significant trees or require major site alteration. 7. One accessory structure may be located on a residential lot. 8. Uses may include one or more of the following: a. Accessory dwelling unit, 500 square feet maximum; b. Accessory dwelling and one enclosed structure parking space (720 square feet maximum); C. Home office; and/or d. Storage. 9. Maximum size of a detached accessory stricture is: a. 500 square feet, one story use of loft area is allowed; or b. 720 square feet (when grade level used as only garage, i.e., no garage attached to primary structure), 20 feet maximum building height. 10. A detached accessory structure must abide by the following setbacks: Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet 11. The application requires Design Review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. 12. Detached accessory structures shall not have window openings facing the rear property line. 13. Detached accessory structures located on corner lots shall have the garage doors turned away from the side street. 14. If there are two garages on site, a minimum of one garage shall not face the street or streets if a corner lot. Accessory Structures. One detached garage or accessory dwelling subject to above regulations. Development Regulations. a. Area, setback and height regulations: Provision Single Family 1. Maximum building height 2 stores and 35 feet 2. Minimum lot area 14,000 square feet 3. Minimum lot width at building setback line 80 feet Cul-de-sac 40 feet 4. Minimum front yard setback 25 feet 5. Side yard setbacks Interior 7.5 feet Corner 20 feet 2 6. Rear yard 25 feet 7. Minimum railroad setback 75 feet 8. Driveway width maximum (at front property line) 14 feet Special garage setback. All garages shall be setback at least 6 feet beyond the front wall of the house or porch or be turned with door facing side lot line (maximum 30 percent of lot)., A new District is added as follows: CCR Cove Cotta a Residential District. 1. Permitted Buildings and Uses. In the Cove Cottage 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 and with a garage no larger than three (3) stalls. b. Parks, playgrounds, greens and other open space area. 2. Permitted Uses with Special Use Permits. In a Cove Cottage Residential District, the following buildings and uses are permitted by Special Use Permit: a. Home occupations subject to all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regulating home occupation for the Single Family Residential District, RA. 3. Accessory Strictures. Not allowed. 4. Development Regulations. a. Area, setback and height regulations: Provision Single Family 1. Maximum building height: 2 stories and 35 feet 2. Average lot area 10,000 square feet 3. Minimum lot area 7,000 square feet 4. Minimum lot width at building front 60 feet 5. Minimum front yard setback 20 feet 6. Side yard , Interior 7.5 feet Comer 20 feet to r -o -w 7. Rear yard 25 feet 8. Minimum lot width at street 30 feet 9. Railroad setback 75 feet 10. Driveway width maximum (at front property line) 14 feet Garages will be set back a minimum of 6 feet behind the front wall or the front porch of the 3 .dente. Garages in front of the home may be side loaded (maximum 30 percent). Third car J garages may be side entry or separated from the main garage, at an angle to the main garage, or otherwise screened by a portion of the house, porch, or facade. Corner sites may have side loaded garages. A new District is adck;d as follows: CTHR Co "To�vnhause Distrlet 1. Permitted Buildings and Uses. In the Cove Townhouse District, the following buildings and uses are permitted: a. Single family attached residences. b. Parks, playgrounds and other open space areas. 2• Permitted Uses with Special Use Pemnits. In a Cove Townhouse District, the following buildings and uses and their accessory buildings and uses are permitted by Special Use Permit: a• Home occupations subject to all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for the Duplex Residential, RB, District. 3 a] Development Regulations. a• Area, setback and height regulations: Provision 1 • Maximum building height 2. Minimum lot area per unit 3. Minimum setbacks From Boutwell Avenue From Manning Avenue From other public streets Between buildings Single Family 2-1/2 story 35 feet 3,000 square feet 70 feet 100 feet 30 feet 40 feet Design Review Administrative. Design Review is required for all permitted and specially permitted buildings or uses. a. Townhouse garages are to front on private alleys. End units only are to front on public streets. Elevations should include patios and/or porches subject to administrative design review. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 18th day of July, 2000. C! CITY OF STILLWATER Jay L. Kimble, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk HSr ° THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, will meet on Monday, June 12, 2000, at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, to consider a request from US Homes for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) District. Case No. ZAT/00-02 . All persons wishing to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Steve Russell Community Development Director Publish: June 2, 2000 CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 water THE BIflTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA May 31, 2000 RE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Dear Property Owner: The City of Stillwater has received a request from US Homes for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a new Cove Cottage Residential (CCR) District. Case No. ZAT/00-02 . The Planning Commission will be considering this case at a public hearing on Monday, June 12, 2000 at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. If you have any comments or concerns regarding this request, please attend the meeting. All persons wishing to be heard in reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Steve Russell Community Development Director Enclosure CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Coves of Stillwater Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Review. Case Nos. PUD/00-41 and SUB/00-42 Date: June 7, 2000 Background/Review Process The Coves of Stillwater project is located in the Phase II annexation area (see proposed land use map). The area is scheduled for annexation and development after January 1999 according to the phasing element of the Comprehensive Plan and Orderly Annexation Agreement. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment request (CPA/00-01) and zoning amendments (ZAT/00-02, 03 and 04, ZAM/00-04, 05 and 06) provide policy and regulatory direction for the planned unit development and subdivision. Procedurally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning amendments must be approved before for PUD and preliminary plat approval. This PUD/SUB review is scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing June 12, Joint Board public hearing July 6 and City Council public hearing July 18, 2000. Stillwater Township will review the request at their meetings of June 15 and 22nd. Project Setting, The development is bounded by tributaries to Brown's Creek. The tributaries and adjacent wetlands provide a development framework and natural setting for the site. City Shoreland Regulations require buffering and setback from tributaries and wetlands. The City's Brown's Creek Park is located directly north of the site. As a part of the review, the Brown's Creek Nature Preserve will be obtained for habitat restoration, education and passive recreation. Single family residential development borders the site to the east, south and north. County Road 15, Manning Avenue, a minor arterial, borders the site on the west. McKusick Road, a county collector road, borders the site to the north and Boutwell, a future city collector road, is located along the southern border of the development site. Across Boutwell Road to the south of the project, is located a township park property and Washington County owned Boutwell Cemetery. The City of Stillwater is considering purchasing additional land in the area to provide a community park and public works site. A natural resource inventory was prepared for the City's open space Committee and Planning Commission for the phase II development area to map environmental conditions and to evaluate the environmental quality of the area for natural area/park purchase. Planning Commission Page 2 June 7, 2000 The Brown's Creek Nature Preserve area is the number one priority for City Open space land purchase. A horse boarding facility and row crop fields are currently located on the development site outside of wetland areas. Project Description Preliminary development plans and plat map were submitted for the Coves of Stillwater PUD/subdivision review as listed below and enclosed with this staff report. Development Plans and. Mans Overall Landscape Plan 1/4 Interior Road Section 2/4 Berm Planting 3/4 Berm Plan 4/4 The development plans proposes the following land uses: Cove Residential Area No. of Lots/Dus Traditional 4.46 acres 11 Cottage 48.14 acres 209 Townhouse 16.09 acres 160 Parks and Open Space Active Park 7.85 acres Nature Preserve 17.55 acres Public Open Space/wetland/ponding 40.55 acres Road right of way 17.64 acres Total 152 acres Residential Development Map No. Location Map 1/7 General Development Map 2/7 Preliminary Plat Map 3/7 Preliminary Grading Map 4/7 Preliminary Utility Map 5/7 Natural Features/Land Use Map 6/7 Tree Preservation Map 7/7 Overall Landscape Plan 1/4 Interior Road Section 2/4 Berm Planting 3/4 Berm Plan 4/4 The development plans proposes the following land uses: Cove Residential Area No. of Lots/Dus Traditional 4.46 acres 11 Cottage 48.14 acres 209 Townhouse 16.09 acres 160 Parks and Open Space Active Park 7.85 acres Nature Preserve 17.55 acres Public Open Space/wetland/ponding 40.55 acres Road right of way 17.64 acres Total 152 acres Residential Development Planning Commission Page 3 June 7, 2000 Three types of housing are provided in the development. Traditional residential (large lot), cottage residential (small lot) and townhouse (attached single family). The overall lot sizes are 17,649 square feet for traditional, 10,034 square feet for cove and 46,720 for townhouse buildings and 3,000/du. The housing design for the single family lots and townhouse development will require final design review as a condition of final PUD approval. At this point, preliminary single family structure designs are provided for staff and Commission review. As with the Legends and Liberty project, taming the auto/garage and emphasizing pedestrian spaces (front porches and walkways) are elements of residential design. The townhouse buildings are oriented so the ends of the building face the road and garages face inward to an access alley. Additional sidewalks will be required to better connect the townhouse project to the park and single family sidewalks and trail system. Building end and front elevation plans are provided for review. Comments from the City's design consultant are attached. Parks and Open „Space Major portions of the site, 40 percent, are designated parks and open space. Besides the dedicated parks and open space areas, nearly 2 miles of trails are provided for recreation use. This does not include 1/2 mile of sidewalks. The park sites are connected to the development areas by a series of trails making the recreation area accessible by foot. Pathways connect the Cove development to the Brown's Creek Nature Preserve. On May 22, 2000, the City's Park and Recreation Board reviewed the plans for trails and park dedication and approved the plan with the condition that the major park, outlot C, be open up to the street by removing or reconfiguring the lot arrangement. Beside the natural areas and park, special greenway landscape area is provided along Manning Avenue, 100 feet, and Boutwell, 75 feet. The greenway landscaping will buffer the project from traffic and practically screen the view of the development from the road. See map LS/4/4. Natural Resource The City recently adopted a Tree Preservation Ordinance. The proposed plan removes less than 20 percent of the trees on site (35 percent is allowed by the ordinance). The City's Shoreland Ordinance requires a 50 foot setback and 25 natural buffer from wetland areas. The proposed meets the ordinance setback and buffer requirement. It is recommended that street `B" be shortened by 50 feet to further reduce impact of the road location to the Brown's Creek Tributary and wetland. An environmental impact report was prepared for the development as a part of the Planning Commission Page 4 June 7, 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The proposed development is consistent with the development studied in the environmental report. Other Impacts At the May Planning Commission meeting, the impact areas of traffic and school aged kids was raised. The demographer for the school district was contacted to assist with estimating school impact. Based on the type of development proposed, the following number of school aged children are estimated: School Aged Rids Elementary 105 Junior High 41 Senior High 30 School district representatives participated in the preparation of the City's Comprehensive Plan and are anticipating additional children as City expansion occurs. Boutwell Road is currently a narrow county paved road. The road is a collector. With development of the phase II and phase IV area, the road will be improved to accommodate additional traffic (two lanes with 8 foot pathway). The Comprehensive Plan includes the extension of Curve Crest Blvd to CR 15 in the future. This will provide for future access to the Stillwater Business Park. In the interim, local collector streets will have to accommodate additional development in this area. Gradin g/Drain age/Road The City Engineer has worked with the developer's engineer in planning for City water and sewer services and is currently reviewing other street/grading and drainage plans. The plans will have to be detailed and modified to meet City utility development standards. Other agency review besides Stillwater City and Township, the Brown's Creek Watershed District, DNR and Washington County Public Works will review and comment on the project. Their comments will be incorporated into development plans as appropriate when they are received. (Plans have been submitted for comment. As of this writing, no comments have been received). Recommendation Approval of planned unit development and preliminary plat with conditions as follows: Finding The project is consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. Planning Commission Page 5 June 7, 2000 Conditions of Approval 1. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments for the development shall be approved (CAP/00-1, ZAT/00-02, 03 and 04, ZAM/00-04, 05 and 06) before PUD and SUB approval. 2. Comments from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into future development plans (right of way, public utilities/grading/drainage). 3. A turn land shall be provided at CR 15 and Boutwell as required by the Washington County Public Works Department. 4. The developer shall obtain a Brown's Creek Watershed permit as required. 5. Comments from the City's design consultant shall be addressed in the final design plans. 6. Three trees per lot shall be included in overall site landscape plan as approved by the Community Development Director. 7. The active park site, outlot "C", shall be opened up to the public road to the west by removal of a lot or lots or reconfiguring of the subdivision. 8. Street E shall be shortened by 50 feet to move it further away from the wetland. 9. The trails and sidewalks as proposed shall be improved as part of subdivision improvement. 10. Special street crossings shall be installed at all major crosswalks. 11. Street lights and signage shall be decorative as approved by the Community Development Director. 12. The development plan/landscape plan for the townhouses shall be modified and detailed to provide recreation amenities, trails and surface paving, post office boxes and bus stops, lighting in a consistent theme. 13. Road right of ways and utility easements shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 14. Educational information shall be provided to all single family lot owners to inform them of approved city lawn care standards. 15. A list of trees native to the area and acceptable to the City shall be provided to all home owners. 16. Areas around wetlands and drainage ponds shall be planted with native grasses and flowers suited to the environment. 17. Fencing detail shall be provided for final PUD approval. 18. Before final PUD approval, the townhouse plans and single family elevations shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 19. The City Attorney shall review and approve declarations, covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements before PUD approval. 20. The developer shall pay all AUAR impact fees before final plat approval. 21. A railroad crossing/access permit shall be obtained from MnDot/Washington County as required. T O M T E N E N V I R O N M E N T A L D E S I G N 51 Judd Street ❑ P.C.Box 272 ❑ Marine on 5t. Croix MN ❑ 55047-0272 ❑ Phone (651)433-5600 ❑ Fax (651)433-5601 June 02, 2000 To: Steve Russell, City of Stillwater Community Development Director Re: The Coves of Stillwater, Design Review for residential lots as proposed by Thompson Land Development The applicant submitted site information including; general development plans, preliminary plat, preliminary grading and utility plans, a natural features/land use plan and tree preservation plan, all dated 5/25/2000. Also submitted were landscaping plans including; a site plan, interior road sections, berm plan, and berm planting sections, dated 5/5/2000. Information presented regarding the unit designs included; home plans No.s 881 through 888 (floor plans and front elevations @ approx. 1/8" scale), arch. guidelines for the HOA, and two multi -family building elevations with several variations on one side elevation. Response to Concept Elevations and Floor Plans of single family homes ♦ Overall, the eight plans submitted provide a good mix of massing variations and diverse street fronts. ♦ A concern would be how the massing, fenestration patterns, materials and detailing are carried to all elevations of the house. These should be thought of as three dimensional objects, not street front elevations only. The coving concept increases the visibility and importance of the side elevations in the overall streetscape. ♦ Provide for material changes at architectural elements, not just at front elevation. ♦ With turned garages and the houses set back from the street, are the occupants going to be backing their cars all the way out to the street, or will there be pads designed to allow cars to turn around. ♦ The driveways should be narrowed to 10' once adequate turning is provided to reduce the visual impact of drive and to reduce impervious surfaces. ♦ The separation of the public entrance walk from the driveway is important to the street character of the entire development. Plan 887 could incorporate this idea. ♦ Pursue the development of a plan that pulls the garage behind the house. ♦ Provide a diversity of roof and siding colors throughout the neighborhood. ♦ Downplay visual impact of garage doors as much as possible by tying colors into siding color scheme in lieu of contrasting door color with siding color. ♦ Provide a range of garage door options, including size (going with single doors whenever possible) and style. Match door style to house style. Response to Concept Elevations of multi -family structures ♦ More variation in material and colors needed in siding, window treatment, roofing, massing, etc. ♦ Pursue options in unit numbers (building size and massing) to provide diversity. ♦ Pursue options of multi -family units throughout the development. For example, duplexes on larger corner lots. page I of 2 Response to Site Plans ♦ Create buffers along McKusick, Boutwell, and Manning. Use existing vegetation and contours to enhance buffers. ♦ Maintain as much existing tall, mature vegetation as possible. Specifically the north -south windrow. ♦ Does the coving concept really use the existing layout of the land? The majority of the lots are graded to provide walk -out building sites, even when the existing contours are flat. Existing vegetation and slopes are totally recreated. ♦ Streetscape is not well defined. Are we encouraging interaction between the house and the street? ♦ Boulevard trees help to define the streetscape. ♦ Sidewalks or trails should be on both sides of the street where use is highest. ♦ Take advantage of opportunities for mail clusters, bus stops, etc. to create community spaces. ♦ Active park areas should have a street presence. ♦ Trail along McKusick? ♦ What are road islands used for? How are they landscaped? Who maintains them? ♦ Pedestrian scale street lighting and signage. ♦ Change street pavement texture and/or color at pedestrian crossings. Response to Arch Guidelines for HOA ♦ Landscaping plans do not include native species such as oak, aspen, etc. + Coordinate between development landscaping and unit landscaping. ♦ Mailboxes. Look into clustering mailboxes and use the opportunity to create a community space. ♦ Patios: perhaps a nice patio would be acceptable in front of the house. ♦ Fences: Do they have to made out of vinyl? ♦ Address coordination of retaining wall materials. If there are any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at 651-433-5600. Respectfully submitted, Roger Tomten Tomten Environmental Design page 2 of 2 JUN -08-2000 13:25 June 8, 2000 WASH CTY TRANS PHYS DEV WAbUILLN UI Vlr I.VUIN i I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .& PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT 11eeo MYERON ROAD NORTH - STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-9573 e61-430-4WO ra 31N91e Machne 6514304350 Steve Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 N. Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 6514304350 P.02iO3 Lwam I- wl%nv m. r.e. Di wvxAldty Emir P0.00 W. F.V-W. P2. Qdpy,y p;�Rpf,'�'rinlppRaCen DMSb Junes D. Lwpr. RLA Pena oimcl r Lary 9, k,biA PLS-CM*Svbeya, Osprey Gnf1W. UM rW LSM UTVfY Vv1$19- THE COVES OF STILLWATER, PRELIMINARY PLAT, PHASE II EXPANSION AREA Dear Mr. Russell: We have reviewed the materials that you sent as well as a drawing of the Preliminary Plat of the Coves of Stillwater. We have the following comments: ♦ It is my understanding, from a discussion with Greg Frank of MFRA, representing the developer, U. S. Homes, that, in order to obtain permission for a grade crossing of the Minnesota Zephyr Railroad tracks, it would be necessary to eliminate the adjacent private crossing. Mr. Frank indicated that they would try to relocate that crossing, and the associated driveway access to County Road 64 (McKusick Road North) to the proposed public street, I also spoke in very general terms about this with Susan Gergen of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Division of Freight and Railways. She indicated that, although this issue would need to be reviewed, it would be possible. The comments of the Division of Freight and Railways should be solicited before the plat is approved. We will support this change and will allow access to County Road 64 at the location shown. A permit is required and a turn and bypass lane will be required as a provision of the permit. e No additional right of way is needed adjacent to County Road 64. ♦ The added traffic that this development will route through the 801h Street North/CSAR 15 (Manning Avenue North) intersection is a safety concern. Total trip generation potential of this development is 3,500- 4,000 vehicles per day. A traffic study is necessary to determine the distribution of trips through the various points of direct access to public roads and at the intersections of those roads with CSAH 15. Even without a traffic study, it is apparent that this added traffic will meet the warrants for'left turn lanes at the 80"" Street/CSAH 15 intersection. We will require their construction as a provision of the permit for street access to County Road 64. The traffic study should also include a traffic signal warrant analysis for the 80h Street/CSAH 15 intersection. If the traffic study indicates that traffic signal warrants are met, signal construction should be made a condition of access to 80'h Street. We have been contacted about a golf course development west of CSAH 15 in the City of Grant that would also have traffic impacts at the CSAH 15180'h Street intersection. We have not yet seen any formal (or informal) proposal, but if this development is built, some cost sharing may be possible. JUN -08-2000 0:25 WASH CTY TRANS PHYS DEV 6514304350 P.03/03 Page two Letter to Steve Russell June 8, 2000 • We request dedication of an additional 60 feet of right of way, for a total of 110 feet, measured from the west line of Section 19, T30N, 'R20W (the nominal centerline of CSAH 15) to accommodate future expansion of Manning Avenue. We also request dedication of access control to the County overall lots abutting CSAH 15. Please call me at 651-430-4312 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, L `Y r- Joseph Lux c: Klayton Eckles, Stillwater City Engineer Pat Bantli, Stillwater Township Clerk Meg McMonigal, Stillwater Township planner Gary Erichson, Mayor, City of Grant Jay Kennedy, Grant City Engineer Wally Abrahamson, Washington County Commissioner, District 3 Dennis Hegberg, Washington County Commissioner, District 1 TOTAL F.03 7 V-rel-irnion,ary-iPlat Plans for The Coves of Sizllwater Stillwater, 1-iiinesota Presented by: Thompson Land Development VICINM MAP No Sia. Index of Sheets 1 Title Sheet 2 General Development Plan 3 Preliminary Plat 4 Preliminary Grading Plan 5 Preliminary Utility Plan 6 Natural Features/Land Use Plan 7 Tree Presentation Plan PLANNER/EHGINEER: McCombs Frank Race Associates, Inc 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Phone: (763) 476-6010 Fax (763) 476-6532 Contact- Greg Frank DEVELOPER: Thompson LandDevelopment 8421 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 300 Col den Valley. Minnesota 55426 Phone: (763) 544-7333 F. (763) 544-9086 Contact: Bill Pritchard PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, lying south of the southerly right-of-way of the Northern Pacific Railroad; excepting therefromthe West 678 00 feet thereof, and also excepting therefrom the South 35820 feet thereof; Together with: That part of the West Hall ofthe Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, lying south of the southerly right-of-way of said Northern Pacific Railroad. Together with: All that part of the West Half or the Southeast Quarter, and all that part of the Sautheasl Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 19, Township 30 North, Range 20 West Stillwater Township, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: The West 678.00 feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 19, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way of the Northern Pacific Railway, excepting therefrom the South 358.20 feet thereof. The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter o! Section 19, excepting therefrom the South 225.00 feet thereof. The Northeast Ouarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 19, lying southerly of the south right-of-way line of the Northern Pacific Railway, excepting loom said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the following described tract: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence east along the north line of said Northeast Ouorter of the Southwest Quarter for 4000 feet; thence south and porcllel with the ..at line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 113.60 feet to its intersection with the south arty rlot-of-way of said NorthernPacific Railway, .filch Ls the point of beginning of said exception; thence continuing south Moog said parallel line drown 40.00 feet st Coof the west tete of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 626.10 feet; thence east and parallel with said southerly right-of-way of the Northern Pacific Railway for 417.40 feet: thence north and parallel with said west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 626.10 feet to said southerly rlghl-of-way of the Northam Pacific Railway, lh once wesl cloaq said southerly right-of-way of the NorthernPacific Railway for 417.40 feet to the point of beginning. AND All that part of the West One -Half of the Southwest Quarter (WI/2 of SWI/4) of Section Nineteen (19), in Township Thirty (30) North, of Range Twenty (20) West, lying South of the real estate detailed to Jon Abut Schmaec4el and Kathryn ('epi Schmoeckel, husband and Z. os dew,b4d on Document No. 322494 in the office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota, and lying South and West of the recorded plat of 'Rivard Addition' in the office of the County Recorder of Wanhington County, Minnesota, and lying North of the centedme of County Highway No. 12. flev[doa< hw r+:x Of fr.nnaininonsa wEeiyidaleferkwut by or[: Client Project Sheet Ttle Shed RevisionNo8, fl—k. M4 Dole er Rie :6. 'MnsegrterOn-red Engineering Planning • .5u"N n9 4rr Wethe3a.Ya era.n AVA Ria tet• a 7.7a¢ FA oda=�,A-�erfa.- pt xxea•SN., Thompson Land Development The Coves of Stillwater Title Sheet �T7 Date rhmed Ci NtComM Frl d Btloa o^01 a Tj"e s° ° Ax atal4hr-�ap come. Valley, MN S91twater, MN l _. Regetrehar tw,.ma .awo.r_ Au051ltter. Itle. 7- J ..___�.w,•�AS1fiNGFOPF- 1�-R IM1r-PLAT�NU"-83 9 �- _ w - v-'-' _--�^-^�--� �. .`.-.__� -_... .. _4L%�v[..�?'C1�.F+-N:]i=J'�� •--..- _ _-._._ _ -. LA7 .-_-A�.:.� -�_ , `-�_. _--...._ I Y1Iii ,; I i 12 11 to 9 l III 8 I 6 ED 19D 9 4 I ,. __4McKUSICK ROADY N.) *"I f e't rrq d I I , a1RISDICnNNAL �( N4ETVM4 No. z *`'� 09410,, J 1 w I f 4 4/ LS f'1 '1' \ � � '�? N ,� DD �I , 111 rH-R98.d !r r f •tea � j 1 0 �:�'�` ! POND rJJ-•�1\ \,SLS- y { ��t'•� •'��}�• 14 JJRtMCTIMAL Y 4 t 1%/ L { V+ 47 WETIANO NO 1 Jr Ck WASHINGTON COUNTY R/W`�'�---- AJ 1PDi,YDY 1.+ r i '�L` ti r ANFao2.a �J 6 4 5 4 3 2 3 $ 5 7 - 5 ,° 1 1 \ ,uRISDICTI AL \.� �'y,J ,`/ $"{ '} � \ WETLAND NO. ] 3 V y'VJr� \�iJi 21 2a 10 1j r3. C- 12 18 f` 5 _' is L{wrL rj I 1 /16 15 7 7 $ 1 LS I L tiJ Pic .. 7 r { j// 5O' en9r.a,e .emxN 4r+ "1 9 � 1 D " f t/ i 0 J • r}' J � � 1 i 4 Z � I $ { 1 I 4 ! -~� ." POYA� .� 55 � ll ��✓"S$� �� $ r.`V{ ` � 10 t 1 � I i N_6c+.a � LEI 1 j /,,Jf +r 1 { 4 � 7 0,y 9 8 �•+� • ' ^~ DIVELOPMEN'f E MYARY \ AREAS: GRO55 {{,,{.7}'LL �/5vI J 152]2 AC g T -,M% w LE 55 WEIUNO 18,99 A� ryry I L 5 1 S dJ`' STEEP SLOPES (0.00)A' W, k 12 ,y •-T b ' PJIIJ S\'9 �, w' �'U \ } <,n /\ f '3 �rNET S 1]]75 AC DEVELOPMENTMIX . > a= a Q Sb o o SL �J 6es i J J O _�`- ✓ (� / �/J n CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTOUB!OT 2 WeoNoi NUMBER OF LOTS STR 3 25 - 11 TOTAL AREA OF LOTS 194,131 SF 4.46 AC a' J f 13 _ +��' �A R Y� 7,� AVERAGE LOT SIZE I7,6A9 SF O.aIII ` OUTLOT G • rr t POND r _ r •,/• f MINIMUM LOT SIZE j 1x,1]6 SF 0.72 AC \ / r 7 , r ti 11 �' r • COnNO NUMBER OF L DISTRICT O I• 23 I ` J 1 k 9050 =�� ' f P L_S! `') � .° j� ! NUMBER OF of 409 ` AYERAOE LOT SIZC (� , tN � � � �! r ti H gp6S1'y 1 S V � w.iLj;�„ � to 1 r 1• J Tdtla UI'{A pF LOTS 2,097,069 SF 18.14 AC z � 9 .... � 1� A 10 0]4 SF 0.16 AC �` ivy d % !4 MINIMUM LOT SIZE 7,O34 SF 0.16 AC a f 27 1 �1' 15] 1O , r r d 01 DI TOWNXONE DISTRICT 2T7 Aq! i2 y1 9 / r ��r' ":6i NUMBER OF UNRS 1s / / Fj6 I TOTAL AREA OF UNRS 700.40 Sr 16.09 AC z �.I L.�]�J[I [J(_�-J\ I N / AVERAGE LOT S1ZE 46,720 F 1.07 AC MINIMUM LOT SIZE 31,087 $r 0.71 AC _ B A r ,�. PARNS/OPEN AREAS P-+/-�/� 2 X317 OUTLOT A - MOVA11 OPEN &PACT / WETLAND / POND NG 1.298,917 Sr 29.82 AC Q 4 ♦ 5 l / • C� 7 1 T 1%\ : y , J J �`�-~' y OUTIOT B - "RAIL OPEN SPACE / WETLAND / POII K' 241 11101 SF 6.47 AC W 6 yi `1 \ J' ' • IyOY - j `� BUILD C 1CR/[ PARK JOS LOT 280.514 SF 6.L/AC .�,� 1. I •'���"""""" ,may] r. q )" - i �L OUILOT D - PRESERVE PARK 764,]58 $F 1755 AC N4='0- 4 `T PONID I k r+ "'•.� • T 1 �jI �, } ! 6 r f f !' _S3'_� OUTLOT E - PPIVAIE OPEN SPACE / W[TLAND /PONDING 170,42] Si ].91 AC '` `` I/ 7A4r1'111 �F'+% 7]`Jl�FF I I OUTLOT f -PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 15,770 SF 0.75 AC 907. i N 904.0 I { I 5 t O 5 [ a r �_ /r OUTLOT G - PARK 61,575 SF 1.41 AC OUTLGT N - FUTURE MANNING ROW 67,927 SF 1.47 AC �` •�` 4 _ � ` i L iI Ifi � � _~.y�{ 6 � $ ,,7 ►` EJ Ot i � �" 4 e� PPUBLIC STREETS F r!k 0 RIGHT OF WAY 704.461 sr 16.17 AC $�` .}S+}„j, �` 4 3 OJ` 3J�,/_[)W )�/L/js �•�� vc]/6[I ! JJ � / TRAILWAYS (Mt" FEET) CR TRAIL 5248 IT C; 5 1 r4 04.OL 1. S! t V 1 [1 i / 1 V 5' CONCRETESIDEWALKSSIDEWALK 7.1 5 n H-9 O L�� .. 2 .+� I 1, L) { r P S' WOOD CHIP TRAIL WETLAND -0. t jL� a. �� au -SOTFf STREET �ELL`ROAD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CO. RD, NO. 12) 2 •� 5 4 3 2 I T 1. UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS NECES&W.. Fr FO{'�i1 ) / \ . _. MNENSFp1S ,FfE N010lB M INC 11111151 r00E 2 ALLgsb ]. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEARES7 SQUARE FOOT. 4. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY. TRAIL KEY ti rrb awrox a[ no ntFWv S. SETBACKS SMALL BE PER PROPOSED ORDINANCE. ^ ',!��L`�i,,,•�;�,- .--1iZI 4yy`% '..�-� •„• WIDE WOODCHIP TRAIL - 4979 LF a ^' �" 6. BOUNOAflY LINES SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY • �.- WIDE BITUMINOUS TRAIL - 5248 LF �� 5' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK - 7175 LF - - - - - - - - ram ■^"""4 s .caccA c NAg ANo sN o 7. HONES AS SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL. 'aj .. h„ ,.. 91We.a SECTWI auu a w9 uu4ao In 1XE sOAz woeNrn NORTH - TYPICAL STREET SECTION sz• • m r¢r Wont FON lac-twr mWxr 0 50 100 200 - - 400 No- Date 87Remarks Na Del. 87 Rmrwk.s N•O u K+Ydet mj deed aAnn.W an w�3 t '° "°•"M'FRA £n .rtecrr+ PIfMn%n V,•-,,• - • _ I em a 4AJ) R4SIN1bW le.. 0 ani E"p Devwara 9 4 4 ' r�1't^9 MntN. Itx. d W '+IC e1 Mm,r_a Den RY3 Nae D t s .97>D�dA.,, W R, k .,�,..,P Thompson Land Development U.vle Cmo. GJF F"• AII:CDmes Fuck PAM 0- 6F7faM-�a« e • � +cl>ir7a-lrly Golden Valley, MN T-AwF eeaMoaaarr" tE=22 ^.� ALSSDG1Llia9, IWC. Project The Coves of Stillwater Stillwater, MN Sheet Ink General Development Plan Sheet Revision Int -t- N89'15'18'W _ .98,64 l- � SO z �W z W C �R. r Ory H - 0 i yWASHINGTON COUNTY W PLAT NO. 83 R/ 4000 � COUNTY ROAD 64 113.40 DEED, 115,10 NLAS. r�/� • --113.60 DEED, 114.99 MEAS. N89'29'1B'W's��a�-= :•std-s�-Zs.-.---,--,- >: ,� Fsr N89°29'18"W r'a1'r3•:y:-Tom!--r 40.00 �=+°`s-=�T'`''"rr� 1-�`rts.=�_a � N$9'29'Tdf-W ,R (McK'USICK ROAD N.) ILL' WASHINGTON COUNTY R/W- PLAT N0. 84 r 1 N69'29'18'W 417AO a, 4D 13 12 1�1 10 9 g L=1372.9.7 :r_,t-. --- i 4 13 A q9 ReZer�9j Asasys BLOCK NUMBER I I • � r ^• o O o h ry I �,• 1. y' T � AA 1,J i "Al L 77 6i7a R, y 'h -$4 t SrRE "G. R.B •� 8.757 ss 4 / 'f LRISOICIIONAL 4\-r-'q'rler LOT NUNBEF 3 5 7 9 o�T. - [,.r, •V' ��se 3r2 / rr WETLAND No 2 -C.�t. 4'q + �Q� n. m 4' 15 ft 1 O ` t, 38•`57 SF V aria � ♦ 4 .# .w3 ':I 1 ,•�` �a �1�IC PMBLIL STREET RIGHT OF WAY 1 1 214 t_ �• = ���, �"Ii TYPICAL LOT 4 / ( FAMILY) No SC (NO SCPLC) • `Lyl j • _' ! N89'?9'1'$`Y 417.40 1 �, [V. 4 �rI Y \ •'� }` SEE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR SETBACK RFOUIREMENTS FOR EACH LAND USE V r` -V.' L+J _ ;.T \ ♦ �♦ -.+ yi • ~ ,�„'' � riY 7i 35. � � I ♦ � ' 144 }3,Do S2J f1 \sA• l:La7 ��r�. „`� W JURISDICTIONAL 1 m 4^ ") '7 d �� 45( 4 1 r !J n �q 10``^-- Z I _ 1154 - +N WETLAND NO. 1 f / q18 i ;A - u •a• ,.q^ �' !} 1 \',� 6�,p4 23• 3S .ra_� 7:-1xs JI..._ .. 67 S 1 ,502` 1 A 50 `19 'd1•V 1..56 L.7O t.a9 1.. i.•eg� L� \� Gh' R 18$5.24 Ai:s� fes.: a887so- _`24{''dr 1r S 8 9 S .�. - N 5.D ' r• �?� 13 S" w ~ / � S- '" S `" qr_ � `b <, ' 7 eo � �` � � . , � 4 12 e 7 ! . r JS $ ." m r• Al `W °� �� 5 4 2 r,� `^ '4 °'� 5 5 ^a+� ' [•re �e 6 �.. 5.7 4-F1 URSDICTIONAL � 1AE1LAN0 N0. 3 � �7 8 � re. � 9 � T5. 0 �,• � .L. � r 2 � � 9 los 9 v w � � d°� ' r l6+�� � ?a a � ` � . _ � \ m I 0 �A1 # `a xi a - 4S. 'iS' 5.42 L.77 1.qP Lr1ha '3 Pv 9 iViy. 3 a,� T0` v 21 2O ea DN i0 11 +�¢� 2 1 ` GW o h Sl h ,yD ° :� r 1 ♦s� 19 5.7 l Z ¢_ •}iT •? � ♦` � 7 .5A' 4' .L. 22 V � N 4 *SyZR�,�4.s L •B �9 N89'29'TF6"W 627.35 ,.. _. $^� $ r� �` O ♦ate o FIS yi :n �+' ° 13• °5.L „3F 8 •A+ i -<., 'Asc-5. M` 16 15 14 - `-.�. _�. '�•z--_.l_- _ r 1 7 q '.> r ?qra�. 7 8 9 1kr Fit. "a. ey - ^S t 95 s.e3 9.'nkr,ad-d 90bwk - `♦ j '1 9 'y B� err A 5 10 S 1 3 } >,.•pb L.r, f`J? ,1T. wAJa ` e 14 l ♦ `S89'15'20'- 669.00 - tC1 z, 8 7s.o2o SF r• 53,390 SF 13.6SO 5F w ;•; ��• ,x.026 5c1 4 _ 4 ., Q$_.o-s "y e0 x.038 5F T. ,a 8 td� K.� rFrl w P . W a .'N Y,A �• '�+ , %' ' ``;`�- ''�'• a64e 57 ,y 9.795 ss S1�ES ,� r aejs o te>sg - c s 789 yyx 5 11 6 ogs 4 ati ♦` W � s i `� .,'' �.�- AAREA3DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 7 o I 11 ' 57,879 SF 1 , 9g'3 $ 6'Y w7,$y8 �,. q 4,. ��/ ' GROSS 152.32 AC +� 6 IESS WETLAND (18.99)AL rtAS - Iy� , Si : .y Ary..4 +?� q� v VA -` KO• �,,./�' I STEEP SLOPES (B.DD)AG v • MET AREA 137.33 AC 1 ~662 SFiry •t �' $• r '4 .P! OEVnDPYENT MIX 320 85 - : CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 12 9afi6 SF Y + '16,A4 ❑y]n'•% '5.1 �.'���� rj+lr ny " 17 •. 4S. .y7 5.8 ry] Y,4'= JURISDICTIONAL p. �,t( v 9.499 $ 4 ti'h' l e 4 13 N'[N 2 WETLAND NO. 4 5.'i rw.v ��" NUU9ER OF LOTS 11 42. 06 SF � V STRL'ET rU-3 ¢ E• ,A 993 5.. •� J Q I�A,T �' �+ r5 �'1 •' GIs" 1� r�-1 / TOTAL AREA OF LOTS 191.134 5F •16 AC s5rr1 /S•ti 13 '� / VVV*___ //J WNIMUAVERAGE LOT S12E 17,fiA9 SF 011 AC a OUTLOT G L1r13 IIA Y r. A7 014 A76F 1 ' YU IUUY LOT SIIE II,176 SF 0.72 AC c-1 COVING NUMBER Of LOTS DISTRICT 61,575 SF - �'T 7 _ �,^ f� M TOTALS AREA OF LOTS 2.097069 SF 1814 AC C, $ 2.3 `( - 131 e.sex 5F / l J 0034 SF 0.23 PIC 4'ka 6'� 4 18, 7 v x 1 " ` r/ m MI,NIMUGM LOT SIZE E LOT SIZE 17034 SF 0.16AC 5 ^ g2 a i 4 11 23611. / �'� _ .,f ` J 39-99+ Sf y 37.819 •S �� y Jy 155 'A1, 1 15,E74 SF TOWNHOUE DISTRICT L y 9,200 5i 1 31,087 SF -= 1S 09A HO 1p s 21 i 6 Q !2 'P G fgx 9 II "'A'+�--.^ ' /� NUMBER AREA UNITS IS C` k• d} 2(1 1 } 1 ! t 7 r / `'.,,.'y.r- TOTAL AREA OF UNITS 700,803 SF 16.09 AC d r 13,025 SF AVERAGE LOT SIZE 46.720 SF 1.07 AC 1 4 r u 9 10,360 SF r 4.025 1 _ - ^ -� •• - G MINIMUM IAP SIIE 31,007 SF 0 71 AC PARKS/OPEN AREAS 7 OUTL01 A - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / WETLAND f POND IND 9298,917 SF 2902 AC ,.+ �f lr1`J .C•• 12,943 SF 8 Ta•IIS ST .7 / 1 I 1 / 3 ' DIITLOT B - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / WETLAND / PONOINO IB 1,908 5F 6.47 AC 4 _ 8 Q!d' y % w] STREET 5 1 1 7 ' ti 9.471 5F / rr .I !' 196 S c pU1101 C - AC7NF PARK / TOT LOT 760,514 SF 6.44 AC 60,775 SF <. 1 r �' r �_ '1 3 " 4 . 6 4-5Z b •7k• I.T TV C 7,626 EF Z OUTLOT D - PRESERVE PARK 764,358 SF 17.55 AC d+ +' / / ! 8 Iaale OUTLOT E - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / WETUID /PONDING 170,12] SF 3.91 AC ` 32779 4 .(� • 4 yA 1T•p7 Y' 4 '.1 r`7 O,6a3 SF I ! F • J 15,339 SF WTLOT F - PANATE OPEN SPADE 15,]70 SF 035 AC • : A _SF .41AC J, 1.. N f ♦ 5.5 O♦p ['gyp I� . "O• & R l O • ! WO. L -b6 .87 • -71 OOUILOT N - rUptm MAhow MON 63.927 SF I.I7 AC r� stir 6 1.57 7 9 s5. : 8+846 Sr 15.256 SF �N Pr o ,s7,te7 sF 4" d F s ry{ �• '+�' a ca 5 G 4 ` `�' £ ,� 5 I i 7 zo A10RGAN AVE. Pufiuc STREETS J l S ' 37,974 SF f f t~"♦N" ♦ 7 bRA4 T LOi `fr *$ C.�•�'QL`4 • i j+ /' / L.E6 A.6y L -e5 t••6 L•Io• RwNr of war 701.161 5F 16.17 AC 3 " .'2' f I' p\1 •L7 4 tiQ 'a 5 4 O I>. y ,.. 1zoB8 SF I if`I sa,ls6 Sr TRAxW.YS (LrueAx FEET) 1> 2 l'1a 4 I a' BITUMWOUS TRAIL 5248 FT N'L N�i ! V 1 3 ? ~ i2110- F l 511 IT //� 5' CONCRETE $IOFWeLN 7,175 iT 1 $ \ 4 ,V. i A qtA r w /r { / 16 1 6' WOOD CMP IMP. 5+,7e5 S; 40,689 Y , 82,579 SF • K ICA) i c�Q .ri 21 S \ 15 l + 22,764 SF ^ 16.462 S - 40,902 Y 15..471 5/ 17.728 9C 1. ulam AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SNAIL BE PROVIDED A5 NFCFS�AAP. R i VL FFRAPk3JURISOI-N6 6 ♦�\� 1�1 'r 10,698 SF 2 RAF Er - 13,307 5FI 2 5 730 Ts9 Ila •69 1�9 c}• 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT. IR' S 9'!0 SG'E 1738.0v S00'23'27"W �♦ T li ! - _ ] ALL AREAS ARE RBDNDED TO PIE NLARCsI SQUARE Fool. 22.27 ) ` �'� 16.331 SF U 1a1a7 5< 7 1 w .74073 sr 1 r 1. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY. A - ♦ ,,,�. 111♦ a 20.665 SF S SETBACKS SMALL BE PER PROPOSED ORDINANCE. C� E MIX OF BITUMINOUS 1D4i.2t N89'10'44'W L1337.11 6 BOUNDARY LIES SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. -�gTq-+�,ET�°- �, BOTH STREET N. 80UTWELL ROAD 80tN AS CO.RD. N �NORTH (FORMERLY KNOWN AS C. RD. N0. 12) ", "�-., ` 0 so 100 200 Rerlslons 1 ni ehS r5. Tnx s e1 1aa Fkn raF weeaYa Mr Secle A: Sho.-1 �' Client - - -- -- PM�ed Sheet Title Sheet Revw7 n N. Dole gy RenOhs NO Drir er Mrmprr - e.t a was• n -d P,.I 'm QIt 1r,PT I an• a em NrgPiT1 Aa Pea+rnanm E�p:u« aMa She k"5. al IM hale 61 Mw,t4;p{a Desicnca N. -n AVE I � • Planning Engineering 9 SUrveying Thompson Land Development The Coves of Stillwater Preliminary Plat - - % 3 -. Y.... HEH,• Rune lee 51Y3102 -�' 15o502YdAw+AWl4•A1A.�'7L M/..4aMsSStl7 5."11 61f,/N( °' [tr a1Jf176.aS3T Golden valley, MN Stillwater, MN !4` ! / N!s Checked GS w4CG7pis F�wk S Nal Oeliles.'IiIC. C-lrpr taaPDnkp ew+t F uaf hµaae. ftp -ed L •� v.r I� ti `_.,.'\.\ \!. rs-a,. r �` �I y •, ..e:i « _... ,"�iy1 ic,'�y?,.• tp/f f { 1UJU•_;• ` •• _ _ FhTY_9A 1 JwcKUSiCx - _- as r 'f t4' isc •�• .r. - ., _�.'-,R<. � � ...-�-��a e - - �:�.s� - �- �"_ _ - __ .=.-•�""�--"- _ �`+--�� -�= - - `::i-v"`s` 1 L �.,.�: '� 1�--•.•.— . f. � . r 7= �� „_.,��.*..`.. •- w.a•rSRraracfe n• ._ - ve-.:,t...•ux�l.ax.,^ ^v--.y�,--� _ _ -� a — _-_-�= �•�•,".-•." r �-+-. _ . - ': ra _ _ xra '? 'l•J ��5,.>F,tisv_aE:�a. a,-e:;...rn_�;tr+hggar•Ktf'.gr-'xa ^. �r.,a..m---`"'� es:�.���. -� �' _ ----'• w,: "'.: ra_?'-"_ — - -- �= _ `- ' �i •--� _$N1AGr0N-c0M/W7tAT a. <{'1n � - - .. - _ - .',_' L ._ � �._ -• _•. - -- _- — _ �')''V.Z'S iVd ` - YY+ N � ' .._. - l 9°N _ w-J•"��M R- t tZ , _ 11 4' 9 • :sy-. ` ' J � �- wrs M y- _ _ - - °•�`- !'� _�-�' �—_ i , 1 Q s 8 _ 1 ""iK. W%e~�- -.� =i$�= 1r°ir • S -� _ .r `' t '\�_. w•b.l �'* ^tet ��.' f cif"1ij:lr �� `ter f: ���t, \ �. 1 1 r r ~ , i F + . 9a,A .*, ♦ `5 - 1 `�/ ^�+�",� !G. `, • �' '"a ,q .... a •.� \ � : �+/�7•' auRiSacOn o � � z, (j•` e� Is \-a l �y '•a,- `�.,.j�np�, � % II � � r i_ e"a �ti. � � •�M \44 1 I r ry 7q, i��%�,n , "SAF aKi'3-• "-''.+jr � t �"�lt • __ „ , � -• 1 . \ L • ,`. `• : ' "" .., ' ' v .,, itj�-� /- •~�. 55 �' ru '`�: C/6� ' E � .1 r Yr - �r f _ .. 1 _- �r-i wr ✓ .\ �j,�-_ � .. .` y/ •FOND •4 l :i'� "� 'tt �4a _ :tt '.It r i .I' 'E \ � �` � .. �(4 193,0 r ` •._ '\ `t 1 +ey._`� '`�_.-� V"' , / I r �` ��� 1 _ay I.-� —.�- - x-e9+.P ,�'\l `, i ... -+` !.f $ -•~, �`E*•, ' -; _-+.. sr'af. a f -Z 6r { •, \ r { ' ix'•1 w ,w J '1��. IR. `_r' 1 r t, ` i,, _ ra` "" 1 S'•' j ; . r _ - j��`', �„- �' JUiISDCTIONAL 1 l int I , ,,,=ruON �.. fF', / '�Ij 1 [ 11'E�O••,��' ,'•.\ 1 �#.FL Ct� °;v 'rF.` •r..r3,,: - -f 4 L]6A f r 77 - �iI .N �y -v a+r +_ - .�� jJ.. -� 1 •� nk , '1 ,`.. .�.�� .` "\.. ==l� •l1 p� ..#'^r_ !` 1- Y �•� .yam t �' '71 :ra�""L•�.'' 2• �. � �y • F, a I 1 s.' FA+' � i. y --��. � _ }/ ''��•/� .. ..£1�:- �ti"���'` t..r.-�urtlsnlcnaNr� '.- �,•d i I '.:2 f t ll ,.` \ i. WETLAND N0.' I, � .,• - - � a , ',, _ = • - � . ,,rte � �- _ _ — — _ �_ ', r� .ter; �r_+ 7 tsl i 8 ) ' !ft i t 1�� '" �i `E'•, . ��� >nc:, ,� � � r i! • ' � � � � I 91r.s r r � � � `•� S t Q � � `A-_ - '` ,\ '�' sv' >d,«M.^a N,GOA eoa ,.ti;. •.i _ 4u 10 �! �r. � POND -"<• `� '�P.•--t ]t ;�'_ N -est � `y,t� �-�, 1. .. •- , - �` � f�nN-905.0 !_ ` /9. jr _ .-- 1 �..'. -. �ti. ...�._`M1� `+'�� - � '. • .. - TY .,� H-906 0 .✓• � r.- - 1 ` • 9x0.77 ,+ .1-, � � $: - 1 l �. •� �'�` ,�°°� � - r at �' L ' � a �F ! WrnwND No. • ' �`� --._ O�,F � � I Zy 11'3 f>t'; : `.. .�•' _ . ,., f•M - �` i— r •t, POND 7 �• i;,", ` •C ".�, Il 1l , 1 "< t \ ^ �� +`r � [ �-�I 2 1 � r I 'a !+� + rY i• R i \ � ' �p� ,�rc � ,.! ,`i ' 1,1 `,9iDD3 _ ,a.a .f� ` r i 7@'rw<' - iJ .'•, - t2i v ar 'l,i 9[a�• 4 s } rr rx. !c. a - �� '�'. _ 'g NB rl, f •l 7 .� _ ,.A - .:K y.•1"u ' ,w LEGEND 4 , n9Da \1 . .- 9D9,7 •• - - � 3 1 s": a '4..� S . � / 4 •� � � '� �GGSTHG CON OURS N!�•7.@4 ` ' E)EU G STORM SEWER �` 'ti 1 \ N..90 v tr i 2 �` _ •:1� •�' l J -!s - ; a }k WCTUNO OMIT _ ,_..- ' SPOT E1.EVA710N_a rprs ;�, _ - N 1 .lNSWD1W1 ''i _! �a{.. PROP06EO CONTOUR 1210— C WETLAND NO 5 t 1 g - i' ` PROPOSED S70RM SEWER i `� P02 ;. } r .a , - 'l, a w� .� 1 • � .. �'.� .�• 1 . _EAIA .�i� � �:� f i ��. -41 k B lT \ S• �`� Gr r .1. GO f� F..r-7a�;+{ BC?txTGp'Ei'LI'J7DR'Cfi...._`-•�:''''',.„._17tiT9�l.i�F1Ck4+- , , 'a \ f�"l 4 a nu F7 \ ZFORAIERLY A?ng0}Vhi`AS C{i Rt]. NQIr iner r fE T t ras ti. _ - � _ . �a _ r L- t i 1 I Q w 1ti�. 1� '°'' 1 r 4,'� �Y 9.Ly j E I ( Iz` NORT] 1 —J -•- a L, � - WI n _ I e ` �''� P , 0 90 100 200 400 Revisions ,Wq+ it 41P Mer rr,< 94n .ss PF ed a,, 3cae Wy aw.� y talent Project e v ua6N +*r a, c, xaa•.i,cn ene, :'Cei'sSheat Title Sheet Reelsi No Dale el, Remak: ,In nor* Rnra.Fa 1e Planning d+ o m Er k<q:et to lol. of 41 E+.W ew Engineering 9 Surveying ine 5,<,.. 9, MM.Wo BIW s Thompson Land Development The Coves of Stillwater Preliminary Grading Plan $� :' rsoso lye Awwr xnrn • vrr�'n w., r ssua 7 o [W ..n Of n" wN9C9mei Frau l lta9s Ph— 61ai<76-601E_ya� 6 1.1/"T a r Golden Valley, MN SWlwater, MN I eA57WGTG?r'P9,UNTr-RIW-'PLZT'-No. 3 A N. fi(McKUSICK ROA�. BRIDGE - ❑J 13 12 11 to 9 123 13 7 13 5 43sl� /���snr c:) 6 6- 5 7 8 9 IN 2 /we, WETLAND Naz Q, 6 15 ❑ 4 1. 5 4 —Q- 3 2 14 2 1p "010 Z), V Lu 15 14 13 12 11 AX�ONAL 10 WETLAAD NO- I 16 Wetland 1.6 14 % 13 13 41, Z ED 13 In CONINCCI 7 /> *V ELEV iz JriN-1W-O 0 6 4 5 4 2 3 2 7 S 9 5 �SDICTONAL 8 4 WETLAND NO 3 3 21 1 20 10 f1 3 4-- 22 19 wc.. 4 14 6 r 15 I 17 578 12 --�— / / 16 15 ILI 9 7 5 10 11 3 14 3 10 3 POND7 6 2 7 p re 5 12 4 12 4 3 0""40, JURISDICTIONAL p 23 -3 13 2% WETUND NO, 4 all =% SIR 24 COW 0 OT G 13 L" 21 POND 7 14 10 15 20 19 18 17+, 12 10 9 0 L.i 1 I 9 8 1 IF 63 7 2 -V 7 LEGEND D PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAN 8 9 10 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER 8 5 5 CO NO SANITARY SEWER EXIST C STORM SEW� 5 WETLAND LIMIT r, 5 3 5 2 2 6 5 4 WEILLA.D K$ 11, r PO 2 t POND 3 7 -0 eD II BV TH T lj gpqw�z y KNOWN AS RD. VO.,' 2) 13 F-Funn WA NORTH Pr C3 mlflaiuns I " ee " At Engineering - Planning - Sur-ying Cuent Project au. -a A, LP-g:.A Sheet title D— At3 1, Thompson Land Development The Coves of Stillwater Preliminary Utility Plan C.1d.. Vafty, MN Preliminary MN W=L— f Sheet fWASICA 1-5 /7 771 L] Cp. :�c - do J 7+{1.. -4 -4 -inaaaSrtog vo. WASHINGTON CON o, W pt4T liyo, 84. A�. a- 7 .4 77.' %ING. 7 7 - - U - . I -- - - .- ' - " - - ' ' - % rV _4�4 ZOO q 14 KTL40 NO- 2 0 INN < - 40"' % , - _``' '.�% jial �rwr w_. o, ' 'r l ' . -. `''..` .•"]'�� J! c I / ,f�! _. ._.. _. > • , . Xf, q V° AREA 1.33 AC J� "' 1 .:},7 "� `-.. \I`rti .....-t$-+11 ^�..' I .. `S" _ _ -. �✓ � t rJ ''r �'6 �,,��cc� l� + r+ Q1 t A-WA .92�'Ar ARM,, W R 5 -P ecru -Dr- L -0 Z-11 _74• N <: k e RE % hcL P. JLRISDICTIONAL WETLAND NO. 3 f, rdv 4j� 31*4.56 % 4e -9 AN WkIGH WQVrN -29'1a"w 61'.35 z t c 71L —4 t• 4'r Sig -i5'2'10-1�- 4 AREA OF'CR F-EKJ 2U5, N 51'V'3 3 L lip "411 4 T 431,&1001 mtft I 'We nd CJA A;rkS V I�PV 4\V✓ �A 'N' A -4.00 Ar % • % z % Y 7 X. I 71 LEGEND -Y. 07" N �7 -�:" <""' E&SINr CONTOURS EYISIING STORM SEWER ir WETLAND LIMIT d E)QSTNG SPOT ELEVATION .`.-1 NO % % WETLANO NO, 1� 1, 6$797 tL - ----- - 13 07 1.19 1 , 1339 30 . .. ........ zw-�t J.— .......... ... lu)" L Y-TWE -7f P ci Z., .' : - e : . , 40 7-P .�i T NORTH 0 50 IDO 200 400 y vell Flewlslons PV41 Whry• CANI Pro eel Shoat Title Sheet Revislor M . ~ y N. D.t, Q, R—ks Na t�.t' at R~%•ni €ny Engineering •planning Surveying D�... ■ AW 1500 234 A— Ulf? Thompson Land Development The Coves of Stillwater Natural Features/Land Use Golden valley, 111111 Stillwater, MN Oct, aw.1v W s Flank Rm Ph- I KLOIRS. III;. I ' *RA e Plan F6 _7 1 /7 Lcgpnd Adoon'1111le Yarrow Deciduous Shrub amto Transport -i .1 Seftm'Autumn Ganeerous Tree Coniferous Shrub Deciduous Tree Planting Schedule s xr; F-1 —6�NAW OT—ANWA0ZWi .32E.Q11.1 I =Wmtap —0. M.�Yk� I Opbuft Hr 114wrpm ntiome!.-�! I C�Mw— U�W 3W 1 IN; M4. a*. 2r 10 t .Sodding/Seeding Schedule • Sod In 1N9&b"n9y areae where krigew. Seed In MuM4&4* wam where not Wqa and In park areae n HaWra Saha W. be urW*Xated. _.. :. i 5'� q!' ` �--� _ j� -ter `r. -c Rtyard AUttlon -4m -till C i, 4L #49 Active Park Public Pak Area we. IirwA Ai t J77J Aetivg Park �- `:� ~�- � ,� -_ /,-.� n r� 5 c� 101 � LL- 4� St A V t r7! is ja Y 7 V\ XX x A Onmar r 01 IC U,& HMCWpadm Kryk-q A Awe, hr - A(> : . May 5, 2000 TI4.E VJ�S OF S TILLWA TER SITE PLAN U Homo C Ind— tq -AA r .7 ro• r. 4 L! L -- - East Road Section Cm. -C Off -INV -7.6.1 South Scciio-n * ,3 „ , M a - h TIW TIUWAM. to G, a `. ��r�r :>< .. �'. ��y�,�r.y�' . ".�_F riFtYi.�i-Mtr.76 iw,•.oti - � n - . Y ., , •'�, � -.. .�.�: it . � _ �}.�►: ��'-� D ,�d.�' �3� •; _ , s�r�,.. � �,.. �. .�i��a:w,.a.�w•,��,s� r , i .r Wiz, � �. .. .. i •,�►,..,� ... - s :FI . 5�t � � to r Legend Wooc*h='YWTX)w Deciduous Shrub Sedan'Autumn Joy i Conftms Tres Coniferws Shrub 0 Deciduous Tree Planting Schedule impqgONeMOM RIR* 94 Owl u I i4F 1 N CV NvIA..wowdft� Am - 58 A 02 Soddingl&eding Schedule Sod faVA4wRy am" wham w6gow. • Seed In IM4—iPf *9w vAim not Wq*W and In pwk w62L • Nokm kift to be.WkNbAm'i Manning Ave. N. Titre;:. w 1. � — � L Kpin G. Ne Am, qk 1'. r4 It 21� 2000 ZCF- km — TIM COWS OF S nLLWATER May 5, NoW*o6-4 W- LV W 130 01M BERM PLAN T O M T E N E N V I R O N M ENTAL D E S I G N Comm 51 Judd 5treet ❑ P.O.Box 272 ❑ Marine on 5t. Croix MN ❑ 55047-0272 ❑ Phone (651)433-5600 ❑ Fax (651)433-5601 June 02, 2000 To: Steve Russell, City of Stillwater Community Development Director Re: The Coves of Stillwater, Design Review for residential lots as proposed by Thompson Land Development The applicant submitted site information including; general development plans, preliminary plat, preliminary grading and utility plans, a natural features/land use plan and tree preservation plan, all dated 5/25/2000. Also submitted were landscaping plans including; a site plan, interior road sections, berm plan, and berm planting sections, dated 5/5/2000, Information presented regarding the unit designs included; home plans No.s 881 through 888 (floor plans and front elevations @ approx. 1/8' scale), arch. guidelines for the HOA, and two multi -family building elevations with several variations on one side elevation. Response to Concept Elevations and Floor Plans of single family homes ♦ Overall, the eight plans submitted provide a good mix of massing variations and diverse street fronts. ♦ A concern would be how the massing, fenestration patterns, materials and detailing are carried to all elevations of the house. These should be thought of as three dimensional objects, not street front elevations only. The coving concept increases the visibility and importance of the side elevations in the overall streetscape. 0 Provide for material changes at architectural elements, not just at front elevation. ♦ With turned garages and the houses set back from the street, are the occupants going to be backing their cars all the way out to the street, or will there be pads designed to allow cars to turn around. ♦ The driveways should be narrowed to 10' once adequate turning is provided to reduce the visual impact of drive and to reduce impervious surfaces. ♦ The separation of the public entrance walk from the driveway is important to the street character of the entire development. Pian 887 could_ incorporate this idea. ♦ Pursue the development of a plan that pulls the garage behind the house. ♦ Provide a diversity of roof and siding colors throughout the neighborhood. ♦ Downplay visual impact of garage doors as much as possible by tying colors into siding color scheme in lieu of contrasting door color with siding color. ♦ Provide a range of garage door options, including size (going with single doors whenever possible) and style. Match door style to house style. Response to Concept Elevations of multi -family structures ♦ More variation in material and colors needed in siding, window treatment, roofing, massing, etc. ♦ Pursue options in unit numbers (building size and massing) to provide diversity. ♦ Pursue options of multi -family units throughout the development. For example, duplexes on larger corner lots. page I of 2 Response to Site Plans ♦ Create buffers along McKusick, Boutwell, and Manning. Use existing vegetation and contours to enhance buffers. ♦ Maintain as much existing tall, mature vegetation as possible. Specifically the north -south windrow. ♦ Does the coving concept really use the existing layout of the land? The majority of the lots are graded to provide walk -out building sites, even when the existing contours are flat. Existing vegetation and slopes are totally recreated. ♦ Streetscape is not well defined. Are we encouraging interaction between the house and the street? ♦ Boulevard trees help to define the streetscape. Sidewalks or trails should be on both sides of the street where use is highest. ♦ Take advantage of opportunities for mail clusters, bus stops, etc. to create community spaces. ♦ Active park areas should have a street presence. ♦ Trail along McKusick? ♦ What are road islands used for? How are -they landscaped? Who maintains them? ♦ Pedestrian scale street lighting and signage. ♦ Change street pavement texture and/or color at pedestrian crossings. Response to Arch Guidelines for HOA ♦ Landscaping plans do not include native species such as oak, aspen, etc. ♦ Coordinate between development landscaping and unit landscaping. ♦ Mailboxes. Look into clustering mailboxes and use the opportunity to create a community space. ♦ Patios: perhaps a nice patio would be acceptable in front of the house. ♦ Fences: Do they have to made out of vinyl? Address coordination of retaining wall materials. If there are any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at 651 -433 -5600 - Respectfully submitted, Roger Tomten Tomten Environmental Design page 2 of 2 Mn Concept Elevations and Floor Plans ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES A Di, mon 4 U.S. H,,mc Minnesota Calls Us Horne re 0 z 0 z z Q 0 �d ma �p f3 x U O E 0 O O O x 0 0 0 N t bD a O U N 00 00z C� z 0 u T� V 1 20, a� o 0 o o o cNa ,1u; CQ lo � a N 0 U M 00 00z a Am O C O n� O o � x CA O o C) O C) p crs 'C N T N n. 0 U o L con 04 r�� z 15 11 !1 9AINIC11 C) z 0 u Go 0 x O o `J d N = 00 'C N M N 0 U O P� O O tn 00 00z a Ls 00 00 z O It 0 M N 1E o] 0 x cli C 0 0 N b Ob 0 0 U 0 7 I 0 0 x ui C 0 N OD a 0 U O MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director ( v Subject: Review of Four Lot Subdivision in Campus Research and Development District. Case No. SUB/00-30 Date: June 20, 2000 The request is for a six lot subdivision, four developable lots and two outlots. The development is served by an extension of Curve Crest Blvd (TH 36 Frontage Road). An extensive trail system is provided. The lot size does not meet the 5 acre minimum lot standard for the CRD District but the subdivision is a part of a overall site development plan. No use is proposed for the individual lots at this time. The Planning Commission heard and recommended the subdivision to the Council for approval on May 8, 2000. The City Council approved the subdivision (June 6, 2000) subject to Joint Board approval. The staff report is attached. Recommendation: Review and comment on subdivision Attachment: CPC 5-8-00 staff report RESOLUTION NO. 2000-173 APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 36 AND HIGHWAY 5 WHEREAS, a request has been submitted by Coen and Stumpf and Associates, Inc., representing Jim Bradshaw for a subdivision of a 22.75 acre lot into four lots consisting of 6.16 acres, 3.37 acres, 3.24 acres and 3.15 acres with two outlots consisting of A=2.49 and 13=4.34 at the northwest corner of Highway 36 and Highway 5 intersection in the CRD, Campus Research and Development District; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Stillwater approves the subdivision, Case No. SUB/00-30 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The setback for Lot 3 shall be 25 feet front, 40 feet west side, 15 foot rear and 15 foot east side. 2. A parking area shall be provided for trail access. 3. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the City as part of park dedication. 4. The trail along the access roads shall be 8 -foot bituminous trail. 5. The driveway access at the comer of CR 5 and 36 shall be reviewed for safety. 6. A detail landscape plan for the drainage area and Outlots as appropriate shall be provided and improved by the Community Development Director with subdivision improvements. 7. The trail and landscaping shall be installed with subdivision improvements. 8. A tree impact table and tree protection plan shall be provided before final plat approval. 9. Comments from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into final development plans before final plat approval. 10. Comments from Brown's Creek Watershed District, Mn/DOT, Washington County Public Works and Stillwater Township shall be incorporated into plan before final plan approval. 11. The Parks Board shall review and approve dedication of Outlots A and B and trail improvements in lieu of park dedication. 12. Future lot development shall require administrative design review. Adopted by the City Council of Stillwater this 6t' day of June, 2000. ay , ayor ATTEST: J, Z��z Diane Ward, City Clerk MEMO To: Mayor and City Council From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Four Lot Subdivision (SUB/00-30), Jim Bradshaw, applicant. Date: June 2, 2000 This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2000 and then the Parks Board on May 22, 2000. Staff reports and minutes are attached. Both City groups recommend approval of the subdivision and park dedication provision to the Council. This development is in the City Expansion Area and will also require approval by the Joint Planning Board. Recommendation: Decision on subdivision. Attachments Council Action on 6/6/00: +5-0 approval Parks and Recreation Board May 22, 2000 Present: Del Peterson, Chair Linda Amrein, Rich Cummings, Dawn Flinn, David Junker, Steve Wolff, Mike Polehna, and Sara Thingvold Others: Community Development Director Steve Russell, City Engineer Klayton Eckles and Tim Morris, Planning Intern Absent: Rob McGary, Wally Milbrant Mr. Peterson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr.Wolff, seconded by Ms. Amrein, moved approval of the minutes of April 24, 2000. All in favor. New Business: 4 Review of Trail and Open Space Concept for Park Dedication Requirement for Four Lot Subdivisions 1 Located on 22.75 Acres at the NW Corner of County Road 5 And Trunk Highway 36 Mr. Russell gave an overview of the area of the proposed park dedication, zoning information in the area, the extension of Curve Crest and it's relation to this area and this dedication in relation to the City's Open Space System and Trail System. Mr. Bradshaw explained the proposal and the proposed park like setting for the site. He explained that St. Croix Sentry has submitted a letter of intent as one of the tenants for this project and gave an overview this company's function. He stated that the architect is addressing the issue of the watershed, drainage and the preservation of the site. Mr. Peterson stated that he was concerned that the City was not receiving its fair 7% for park dedication in this proposal. Mr. Junker explained that this park dedication is to preserve the forest area and conceived to be more of a walking park in the area that would have benches and picnic areas along the trail. Mr. Russell stated that in the Legend subdivision the City obtained the woodland on that site. He stated that the woodland is a valuable resource, even though this is not conducive to a ballfield etc. There are different values to land; in this case the protection of the wooded area and the natural areas would be a resource that would be important. Mr. Bradshaw explained the overall feel of the site. He stated that the landscaping plan would provide a more natural setting and place trees to deaden the noise from the highway. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the time frame is hopefully to break ground in 2001, depending on funding from Mn/DOT and world ng with the various agencies this project impacts. Page 1 of 5 Mr. Eckles stated that this street will be a collector street connecting all of the northern development, like the Phase II & Phase III area. This will allow for traffic to use this frontage road rather than Deerpath and get traffic out of the neighborhood. He stated that this street should be designed with shoulders etc. with a 30 mph design. Ms. Flinn moved, seconded by Mr. Junker, approving the trail and open space concept for park dedication requirement for four lot subdivisions located on 22.75 acres at the NW corner of County Road 5 and Trunk Highway 36. All in favor. Initial Review of Trail and Park Plan for the Phase II Expansion Area, U.S. Home, Ap2licant. Mr. Russell explained that the City is beginning to work with U.S. Homes in developing the Phase II expansion area located south of McKusick, north of Boutwell, west of County Road 15. The area was designated in the Comprehensive Plan to enter the City in 1999. He explained and gave an overview of the parks and trails already proposed or being developed, including an area for the Public Works facility. Mr. Eckles stated that there would be internal trails and sidewalks within the developments that are not shown. These trails are internal connective trails or destination type trails. Mr. Bill Pritchard, U.S. Homes, provided the Commission an overview of the proposed development and park/open space in this development. He explained that U.S. Homes is trying to maintain the natural slopes of the development. He stated there is approximately 25.8 acres or 20% of open space and the overall open space, including wetland, is approximately 47.72 acres or 30% of the site. Mr.Pritchard stated that they hope the City will give credit for the amount of trails, not including the required sidewalks as part of the subdivision, in lieu of some land dedication. Mr. Russell stated he talked with Mary Lou Poguet of the School District regarding the number of children that would be in the development. The City would be purchasing some of this using Greenway money. Mr. Cummings stated that this project is very unusual that net effect is that this development has a percentage basis of park dedication is more than you would see in a normal subdivision. Mr. Russell stated that this development is trying to use the natural areas as the framework for this development. He stated that the goal is to preserve the history and the natural area of this site. Ms. Thingvold stated that she felt that one play structure for this area would not be enough and that the distance to the park for some of the homes is too far. Mr. Wolff stated that the size of the play structure would be approximately the size of Benson Park. Mr. Eckles stated that the tot lots are becoming a thing of the past because of maintenance issues and the size of the equipment. He stated that the neighborhood park with bigger structure and area are becoming the standard like Benson Park. Mr. Russell stated that the Legends and Liberty developments use the park to help sell the property. In that case the developers went beyond what a regular developer would develop. Page 2 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks. and Recreation Commission FROM: Steve Russell, Community Development Director DATE: May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Agenda Items Listed below are staff reports and attachments for the agenda items. Each item is presented for commission information or discussion. Any required commission action is described under the staff recommendation for the item. ew Business: 2. a. Park dedication provision for four lot subdivisions including trail and open space area outlots. (Case SUB/00-30) Jim Bradshaw, applicant. A park dedication of 7% of the net developable land area or for this project 1.1 acres of useable land. The proposal shows two outlots: A) 4.34 acres and B) 2.49 acres, as dedicated for public open space. A trail is provided encircling the site connecting to the trail along Curvecrest and 62nd Street North. The issue before the commission is: does the park features provided, equal the dedication requirement. Recommendation: Approval of proposed dedication. The trail provides a recreation amenity to the site and area and city residents. It connects to the City trail system and will eventually connect with the trail system to the West (CR 15). 2. b. Phase II expansion area development Plans for Phase H development will be presented at meeting time. Three parks and an extensive trail system is included in the plans. The park dedication requirement is 10% of the net developable land. Figures on dedication will be provided at meeting time. No action required at this time. This item will return for final recommendation. 2. c. Creekside Community Nature Trail. A nature trail is required to be provided by the developer as part of the improvements for creekside crossing. The developer is prepared to improve the trail. New residents in the Creekside Development would like to discuss the trail with the commission. PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. SUB/00-30 Planning Commission Date: May 8, 2000 Project Location: Northwest Comer of County Rd 5 and TH 36 Comprehensive Plan District: Campus Research and Development Zoning District: CRD Applicants Name: Jon Stumpt for Jim Bradshaw Type of Application: Subdivision Project Description: Request to subdivide 22.75 acre lot into 4 lots and 2 outlots. Discussion: The request is a 6 lot subdivision, 4 developable lots and 2 outlots. The site is located at the northwest corner of CR 5 and TH 36 and runs along TH 36 to the west. The site is in the Phase I Comprehensive Plan expansion area requiring review by the Joint Board. The area is designated Campus Research and Development in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Campus Research and Development. Attached is the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Map 1), Zoning Map (Map 2) and Campus Research and Development Zoning Ordinance. These documents provide the policy basis for reviewing the project. The project is within the Brown's Creek Watershed District and will have to abide by the recently adopted Brown's Creek Watershed District rules. Other City policies that effect the development of this land include the recently approved 62nd Street North Area Plan and Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Proposal The plans submitted include a location map, aerial photograph of the site (L-1), existing conditions map (L-2), development plan map (L-3), site plan map (L-4), preliminary grading and utility plan (C-1 and C-2) and tree inventory (C -,and C-4). The proposal is to subdivide the 22.75 acres of land into 4 lots and 2 outlots. The development lots are 6.16 acres (Bradshaw lot), 3.37 acres (Lot 1), 3.24 acres (Lot 2) and 3.15 acres (Lot 3). Outlots A and B of 2.47 acres and 4.34 acres are shown. The outlots would be maintained in their existing open condition with trails. Outlot B is covered with pine trees and slopes steeply to the west. Outlot A separates and buffers the site form the residences to the rear (north). Joint driveway access is propos6d for Lots A, D and C. Stormwater infiltration ponds are located in outlot areas. A six foot aggregate trail is proposed connecting to the existing trail to the north and extending to the westerly outlot. The trail forms a circular path for recreation use of the site. Curve Crest Boulevard is extended to the western lot on the site. The development plan shows desired setbacks for the development as 15 feet front, 15 feet rear and 15 foot side. These are different from the CRD zoning setback requirements as discussed below. A drainage/grading plan is provided but no landscape plan or tree impact calculations or tree protection plan as required by the new tree protection ordinance. Analysis The site is in the Campus Research and Development zoning district, CRD. The district regulations prescribes the future use of the lots and also include lots size and setback requirements. The minimum lot size requirements is 5.0 acres. Three of the four lots are smaller than the requirements. Setback requirements are 50 feet front, 20 feet side yard and 75 feet rear (residential). The proposal shows building setback of 15 feet front, 15 feet side and 15 feet rear. The rear setback is extended by the open space outlot and the front setback -for lots 1 and 2 is extended by the stormwater drainage area. -- The trail and open space areas frame the site nicely and extend public access and use of the area. The trail system and open space complements city policy regarding preservation of natural open space areas, Highway 36 Stillwater entry landscape and residential buffering and extend the expansion area CR 5 trail system. A landscape plan with selective trees, scrub planting and ground cover planting would improve the appearance of the open space area particular outlot A and the stormwater area. The trail along Curve Crest Blvd should be an 8 foot bituminous trail to connect to a further extension to the west and east. Shared driveway easements should be provided with the final plat. The driveway access at the corner of CR 5 and TH 36 should be further considered for site distance and safety. The City Engineer has reviewed the engineering aspects of the project and has prepared a written comment (attached). The plans have been referred to MnDot, Washington County Public Works and Stillwater Township for comment. There comments will be incorporated into the preliminary plant review before it is heard by the City Council. Recommendation: Approval Conditions of Approval: 1. The setback for Lot 3 shall be 25 feet front, 40 feet west side, 15 foot rear and 15 foot east side. 2. A parking area shall be provided for trail access. 3. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the City as part of park dedication. 4. The trail along the access roads shall be 8 foot bituminous trail. 5. The driveway access at the comer of CR 5 and 36 shall be reviewed for safety. 6. A detail landscape plan for the drainage area and Outlots as appropriate shall be provided and improved by the Community Development Director with subdivision improvements. 7. The trail and landscaping shall be installed with subdivision improvements. 8. A tree impact table and tree protection plan shall be provided before final plat approval. 9. Comments from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into final development plans before final plat approval. 10. Comments from Brown's Creek Watershed District, MnDot, Washington County Public Works and Stillwater Township shall be incorporated into plan before final plan approval. 11. The Parks Board shall review and approve dedication of Outlots A and B and trail improvements in lieu of park dedication. 12. Future lot development shall require administrative design review. Attachments: Application, plans and maps. CPC Action on 5-8-00: +8-0 approval. PE. APPLICANT Name: a Company: Ac-,lbo&ATF r.CL,. Address: U r -r t cD City: rraNs Po State:M3 Zip Telephone:21 �i � D-1 a (F, a r -q c {H) 2. - PROPERTY FEE OWNER Name: Company. r,-" Lrc Address: Dell os c:X ° ov a City: 5rt 1 Lc WP -r State: M `-! Zip Code: s5o cbZ. Telephone: (F r? 12, (H) 3. SURVEYOR Name: Company: Address: City: 1. -AY -r- r LM o State: M 114 Zip Code: =-,F.- o L{ y Telephone: Z }�o . 4. Property Location: t,-11-t� -F i 4 l is F-iwh r -J7 't., "I tx OvJAy 5 f ter e a--S.F-c.Tt o r-,1 Legal Description: A'--`7 o f~.-rtA s a r e..n o r-� l 17-- o �.`dA� ,r -s t,s roti c_ b v ! N!? , 3 F s c3TA- Name of development:rt-1 Number of lots: 14 � Current land use: U ti F Proposed land use: SN►?'`w Current zoning: - 14?,A l>up s t't - D E� + . `r� M r—_ t.1'r-- Proposed zoning: Anticipated project completion: 6. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (14 copies and 1 reduced 8 %"x 11") Preliminary Plat .(PP) ._ Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan TLP) >- Street and Utility Plan (SUP) Grading, Drainage, Storm Water and Wetlands Plan (GDSWP) >` Other Information (O� 8 14" x 11" Transparency I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per City requirements. Ium4qst2zd that the application will be processed when it has been found to be complete and adequate by the Community elopm nt Director. property Fee Owner(s) Signa Applicant(s) Signature(s): Date: q • fir) . eb' PLEASE NOTE: If Property Fee Owner is NOT the applicant, the Applicant must provide written authorization b .Pronertv.Fee Diner in order -to make : nnlicat nn. 3l 6�o.y3oa i� C."apY PA EBE:ArMCA QN FQRM 1. Name: Jim Bradshaw_ Bradshawy Funeral Service Address: 6081 OsgoodAvenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 . Telephone: 612-489-3467 (W) (H) 2. Name of proposed development: pending Bradsh,?N Development Number of lots:e 3. Legal description: part of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 31, T30, R20 Washington County, Minnesota Size of property in acres: approximately 23.16 acres 4. Current use of property: no current use Proposed use of property: small business park Current zoning of property: CRD Proposed zoning of property: CRD campus research and development Natural resources located on property: mature red pine forest, mixed hardwoods, grasses Historic resources located on property:. NA. 5. r Submittal Requirements: Sketch Plan (SP) 4 SFLL ZT1 1 :� / I Phase IV* 2015 � AR Phase II 1999 x, Phase I 1996 Ps SFLL lase L L s, KE 3FL SFLL !jq SFLL S. -SL SF SL S;LL Phase I 1996 r Phase IV,, I 6i:21121 4 ;A. .2015 175oc, 571v11 City of CONIPUFIENSIVE PLAN -W Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use (City): Acres: Percent: Residential: SI-T.L - Single Family Large Lot 1.236.37 2638% Sl -'.SL -!Single Family Small Lot 727.49 :U F ­-VUeh-_d Single Family 75.331 0.99. ZM xrF -M.1ti-Familv 64,65 1.419: Conuitcrcial: t -N -Neighborhood Ccmmcr-.ial 13.73 030*. t.'C-Communitycolnmcrcial 44.09 0.96% Busin.ss Park: BPC - Business Park Commercial, 141.66 B;10 - Business Park Office 23.95 0.52"0 A,() - Administrative: Officc 45.61 0.99pa 118.31 2.57% RDP-Rcscarzh&Dc;vlopmm1Park 23.07 11.61'. Institutional: SS - Secondary School 43.96 0.96% ILS - rlamcntary School 51.90 1.13% CEM - C=ctary 38.77 0.84% Public: P.M -.M3rin2 14.00 O.."Oq. PN- Neighborhood Park 91.59 2.03% PC -Community Park 23.52 0.63°° PG - GoIrCourse 301.15 Mj*a W'atcr 610,53 13.28% W.tlandl At= 60.52 1.32. OPS - Open Spas 101.41 22046 PLAM - Fsilroad 29.74 0.65% ROW - Right-of-%Vay 705.30 TOTAL- 4,599.25 100.00% Section Lines i. Railroad Cit}' Limits streams ayeN K w --r Ig M 61 City of TOTALS: 4 L PHASE N' 2015 -. i--tr .eawarr. mooing ivlap Zoning Classifications: ACRES: PERCENT: I RESIDENTIAL: ® AGRICULTURE 221.27 4.76% ® ONE FAMILY 1444.10 31.26% TWO FAMILY 922.63 19.97% Cb b®IUM DENSITY FANMY 38.31 0.83% HIGH DENSITY FAMILY 1.44 0.03% COTTAGE RESIDENTIAL 68.31 0.61% TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL 82.26 1.78% F' TOWN HOUSE 47.60 102% LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL 45.38 0.98% BUSINESS PARK: p ' BUSINESS PARK COMMERCL'.L 135.13 2.93% BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL 117.63 2.55% P� BUSINESS PARK OFFICE 31.51 0.68% GENERAL HEAVY INDUSTRY 4.45 0.10% CAMPUS RESEARCH & DEV. 28.06 0.61% CO. CLAL: (KD GENERAL CONIMERCIAI, 4.79 0.10% CENTRAL BUS24ESS DISTRICT 28.06 0.61% VILLAGE COMMERCIAL 9.33 0.20% PUBLIC: =PA ` PUBLIC ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICES ')-•87 0.50% ® RAILROAD 59 0.55% �Y LAKES & RIVERS 610. 13.20% Oti Riot-of-.y.shp 732.35 15.85% SL ISLANDS 30.48 0.66% TOTALS: 4 L PHASE N' 2015 -. i--tr .eawarr. y d k r y d F' J l 131-1 STILLWATER CODE the lapse of the specified re- sponse period notify the land- owner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this subdivi- ;S`t7 CR_D cam iix-"zes=r�eseczrchryadevel- "` iitdistrictr ..CRD c research :an' deFe; °p s c s fated as :fa1Ia (1) Purpose. The purpose of the CRD district is to allow a mix of office, research and development and light manufacturing uses with limited retail and service uses in a planned business park setting designed to provide for low-density, high-quality de- velopment with increased amenities and open space. (2) Special use permit required No building, structure, land or premises in the CRD district may be used and no building or structure may be directly constructed, ex- cept for the following uses, that are per- mitted by a special use permit: a. Administrative offices associated with other permitted uses. b. Manufacturing, processing, fabrica- tion or assembling of limited com- modity except junk or storage. C. Laboratories. d. Printing and publishing. e. Photo processing. f. Research establishment of indus- trial, medical or scientific nature. g. Chemical laboratories. h. Service uses including advertising, consultant services and engineering, architects and designers. L Funeral homes. j. Any other use or service establish- ment determined by the planning commission to be of the same gen- eral character as the foregoing spe- cially permitted uses and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties. CD31:40 (3) Height and area regulations. The maxi- mum height of buildings and structures and the minimum dimensions of lots and yards in the CRD district are as follows: a. Maximum height of all structures, 40 feet or three stories. b. Minimum setbacks: 1. All buildings or structures must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from any public street right- of-way forming the peripheral property line of the business park. 2. All buildings must be set back a minimum of 30 feet from any internal street right-of-way. 3. All buildings or structures must be set back a minimum of 75 feet from the property line of any residentially zoned prop- erty, where adjacent property is already developed for residen- tial use or is designated resiAIM - dential on the city's comprehen- sive plan. qg- 4. All buildings or structures must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any peripheral prop- erty line other than a street right-of-way line or residen- tially zoned property. 5. All parking areas must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any street right-of-way. 6. All parking areas must be set back a minimumof 30 feet from the property line of any residen- tially zoned property, where ad- jacent property is already de- veloped for residential use or is designated residential use on the city's comprehensive plan. 7. All parking areas must be set back a minimum of ten feet from any peripheral property line other than a street right- of-way or residentially zoned property. TONING § 31-1 (4) Parking and loading regulations. Parking d. No use may produce or emit from a and loading regulations in the CRD dis- vent, stack, chimney or combustion trict are as follows: process any smoke darker than a. Each establishment must provide suf- Ringlemann No. 1, except that smoke ficient off street parking spaces for darker than Ringlemann No. -2 is all employees, customers and visi- permissible for a duration of not tors. The number of parking spaces more than four minutes during any must be determined at the time of eight-hour period if the source of the preliminary development plan ap- emission is not located within 250 proval, but in no event may there be feet of residentially zoned property. less than three spaces for each 1,000 e. Noise levels may not exceed 80dB(A) square feet of total floor area or at repeated intervals or for a sus - portion thereof shown on the plan tained length of time measured at and in no event may there be less any point along the property line. than 3.8 spaces for each 1,000 square f. No activity is permitted that creates feet of total floor area of office and any electrical disturbance that ad - research buildings. Some parking versely affects any operations or may, at the discretion of the plan- equipment other than those of the ning commission or city council, be creator of the disturbance or which built in stages. otherwise causes, creates or contrib- b. Each establishment must provide an utes to the interference with elec- adequate loading space within a tronic signals (including television building or in a side or rear yard, in and radio broadcasting transmis- a way that will allow all storage, sions) to the extent that the opera - standing and maneuvering of trucks tion of any equipment not owned by to be off the public right-of-way. the creator of the disturbance is ad - c. No portion of a parking or loading versely affected. space, including maneuvering area, g. The minimum landscaped open space except the necessary drives, may be ratio for the CRD district will be 30 located closer than 20 feet from a percent. public street right-of-way. h. No loading dock may face any street (5) Development and performance standards. unless a screening plan therefor is Development and performance standards approved as part of final plan ap- in the CRD district are as follows: proval. a. The minimum parcel size of property (6) Design permit. A design review permit is is five acres unless a parcel is part of required for all CRD campus research and an overall development plan for the development district uses according to the area. design review standards of this section. b. All operations must be conducted (Ord. No. 828, 9-13-96) within a fully enclosed building. ubd.-.-23.,B1u nd/shoreland overlay dis- 1 _ C. No outside storage of materials, prod- ticllshaxelnd�av�acladastcis`- all - _ h ucts or equipment is permitted other ._. ed"3fa-flaws' -- than in trash receptacles which must1 _ Purpose. '1`Fh es of this bluffland/ be completely screened utilizing the shoreland overlay district are as follows: same building materials as the main a. Designating suitable land use dis- building, unless the outside storage tricts along the bluffland and is specifically approved as part of a shoreland of the Lower St. Croix preliminary development plan. River. CD31:41 Memorandum To: Steve Russell, Community Development Director From: Klayton Eckles, City Engineer )t— Date: 05/03/00 Subject: Proposed Development of the Bradsaw Property DISCUSSION: I have reviewed the proposed development concept for the Bradsaw property located at the intersection of County Road 5 and Highway 36. Generally, this project accommodates the City's ultimate plan for a frontage road connection along Highway 36 from Highway 5 to County Road 15. The project also includes innovative design concepts for storm water management and environmental protection. From an engineering perspective however, there are a number of issues and details concerning the proposed design that need further attention. Each of these issues is presented below. The access road is shown as a 24 foot wide street. However, the proposed frontage road design will be to State standards and consists of a 36 -foot wide street. The proposed access road also stops short of the west end of the property. Since the frontage road will ultimately be a through street providing access to this development from east and west, any street project in this area should be completed up to the edge of the property. The proposed right-of-way dedication only supports a 24 -foot wide access road, which again is not acceptable. In this case, additional right-of-way would be needed (approximately eight feet). The development shows a number of trails through the area that should provide excellent recreation opportunities for the public. The trail shown along Curve Crest Boulevard frontage road should be shown as an eight -foot wide blacktop trail. Regarding the other trail layout and design, it may be desirable to involve the Park Board on this issue. All trailways on private property will require separate trail easement document filed with the plat. The storm water management concept for this project involves the concept of infiltration basins as opposed to storm water management ponds. Infiltration basins are somewhat experimental and innovative. The concept is that rather than allowing water to run off, the water will percolate into the ground. This concept requires May 3, 2000 greater ponding areas and improved maintenance over a typical design. It appears that this design does include additional ponding areas, however, the Engineering Department would like to review the calculations for the sizing of these ponds and a maintenance plan should be provided. The storm water plan shows overflow discharge from the infiltration basins flowing onto Mn/DOT right-of-way. This concept would require approval from Mn/DOT as well as a permit. Historically, Mn/DOT has been reluctant to grant these types of permits. The proposed project shows watermain serving the site from the east. This concept would result in a 1600 -foot long dead end line serving this development. Ultimately, a watermain loop to the west into the Bergmann property would be appropriate. Therefore, the proposed watermain should be shown to extend toward the western edge of the property. At this time, the City has not received a petition for any of the actual improvements, nor has a detailed discussion taken place on the timing or cost recovery of these improvements. Based on the plan provided, it appears that the developer would be responsible for all of the underground utilities and approximately half the cost of a commercial street design. The developer should consider shared parking use for these sites. Although at this time it is premature because we do not know the actual uses of the sites, shared parking can reduce hard surface areas, which is an environmental benefit. Most of the Engineering Department comments at this time surround the public utilities that will serve this site and other sites to the west. It appears that additional discussions need to take place with the developer to resolve these issues, because right-of- way widths and easements can affect the way the site is developed. 2 _M , 0 E m �' C CL V _ a 0 Ute._ 0= L _CL cm_ `e 1 J W a co` I E U U m w m c E [ o C �_ O1 G C C U U cI 0.0pax ,y_?c�=m cC 0 Nc�zo n v U U U U C-5 f x � ..;C ••t�.�F`++1 a.,�y�� �' s tet,,,,,,_ , r a. •7y b,. a k•, i parr _ '� -' ti xT��...p . j - I o. ^}"4 yw y =A �-•. 9, i 'IS @ Y - 1 C7 rw +r . _ yr.�• i rt � �t r to r � Uta'�f iC-?.-��a" .�tr.cr.• • � i S�:f... i7"-�''n 3 use•., + -� i//.. r •' � j�'R� - Jr S'ii y F� ..�e J Y 'Z� O�t" a ..Y _+-+y���•�_ T �i� Y .d, +i.y^"c `t"ti �PC:.h.• 4• I C 4'-'S"\ i.R.,Y.. l•}.,.� Lill 1 J '' +y.". •7 eti pi'•''c•Y'?+•xti {� g, •-„ ?kj 'I 7?+.+-• ..iy y�-�i'r@eyyf2�. •i.�i'~ 7 "%1�Y'F..i. aS" - •4Y-4-4-'� -"^"�;}r{ y v ''F 'Sl`' t-� ' ap.c..�.cFty W. r N.7. ti'""fir, fxw ,,?�• w7� ar r+ F% k i Vfj y .vK�#rt$krilie +.'Sk/ 'rJs .C,• s� + � �" +d{'aii _ w � y�'i'�3'air*"i•�r�ir ��9�+#�� 1 � ��{`.., a s+ X yrs w�i :tis tt r.a -- 0 Z-� .+5.�;. yxi-,+r a; L "' �Y'y-3�p.. �•`-� , r P �' r i r�''�' ,a • V cb;�gAs Al. �'.. =�. _ r ries . �� ��_'�►.•.. 4��•)t,�p�'� •a--�5-�3i��.@�i�'fi',"�- RIMy . rte[ % t. cc `'_tt'�>� m,r< y t x3Y .+ = rF a• -� c� .�.'LA.r.�� i � � y 4 . r. -'a^ �t! y �."'�2 •err r•»i } � a• ti •' a f - i •� •" o.�y,..' F,+aL'"'] MIR 111 ; s r.r +,•ca'7-'i j,, �►�� t�y'L'��'+ a3 FLS'ic eye• _ � .�"`p�7 � } E '; ` 'S47 E s r rf '+iir.y s;: y�"]Y _ �' - �f>'r ;4f.e.. 'b.'.0. �..e ,.7�.� ?k'"•�isS':�3�n IA 1 • . r s - �'�.��",�' � ms's•-r°t��i �' t � -, y � _ E - + H;gip y �� -N�w ,ski..-� � ��• ' . � ' �'". { `7�`1' �'�� , ,�� � - ii X p i `tit '� rjr..;- •:Y-_' -pig 1 rti t� �•+w'��,y.,�'��rf.��t.a k �� ci. _, "`•. f � � }i` 3 1 d � i 9 E c 9 � }I 44FF �IL'I To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Rezoning and Subdivision of 55,254 Square Foot Lot to RA Single Family Residential and Three Lots. Case Nos. ZAM/00-3 and SUB/00-34 Date: June 20, 2000 This request is for a 1.26 acre lot located west of Neal Avenue and the Oak Glen area. The proposed RA zoning is similar to the surrounding zoning and the proposed subdivision meets the RA lot size and dimension standards. The Stillwater Planning Commission heard the request at their meeting of June 12, 2000 and recommended it for approval to the City Council (7/19/00). The Joint Board needs to approve the rezoning and review the subdivision. Recommendation: Decision on zoning amendment and subdivision Attachments: CPC staff report of 6/12/00 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Sandy Hudson was present. She said the intent is to provide a rear entrance to the gift shop located in their building. In order to do so, the two lots need to be combined. Mr. Middleton, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval as conditioned; motion passed unanimously. Case No. ZAM/00-3 A zoning map amendment to rezone from Agricultural Preservation, AP, to Single Family Residential District, RA, a 55,524 -square -foot parcel at 7970 Neal Ave. N., Lot 3, Block 2, Neal Meadows. Wesley Investments Inc., Jon Whitcomb, representing Michael G. Gibson, applicant. Case No. SUB/00-34 A subdivision of Lot 3, Block 2 Neal Meadows, 7970 Neal Ave. N. into three lots - of 31,254, 12,001 and 11,999 square feet. Wesley Investments Inc., Jon Whitcomb, representing Michael G. Gibson, applicant. Mr. Whitcomb was present. He noted that all three lots meet City guidelines. The lots will be connected to city water and sewer. Street frontage is on Creekside Crossing. The existing main house will remain. Mr. Whitcomb said he will be working with City Engineer Klayton Eckles regarding utility easements. Only two of the lots are stubbed into city services; the applicant will have to pay the cost of providing the extra service. Steve Ogberg, 7940 Neal Ave., expressed a concern that with all new development bringing sewer up from Creekside, it might be difficult to provide services to his lot in the future. Mr. Whitcomb said services will be available in the future as development occurs. Mr. Fontaine advised Mr. Ogberg to speak with Mr. Eckles about his concerns. Mr. Rhemberger, seconded by Mrs. Bealka, moved approval of ZAM/00-3 all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Wald, moved approval of SUB/00-34 as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. V/00-35 A variance to the front yard setback for construction of a deck at 219 Sherburne St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dan Magnuson, applicant. Mr. Magnuson was present. He explained the deck would be 21 feet from the property line. The neighbor to the north is closer to the property line than he is requesting. Mr. Gag, seconded by Mr. Middleton, moved approval as conditioned; all in favor. Case No. SUP/00-36 A special use permit to transfer the operation of the Ann Bean Mansion Bed and Breakfast at 319 W. Pine St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. John Wubbels, applicant. 5 MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Zoning Map Amendment Rezoning a 55,254 Square Foot Site from Agricultural Preservation, AP, to Single Family, RA. Case No. ZAM/00-3. Date: June 7, 2000 The request is to rezone a 55,254 square foot site Single Family Residential and to subdivide the site into three lots consistent with the RA standards. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with existing area land use and Comprehensive Land Use. This application requires Joint Board approval. Recommendation: Approval of rezoning. Attachment: Application and map. CPC Action on 6/12/00: +8-0 approval Case No: _f Date Filed: t? Fee Paid: Receipt No.: PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED: FEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance $70 CITY OF STILLWATER _ Conditional or Special Use Permit $50/200 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET Design Review $25 STILLWATER, MN 55082 Planned Unit Development* $500 Variance $70/20C Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* $300 Subdivision*_�1-t�$100t$ Resubdivision Total Fee ff *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see ai��het The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project -7770 A/7,_1 Assessor's Parcel No. 30631f`7-0 1/0"21 Zoning District ?-/ Description of Project lc -f": I"-- 5�1�-� uisia "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner G. Osen. Representative_ /� ��' Mailing Address_ `7i 7c7 ,C - Mailing Address 29,20. Gc. 264 Telephone No. C -S'1 Telephone No 30 f�� Signature./ l Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRI TION Lot Size (dimensions) S x 1'7�� Land Area — .zT� Height of Buildings: Sto ies Feet Principal _� fid' Accessory Revised 5/22/97 Total building floor Area sq. ft. Existing _sq. ft. Proposed 2 qS� sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. c Number of off street parking spaces provided . 3 1� I OAh P -I -IW P -11W Pulow IMcinity Map I 0 496 — Scale in Feet P-IjW R -IOW RIM or Aj` n7N IN n nIN rAN r3ON T29Ng .4 T -19N T29N r &N T-1 'IN" T2 -IN P -I -IW P -11W Pulow IMcinity Map I 0 496 — Scale in Feet or Aj` MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Subdivide 55,254 Square Feet of Land into Three Single Family Lots (Case No. SUB/00-34) Date: June 7, 2000 The request is to subdivide a 55,254 square foot lot into three lots of 31,254, 11,999 and 12,001 square feet. The zoning for the site is Agricultural Preservation, AP. If the zoning amendment is approved (ZAM/00-3), the lot would be zoned Single Family Residential, RA, requiring 10,000 square feet per lot. The proposed lot division meets the lot size and dimension requirements of the RA district. The application will be reviewed for comment by the Joint City Township Planning Board Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall pay in lieu park dedication fee for two lots and trunk utility fees. 2. Comments from the City Engineer regarding easements, grading and utilities shall be met before final plat approval. 3. The owner shall show evidence that the Creekside Crossing developer has an agreement to be compensated for the road and utility improvement costs benefitting this property. 4. Developer impact fees shall be paid before final plat recording. Recommendation: Approval. Attachments: Application and subdivision plans. CPC Action on 6/12/00: +8-0 approval PA 1. Name: Address: 2. 3. 4. PRE-AP?LIrATipN FORM Z,, . Telephone: 657- YYi> -77 () r - —a,) Name of proposed development: Aleod 40 %�,,% ,L Number of lots: Legal description: fi Size of property in acres: 7_2 Current use of property: Proposed use of property: Current zoning of property: Proposed zoning of property: Natural resources located on property: Historic resources located on property: 5• Submittal Requirements: Sketch Plan (SP) Applicant's Signature - Date /, �� \ � ➢ �a3€E •`:ter,+. zz ZZ y rr \ __4i v _=_ �' ' ,!► gat �' ,"•..•-..,___....- .A F� zZ III � cg I I -- — _-—.-------.— _— — — — — —— a_a r . �e aE �jsE _�lael3 .ef i¢aa:z s_,i_ 53 e:•: _, aF;:_�S:?%,' `j= '-A � Ic ._ � 'L=:. � ;_'-�E%- sFf:&- a •¢il ;:.Fr '' � � � � z 7 " ` � ', x •� is s S E3 'a :s: is'T3; ;s' a _ '_; L '": 1x z i ' m S•` = 1> � � -"• -. '� � r �:;;Ct a`��5� � 333' .. � `. a ..{ • � ; � � o tit 0 OM 53 g � : Ba �'; � � zy � •mac Stillwater Greenway Plant Inventory & Planting Recommendations Katharine D. Widin, Ph.D. Forestry Consultant City of Stillwater 9/5/00 I. Introduction - The area of the proposed greenway is along the east side of County Rd. 15 (Manning Ave.) from Hwy. 36 to Hwy. 96, and along the south side of Hwy. 96 from Manning Ave. to Hwy. 5. The greenway area is a 100 foot right-of-way along the highway borders. This right-of-way will be used for bike/walking trails and buffer areas between the roadways and existing or future development. The plant inventory and planting recommendation project was undertaken to provide information and recommendations for future plantings of trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses to be done along the greenway corridor. II. Plant Inventory - A survey was done he greenway area in the summer of 2040 to determine what types of plants already existed in or near the right-of-way. The survey revealed that few areas exist which stall have undisturbed native vegetation. Some of the area along the greenway is existing single family residential landscaping, other areas border agricultural fields, some areas would be considered old field (a meadow -like area which was previously cropped or grazed) and a few sites are lakes or wetland areas with cattails and other emergent wetland vegetation. In a few areas there are native trees, shrubs and wildflowers; however, most of the area has been disturbed and vegetation has been planted in the right-of-way. III. Planting Recommendations a. Landscape Elements Lberming (will there be berms in all development areas?) 2. tree removal within right-of-way (in which areas will trees need to be removed?) 3. existing fencing (will this be removed or used as a landscape element, e.g. split rail fencing?) 4. wetlands and lakes (will bridges be built or how will this be handled?) 5. buffer along whole trail or pockets of plantings(?) (are land use plans known for whole corridor?) b. Planting Recommendations 1. plant lists for different soil types/moisture regimes: trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses (can include pictures of different plants) 2. recommendations/photographs of planting style preferred for each type of land use - single family residential, commercial (?), open space 3. recommendations/photographs of landscape elements to be included MEMO 15 - To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Annexation of Expansion Area Lands Date: September 7, 2000 Three areas are being considered for annexation. The areas are shown on the attached map and listed and described below: 1. Brown's Creek Park. This area is owned by the City and currently improved as a frisbee golf course. 2. Minnesota Zephyr Right of Way. A portion of the railroad right of way is currently in the City East of Hazel Street and between McKusick and Neal Avenue). This annexation would complete annexation of the railroad right of way in the City (from CR 15 to Downtown). 3. Boutwell Road. With the annexation of the Phase II area north of Boutwell Road, a portion of Boutwell right of way will be in the City. The Comprehensive Plan calls for future improvements to Boutwell. If Boutwell is in the City, the City will receive state road money that could help with its future repair (see memo from City Engineer). After consideration of the annexation, it can be recommended to the City Council as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Proposed annexation map. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor, City Council., City Administrator FROM Klayton Eckles City Engineer/PWD DATE: 8/31/2000 SUBJECT: Boutwell Road State Aid Street designation DISCUSSION , Currently parts of Boutwell Road are in the City of Stillwater and parts are in the township. Ultimately all of Boutwell will be in the city, but it will happen over a 15 year period unless we accelerate the process. When the U.S. Homes project goes forward, there will be a need to improve parts of Boutwell Road to accommodate additional traffic. These improvements will be the developer's and the city's responsibility. When the street is ultimately upgraded it will probably be slightly widened, curb added and a trail or sidewalk system added_ However staff envisions preserving the rural character of the street to large extent. (narrow lanes, no parking, and a curving design). Since Boutwell Road will act as a local collector street, it is a prime candidate to be put on the city's State Aid system. Doing so would allow the city to collect state gas tax money for reconstruction and maintenance. As soon as we designate it as a state aid street we would begin collecting up to $100,000 a year for these improvements. In order for the street to be so designated, it must be located within the city's corporate boundaries. Therefore it would be necessary for the city to annex all of Boutwell Road right of way from County Road 12 to Manning. Of course this would mean all maintenance and plowing activities would become the responsibility of the city.. RECOMMENDATION In order to proceed with State Aid designation of Boutwell Road, council should first send the issue for discussion to the joint board. Staff recommends Council pass a motion directing Staff to do so. U MEMO � y To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Trail Plan Date: September 7, 2000 Enclosed for your review is the draft Comprehensive City Trail Plan. Direction for preparation of the plan is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan considers all types of nonmotorized trails, sidewalks, multipurpose separated trails, on street bike trail and nature trails. The purpose of the plan is to provide overall policy direction for trail improvements through City capital improvements and development trail requirements. Commissioner's should read the report and check out proposed trails in your neighborhood. The plan is being presented to the Commission for your information and comments. Over the next month, a joint public hearing will be set with the Parks Board to receive public comment on the draft plan. After the public hearing, the Parks Board and Planning Commission can make any changes and recommend it for adoption to the City Council. Attachment: Draft Comprehensive City Trail Plan. Comprehensive Trail Plan for City of Stillwater Community Development Department Fall 2000 EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. KEYELEMENTS OF THE PLAN.................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION - OVERVIEW AND PLANNING PROCESS.......................................................................... 2 EXISTINGCONDITIONS........................................................................................................................................ 3 UNDERSTANDINGTHE USER.............................................................................................................................. 5 BICYCLISTS.......................................................................................:....................................................................... 5 UNDERSTANDING THE STREETS....................................................................................................................... 7 TRAIL DESIGN: BIKEWAY TYPES AND DESIGN ELEMENTS..................................................................... 8 TYPESOF FACILITIES................................................................................................................................................. 8 SIDEWALKS AND BICYCLISTS.................................................................................................................................. 13 INTERSECTIONDESIGN....................................................................................................................... ... 13 TRAILSURFACES.............................................................................................................:....................................... 14 Disadvantages..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Advantages........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Disadvantages..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Advantages.......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Disadvantages. .. - — . ... .................................................................................................... .................................... 16 GOALS AND STANDARDS.........................................................................................................................,......... 16 OVERALL TRAIL SYSTEM GOALS............................................................................................................................. 16 TRAILDESIGN GOALS ..........--... ......................................................... .................................................................. 16 SPECIFICLOCATION GOALS..................................................--............................................................................... 17 THE COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN.............................................................................................................. 17 MAINTENANCE.................................................................................................................................................:...... 18 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................................... 20 The following are a set of funding and implementation guidelines:................................................................... 20 MAINTENANCE........................................................................................................................................................ 20 BASICREFERENCES: ............................................................................................................................................ 21 APPENDIX A: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT GUIDELINES FOR TRAILS ............................ 22 GENERALGUIDE: .................................................................................................................................................... 22 SPECIFIC GUIDE: ..........................................................................................22 APPENDIX B: MINNESOTA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Executive Summary Key Elements of the Plan The goal of the Stillwater Comprehensive Trail Plan is to increase pedestrian and bicycle transportation and safety. Walking and bicycling should play a greater part in the Stillwater transportation system. Bicycles are an efficient and inexpensive form of transportation which, with increased use, could improve livability of the community, improve Stillwater's air quality, and reduce roadway congestion. The history of bicycle and pedestrian planning in Stillwater proves that without a plan, development can move into the area with little consideration for a holistic approach to pathway design. Major barriers and problems exist which deter the great majority of people, including active recreational cyclists, from using the bicycle as a regular means of transportation. Many of these barriers and problems have been identified: • Gaps in the system: How to complete the bicycle/pedestrian system and connect destinations. • Institutionalization: How to include "bicycle thinking" in all City transportation and Public Works projects and coordinate efforts among City departments such as Parks Board, Planning and Development, Public Works and Transportation. • Parking: How to get parking facilities that allow bicyclists to lock their bikes securely. • Attitude: How to promote the concept of "share the road" (and hike and multi -use trails) to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The Plan concludes with a proposed network of trails, a maintenance scheme, and an implementation strategy. INTRODUCTION - Overview and Planning Process The Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Plan of the City of Stillwater sets forth a Comprehensive Citywide Trail Plan and long-term program to guide future planning, design and implementation of a trail system for residents for recreational and non-automotive travel. Central to the plan is linking and interconnecting neighborhoods within the city and further developing and emphasizing the downtown and natural areas as a focal point of community activity. Additionally, the Plan proposes linking the community-oriented trail system with the existing and proposed Washington County and State trail systems. For clarity purposes, in this Plan the term trail is used to reflect numerous possible configurations of routes designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and other non- motorized users. Throughout this plan, the term `pedestrian' can refer to walkers and wheelchairs. Likewise, the term `bicycle' can refer to all modes of people-powered transportation requiring a hard, usually paved, surface. This group can include, but is not limited to, bicyclists, rollerbladers, rollerskiers and skateboarders, etc. A trail may be an independent right-of-way or easement with a surface width of 8 to 12 feet. Other times a trail may be an existing or proposed sidewalk designated by signage as a component of a bicycle or pedestrian route. The Comprehensive Trail Plan has been developed to be consistent with existing and future residential developments included in the city's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Through a process of surveying existing roadways and trails, identifying destinations, adopting planning guidelines, and proposing new trails, we hope to achieve the Parks, Riverfront and Trails goals as outlined in Comprehensive Plan. These include: ■ "Designate an extensive network of trails and pathway corridors." • "Preserve and provide visual access to quality landscapes through trail location." • "Provide alternative means to reach city parks, county parks, regional parks, state parks and other community destinations." • "Preserve and enhance public owned ravines." • "Maximize the city's recreation opportunities." Further, regional plans such as the Washington County Trail Program, the Brown's Creek Wetland District, the City of Oak Park Heights and state-funded trails have been considered and anticipated in this Plan. The Trail Plan stems from the community's increasing desire to enjoy enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities and coincides with societal needs of reducing dependence upon the automobile for inter-city mobility. Walking, hiking, and bicycling are recreational activities that can be enjoyed by persons of all ages, in either groups or as individuals. Based on a resident opinion survey there is significant community interest in improving the walkway/pathway system in and around Stillwater. Pathways add to the "quality of life" and "sense of community" of an area and to the relationship of one neighborhood to another. Stillwater residents are not alone in having a desire for more walking and bicycling opportunities. Across the nation more cities, town and villages are adopting trail plans and implementing those plans. The development of the Trail Plan is an outgrowth of the work of the Planning Commission, Parks Board and an intern under the direction of the Community Development Director, which has established the overall Plan layout. The committees are composed of elected 2 and appointed city officials. Input has also come from numerous civic organizations and private citizens representing both the interests of their neighborhoods and the overall city. Late June 2000 marked the beginning of a series of meetings between the Planning Committee and the Parks Board including interested residential input concerning pedestrian/bicycle trail activities. During these meetings a variety of issues were discussed relating to the scope of the overall plan. Topics including trail relationships to existing natural open spaces such as wetlands and floodplains, man-made open spaces such as parks and re/detention areas, and safety considerations including the concerns of handicap accessibility were discussed. Priority routes or linkages through the city, the nature of the trail system and trail safety, and future plan funding mechanisms and land acquisition have also been deliberated throughout the process. Following review of the proposed Comprehensive Trail Plan by the Planning Commission, the Parks Board and the public, the City Council will consider and adopt the Plans. The Plan will then be the official policy for providing future trail improvements. Existing Conditions The planning process began with a survey of the existing trailway network. This process involved data collection from multiple resources including field surveys, aerial photography survey, as well as data retrieval from recent sidewalk improvement programs. The data compilation resulted in the following map of existing trails (figure 1). Pedestrians and bicyclists already use all existing roadways and trails, but consideration for pedestrian and bicycle mobility is inadequate in most instances because facilities to encourage safe use of bicycles are not routinely designed into new or renovated roadways. Study of the existing trails map began our analytical process. We noticed fragmentation throughout the network. Although the existing city (old Stillwater) holds the largest amount of sidewalks; certain areas can benefit with the addition of new sidewalks. The north hill (-5.5 miles existing, —6.0 miles without), in particular, could benefit in the same manner the south hill (-6.5 miles, 3.0 miles without) did during their latest sidewalk improvement. Another concern within the city is the degree to which our existing sidewalks comply to the design standards of the Americans' with Disabilities Act (ADA). Design standards such as slope, cross -slope and curb ramp accessibility are a few to be assessed for future improvement and compliance with ADA regulations. Many of the existing sidewalks do not meet these standards. Importantly, our next examination was sidewalk and trail way networks to -and -from community schools within the school district required walking areas. Notice the walker area as the thin black circular line surrounding the schools (figure 1). Students required to walk live within one mile of secondary educational facilities and three-quarters of a mile from elementary educational facilities. When overlaying the required walking area over the city existing trails map, it is startling to realize how much of our city falls within this polygon. Providing safe and comfortable walking routes to -and -from schools for every community should be at the forefront of future development and improvement plans. Beyond the `old Stillwater' trail network lies various city and county trails that provide the foundation for improvements. These existing trails serve as a corner stone or framework, creating necessary linkages between the downtown and the expansion area. So dear to the hearts a of many Minnesotian's are our many lakes. Stillwater is no less fortunate in our abundance of lakes. Therefore, we should look to increase our educational and recreational opportunities along our many lakes. Circumnavitable trails around city lakes can serve as passive recreation as well as provide an interpretive educational experience. The heavily used trail along Lake McKusick provides a focus of activity for the immediate Oak Glen community. We look to expand this trail into a network for safe, continuous pedestrian navigation through all of Stillwater's communities. We found no designated on -road city operated (there are county facilities) bicycle routes within the city. Where there are no designated facilities, no bicycle signage exists. Stillwater also contains large tracks of right-of-way and easement greenway corridors with no real public access. All communities could enjoy an enhanced natural experience with designated access and trail ways through our greenway corridors. The Legends and Liberty developments are the first in a multi -phase annexation and development within the city expansion area. As development occurs during Stillwater's many phases of annexation, developers are required to meet our standards for trail design. It is essential that we create a comprehensive plan including non -confrontational passage between developing neighborhoods. As development occurs and Stillwater remains a focus for Metropolitan activity, the safety of our roads for pedestrians and bicyclists is a growing concern. Aside from harassment from motorists, general traffic volumes have increased to a breaking point. The days of going for a leisurely county walk or rollerblade along pastoral Boutwell road are dwindling with ever increasing traffic. Lack of space is threatening safe recreation along Stillwater's roadways promoting an unhealthy community. Meeting pedestrians' and bicyclists' needs should be a city-wide objective within transportation related departments. This policy is a major part of increasing the acceptance of bicycling as a legitimate transportation mode. Design standards which safely accommodate bicycles should be applied to all new street and roadway projects. A cost effective way to increase ridership levels is to make on -street bicycling conditions better for commuters. Providing adequate street width to accommodate both bicycles and automobiles safely can encourage more commuting and utilitarian bicycle trips. Facility improvements such as intersection modification, connections between routes, signal actuators, and comprehensive signing improvements can make bicycling more inviting. Streets designated as bicycle routes at one time can be restriped or otherwise modified with wide curb lanes and a minimum number of stop signs. These routes should also meet both neighborhood and cyclists' needs through the incorporation of traffic management schemes that reduce traffic speeds, cut -through traffic, and the differential in speeds between motorized and non -motorized modes. These traffic management schemes can offset undesirable increases in speed from wider lane widths in some cases. Management strategies will be discussed throughout the following sections. Understanding the User Bicyclists Bicyclists have a wide range of abilities. Some are advanced: these cyclists bicycle frequently, are in relatively good physical condition and may have special training. Other 5 cyclists may not get out on their bicycle often enough to really feel comfortable in traffic, or perhaps do not have strong physical capabilities. Child cyclists are an especially vulnerable group. They often do not understand traffic rules, are unable to gauge the speed of approaching vehicles, and are not as physically coordinated as adults are. In an effort to better understand bicycle users groups and their specific needs for bicycle facilities, a system of classifying cyclists by their age and ability has been developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Group A — Advanced Bicyclists: Experienced riders who can operate under most traffic conditions, they comprise the majority of the current users of collector and arterial streets and are best served by the following: • Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street and highway system. • The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with minimum delays. • Sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder to reduce the need for either the bicyclist or the motor vehicle operator to change position when passing. Group B — Basic Bicyclists: These are casual or new adult and most teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles. Some will develop greater skills and progress to the advanced level, but there will always be many millions of basic bicyclists. They prefer: • Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct route; either low -speed, low traffic -volume streets or designated bicycle facilities. • Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets (bike lanes or shoulders), or on separate bike paths. Group C - Children Cyclists: Pre -teen riders whose roadway use is initially monitored by parents, eventually they are accorded independent access to the system. They and their parents prefer the following: • Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas, including schools, recreation facilities, shopping, or other residential areas. • Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and volumes. • Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets, or on separate bike paths. Bicycling takes much more coordination and physical skill than does driving an automobile. Cyclists vary widely in age and ability. The Bicycle Federation of America estimates that only five percent of cyclists are advanced, and that ninety-five percent of all cyclists fall under the basic and child cyclist categories. By understanding the needs of these cyclists, engineers are better able to choose an appropriate facility type and design, while also considering current roadway conditions and limitations. 6 Understanding the Streets Planning and designing for bicyclists involves different approaches for different situations and purposes. For instance, an arterial street requires a different approach than a residential street. Similarly, the approach taken will vary with intention. Here are some commonly found situations and the approaches most often used. Arterial streets are among the busiest streets in any community. Experienced bicyclists often prefer arterials for their traffic controls and directness. Other riders tend to avoid them, if possible, because of the traffic. The benefits for bicyclists include the aforementioned traffic controls and directness. Arterials, for instance; may be the only streets that break certain barriers like railroad yards, freeways, and rivers. But arterials increasingly provide other benefits to cyclists as well. Many popular destination—schools, worksites, shops --can only be found along arterials. For destination -oriented bicyclists, therefore, using arterials may be the only alternative. Basic options for improving arterial streets include: • Wide curb lanes • Bike lanes 2. Collector streets are generally less busy and have fewer lanes than arterial streets. Often, the lighter traffic makes for a less stressful ride for many bicyclists and the less "hardcore" riders tend to gravitate towards such streets. While collector streets typically have less traffic than arterials, they still — by definition — go somewhere. Unlike many residential streets, they can reach destinations that are important to bicyclists. In some cases, improving a collector that parallels a major arterial can provide a viable alternative route for many bicyclists. Basic improvements for collector streets include the same measures as for arterial streets but they may be easier to implement: • Wide curb lanes ■ Bike lanes • Bike routes 3. Residential streets typically don't warrant special provisions like bike lanes or wide curb lanes. However, given that they harbor young bicyclists and casual family riders, there are some important issues to consider. For example, several key types of residential street bike/car crashes involve bicyclists and motorists being unable to see each other in time to avoid a collision.' In some intersections, for example, their views are blocked by vegetation and fences. In addition, residential streets that serve as commuter routes can often benefit from traffic calming approaches. The purpose of traffic calming is to slow and discourage throught traffic in neighborhoods. Therefore, residential streets may benefit from basic sight distance improvements and, where warranted, traffic calming measures: • Sight distance 0 Traffic calming 4. Rural roads and highways are roads that travel through an area with rural land uses. Typically, it has no curbs, gutters, or adjacent sidewalks; it may have drainage ditches or swales, however. Some rural highways are trunk lines through highly -traveled corridors and, as a result, carry very high volumes of traffic. Others serve a few farms or serve as "back ways" between two destinations otherwise served by major highways. Virtually all rural roads carry high speed traffic and this has serious implications for safe bicycling. Being hit by a high speed motor vehicle brings with it a high risk of death. Fortunately, such incidents are relatively rare—probably at least in part because rural bicycle traffic is low and the riders tend to be skilled—but they are a serious concern when planning for bicycling in either rural or newly developing areas. On very low volume rural roads, little improvement is generally needed for bicyclists. If such roads are popular bicycling routes, eliminating basic roadway hazards and, perhaps, installing route signs may be all that is needed. On higher volume rural roads – particularly those with significant percentages of truck traffic – providing adequate smoothly -paved shoulders is one of the most helpful improvements possible. Here are some of the most useful measures: • Paved shoulders • Interstate highway policies • Rural route mapping Trail Design: Bikeway Types and Design Elements There are many books and papers dedicated to trail/bikeway design and engineering. A federally supported guide published by the American Association of State Highway and - Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provides nation-wide standards and guidelines, as do most states' Department of Transportation. In 1996, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) published a comprehensive engineering and planning guide called, Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines. We have adopted this guide as a standard for engineering for trails the city designs in the future (Appendix A). We will also require developers to design to our standard, and hence, the standards set forth by MnDOT. Lobbyists for the Americans with Disabilities Act have also published a set of design standards for compliance with ADA regulations (Appendix B). We will design to achieve these standards in effort to supply the public with the most universal of all recreation. The following section provides general recommendations for selecting roadway design treatments to accommodate bicyclists. Specific dimensions are suggested for the width of the recommended facility type. These recommendations reflect the current state of practice in the design of bicycle friendly roadways. Types of Facilities According to MnDOT there are six types of on -road facilities to accommodate bicycle traffic: 1. Bicycle Lanes, 2. Combination Bus/Bicycle Lanes, 3. Shared Lanes, 4. Wide Curb or Wide Ooutside Lanes, 5. Shoulders, 6. Traffic Calmed -Roadways. The manual also describes path planning and engineering in great detail. Refer to Chapters four and five of the MnDOT Bikeways Manual (Appendix A) for guidelines on these types of facilities. 1. Bicycle Lanes Bike lanes should always be one-way facilities carrying traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic, and should not be placed between parking spaces and the curb. They encourage cycling by providing a visible reminder that provisions have been made to a particular roadway to accommodate cyclists. Bicycle lanes offer the cyclist more space than other on -road bikeways, thereby addressing the need for increased maneuverability for basic and child cyclists. The MnDOT guide finds that field studies confirm bike lanes have a strong channelizing effect on motor vehicles and bicycles. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote the orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. Bike lane signs and pavement markings support this effect. Bike lane stripes can increase bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain in the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve towards opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists. The impact of marked bike lanes is particularly important for riders with less confidence of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles. These lanes offer a designated and visible space for bicyclists and can be a significant factor in route choice. Motorists also benefit from the channelizing effect of bike lanes, because bike lanes increase the total capacities of highways carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic. The installation of bicycle lanes between residential areas and shopping / office areas is one important factor in encouraging local citizens to bicycle commute. Figure 2. Standard Cross Section: Bicycle Lanes (PACTS, 1995). Bicycle lanes are always one-way facilities and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. On two-way streets, bicycle lanes should always be located on both sides of the road. Bicycle lanes should be installed on the right-hand side of one-way streets, unless installing the lane on the left-hand side can reduce conflicts. The standard width of bicycle lanes in Stillwater should be five feet wide, with four feet being the minimum width allowable (exclusive of the gutter pan). Bike lane pavement and sub -base should always have the same depth and quality as the adjacent roadway. Bike lanes are not required to have curb and gutter. 2. Paved Shoulders Paved shoulders for bicycles serve the needs of all types of cyclists in rural areas. In urban areas, paved shoulders may be preferable for group A (advanced) cyclists on arterial roadways with high speeds (over 50 mph). When designed to National and/or MnDOT standards for bicycle facilities, paved shoulders can be signed as bicycle routes. Shoulders should be a minimum of four feet to six feet wide to accommodate cyclists. The ideal width should be dependent upon traffic volumes and speed limit. As with bicycle lanes, paved shoulders should have the same pavement thickness and sub -base as the adjacent roadway, should have the same cross slope as the adjacent roadway, and should be regularly swept and kept free of potholes. 4 min. tart& W"h and number of lents varil-, W min. Figure 3. Standard Cross Section: Paved Shoulders (PACTS, 1995). The Stillwater City limits and annexation area is fortunate to already have many roadways with wide paved shoulders. If the road is desired for bicycle travel, the existing 10 paved shoulders should either be striped as bicycle lanes or signed as bicycle routes, given that their current condition is adequate and that regular maintenance needs are met. 3. Wide Outside Lanes Outside lanes that are wider than a standard twelve feet travel lane can provide more space for cyclists and easier passing for motorists. Wide outside lanes best accommodate group A (advanced) cyclists, as these riders are more comfortable operating directly in traffic. '2 shared usi lane akaosd aes ,ane •7 t4' 74' Figure 4. Standard Cross Section: Wide Outside Lanes (PACTS, 1995). Wide outside lanes can serve as an interim bicycle facility on roadways where the adequate width for a bicycle lane is not yet achievable (every effort should be made to develop standard bicycle lanes where possible). The wide outside lane is always the furthest right-hand lane, and should optimally be fourteen feet wide. Wide outside lanes should never be more than fifteen feet wide, as additional width may allow motorists to pass each other on the right. The engineer should also consider that the wider lane will encourage faster motor vehicle speeds. Wide outside lanes are not required to have curb and gutter. 4. Multi -Use Trails Multi -use trails are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and built either within an independent right-of-way (such as a utility or railroad right-of-way), or along specially acquired easements across private lands. Such trails cater to a variety of users, including cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, rollerbladers, rollerskiers and wheelchairs. Possible conflicts 11 between these user groups must be considered during the design phase, as cyclists often travel at a faster speed than other users. L YO' wida 32'-14` wads optimal Figure 5. Standard Cross Section: Multi -Use Trail (PACTS, 1995). The AASHTO Guide and MnDOT define a bicycle path as: A pathway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Two-way multi -use paths should be at least 10 ft. wide. Where possible, especially if bicycle or pedestrian traffic is expected to be high, paths should be 12 ft wide. Given the variety of users of most bicycle paths, 8 -ft. widths will generally not be adequate heavily used trails. Heavy use is defined by AASHTO as 25 cyclists and 25 pedestrians per hour; above these volumes paths should be 12-13 ft wide. Movement along existing pathways does not approach heavy classification, though it may in the future at particular times of day. One- way bicycle paths have limited application, as without strict enforcement they will be used as two-way facilities. If they are provided, however, they should be at least 5 ft. wide. Child and beginning cyclists prefer separate bicycle paths for recreational purposes. These facilities can be aesthetically pleasing and direct. Multi -use paths can help cyclists and pedestrians avoid harassment and motorist threat in urban areas, although they sometimes do not allow access to important destinations in congested areas. Off-road trails offer a convenient and pleasant alternative, as well as an opportunity for a novice cyclist to get some riding experience in a less threatening environment. Separate paths must be constructed with adequate width and markings, according to MnDOT standards, in those locations where they are perhaps the choice available to provide bicycle transportation and recreation corridors. 12 One of the greatest advantages the Parks Board and the community receive from multi- use trails is a truly universal recreation. Multi -use trails include benefits for all ages and multi user groups. Proper multi -use trail design can promote compatibility between the different user groups they attract. An important aspect of which we should not loose sight is that these trails exist for the fun of the community. As long as users remember that everyone is there for the same objective, guard should be relaxed and conflict between user groups can be remedied as quickly as possible. Proper signage including trail etiquette and guidelines can be implemented. Anyone complaining about the safety of a trail associated with user group interest should be reminded these facilities are built to accommodate all types of recreation that would normally be a part of our roadway network. Be reminded of the many conflicts pedestrians and bicyclists encounter when travelling next to automobiles. 5. Bicycle Routes A bicycle route is a "suggested way" for a cyclist to get from a point of origin to a destination. Such a route may be preferable for bicycling for a number of reasons including directness, scenery, less congestion and lower vehicle speed limits. Bicycle routes may be used by all type of cyclists. A street does not necessarily have to be widened in order to be designated as a bicycle route. A road with standard twelve -foot wide lanes (or less) can be designated as a bike route with the appropriate signage. 6. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking, including provisions for bike racks, should be provided at grocery stores, park and recreation facilities, natural areas, office and employment centers, shopping malls, schools, the library, and civic buildings. Sidewalks and Bicyclists Early bicycle path efforts were aimed at multiple use of sidewalks as bicycle paths. While in some instances this type of path may be necessary, in most cases it should be avoided. Sidewalks are generally unsafe because they put the cyclist in conflict with pedestrians, utility posts, signposts, and motorists using driveways. A cyclist on a sidewalk is generally not visible or noticed by a motorist, so that when the cyclists suddenly emerges at intersections or driveways, the driver could be caught off guard. Cyclists are safer when they are allowed to function as roadway vehicle operators, rather than as pedestrians. Intersection Design Additional measures at trail/roadway intersections can provide for more predictable movements of trail users. There are usually two main considerations at trail/roadway intersections: 1) keeping out unauthorized motor vehicle uses, and 2) physical design of the trail crossing to reduce conflicts with motor vehicle traffic. 13 The following basic elements can be used to achieve safer junctions: segregated trail user lanes, stop signs and stop bars, entrance bollards, pedestrian crosswalk striping, and warning signage for motorists. This design reduces conflict by encouraging the trail user to use caution when crossing the roadway, encouraging the motorist to be prepared for the crossing, generally reducing the confusion that is often a problem at intersections through a logical structure for trail users. Trail Surfaces Typical pavement design for off-road multi -use trails should be based upon the specific loading and soil conditions for each project. Trails designed to serve bicycle transportation purposes should be composed of a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete. One important concern for asphalt multi -use trails is the deterioration of trail edges. Installation of a geotextile fabric beneath a layer of aggregate base can help maintain the edge of a trail. Some of the common trail surfaces listing their advantages and disadvantages are listed below. 1. Mowed Grass Advantages • Natural Material • Low Maintenance • Can be altered for further improvements • Easitst for volunteers to build and maintain • Retains snow cover on ski trails • Cost: mow monthly minimum Disadvantages • If vegetative cover is lost, may rut/erode when wet • Not an `all-weather' surface • Can be uneven and bumpy • Not ADA accessible 2. Wood Chip Advantages • A soft, spongy surface • Good for walking and jogging • Reduces soil compaction • Natural Material • Inexpensive ($5 per 1x8') Disadvantages • Decomposes under heat/moisture • Erodes heavily on slopes greater than 10% • Requires yearly replenishment • Not typically accessible 3. Gravel Aggregate Advantages • Soft but firm surface • Natural material 14 • Accommodates multiple -use • Moderate cost ($8 per 1x8') Disadvantages • Surface can rut/erode with heavy rain on slopes • Regular maintenance required to keep consistent surface • Replenishing stones may be a long-term expense 4. Soil Cement Advantages • Looks natural • More durable than native soil • Smoother surface • Can be ADA accessible • Inexpensive ($5 per 1x8') Disadvantages • Surface may wear unevenly • Freeze/thaw may have effects • May erode if not installed properly • Can be difficult to achieve correct mix 5. Asphalt Advantages • Hard surface supports all types of use • No trail erosion • Low maintenance • ADA accessible Disadvantages • High installation cost ($15 per 1x8') • Costly to repair • Not natural surface • Freeze/thaw can crack surface • Heavy construction vehicles need access 6. Concrete Advantages • Hardest surface • Supports multiple use • Lowest maintenance • Resists freeze/thaw • No trail erosion • ADA accessible 15 Disadvantages • High installation cost ($40 per 1x8') • Costly to repair • Not natural looking surface • Heavy construction vehicles need access Goals and Standards Overall Trail System Goals After examination of the previously discussed factors, we have set up a set of goals central to the Comprehensive Trail Plan. They are as follows: • Develop a continuous comprehensive "walkable community" system, including both on and off-street routes, that makes bicycle and pedestrian travel a fun, safe and enjoyable continuous ease of movement throughout Stillwater • Develop a comprehensive trail system that traverses the community both east - west and north - south and link the local trail system to existing and proposed regional trails. • Increase levels of bicycling for commuting and utilitarian trips as a cost-effective and efficient alternative in the transportation system. • Establish and maintain appropriate and safe standards and guidelines for bicycle facilities, programs, and projects. • Concentrate providing safe pedestrian/bicycle access to downtown's historical district and facilities along the Saint Croix River. • Expand and link the trail system between neighborhoods and to major activity and work centers in addition to local destinations throughout the city routing pedestrians and bicyclists off major roadways wherever possible. • Where adequate, uninterrupted right-of-way is available, separate bicycle paths can be used to provide long, continuous routes for commuting or recreation trips, access to destinations not otherwise available to bicyclists, and as cut-throughs between buildings and other breaks in the street network. • Provide pedestrian access to both active and passive recreational facilities, as well as access to Stillwater's natural areas. • Ensure the construction of trails in new development to provide for trail linkages consistent with the adopted Citywide Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Plan. • The city should continue to complete and enhance the initially identified essential sidewalk links in those neighborhoods lacking sidewalks. • Ensure accessibility of transportation facilities in accordance with the spirit and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Trail Design Goals • Emphasis should be on maintaining existing sidewalks and adding new facilities in residential areas where demand dictates. 16 • Provide adequate road width on Stillwater streets to accommodate bicycle lanes where separate bicycle lanes are not feasible. • Retrofit existing roadways to accommodate bicycles. Work with width of existing city roads to create designated bicycle lanes. • Encourage regional and state agencies to promote enhanced design standards for regional trails passing through the city. • Coordinate local improvements with those of outside agencies to accelerate timing of trails through the city. + Promote compatibility on multi -use trail using proper etiquette guidelines. • Adhere to Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines. Specific Location Goals • Examine existing city bicycle lane signage. • Examine potential trail sites noting their historical and natural setting such as the Minnesota Zephyr right of way, city ravines, greenways and their ability to connect downtown and the new expansion area. • Integrate McKusick Ravine into the trail system as a natural extension of the McKusick Lake Trail into the downtown. • Establish trail within right of way to circumnavigate Lake McKusick and Long Lake. • Establish dock -like or appropriate trail across Brown's Creek wetland to compliment the Brown's Creek trail system behind the Creekside Crossing development. • Encourage MnDOT to provide continuous bicycle paths along the Frontage Road from CR 15 to TH95 and along 95 from Oak Park Heights to TH 95 through downtown. • Encourage the development of a separate path or bike route along Neal Avenue. • Encourage the development of a separate path or bike route along Boutwell Road. • Enhance and expand sidewalks in the north hill area. • Encourage the development of a trail to circumnavigate Stillwater Golf Course on north side. • Encourage the development of a sidewalk/bikeway along Eagle Ridge Trail. • Develop a sidewalk and bike lane/route along Curve Crest Boulevard. • Encourage the development of adequate sidewalks from communities to schools. The Comprehensive Trail Plan A comprehensive pedestrian transportation system is vital for maintaining, appreciating and enhancing Stillwater's local character as well as our economic base. A number of traffic studies have effected the Stillwater area over the years. Stillwater, along with MnDOT, Oak Park Heights and Washington County have all conducted detailed traffic analyses and forecasts projecting accelerated traffic volumes on our roads for years to come. These factors make an effective pedestrian transportation system an essential alternative to auto transportation in the years to come. To enhance the overall system, pedestrian and bicycle trails can function as an essential component of the planned Stillwater Transportation Plan. As such, pedestrian/bicycle 17 trails must be considered in the planning process for all land use related decisions and in all transportation related projects. The 2000 Comprehensive Trail Plan is presented as a complete network enhancing pedestrian and bicycle mobility throughout Stillwater (figure 6). The intent of the proposed trail system is to serve both a utilitarian transportation function and a recreational function. A user study conducted by the city found that the recreation uses of trails are greatly valued by Stillwater residents as interest in bicycling, in-line skating, skiing, and hiking increases (1995 Comprehensive Plan). Other nation-wide studies indicate increasing interest for the utilization of trails as an alternative transportation mode to the automobile. The major difference between the two uses is that the primary objective of the utilitarian trip is to arrive at a specific destination as quickly as possible with few interruptions, while recreational trips are generally more leisurely and less direct. To provide for a trail system to accomplish both the utilitarian and recreation functions trail alignments were assessed in relation to not only the natural features and social/cultural features of the community but also the areas of opportunities for employment, shopping and services. Natural systems are those environmental features that offer attractiveness and interest to a trail system. They also pose challenges to trail engineering in mitigating soils adverse to development while meandering through woodland areas and around wetland and floodplain features. Trails in conjunction with natural systems will generally be developed for recreational purposes. Social and cultural systems represent the built environment of a community. The land uses associated with these systems include residential neighborhoods, historical districts, shopping and other commercial areas such as office parks, and public and quasi -public places such as the Public Works Facility, City Hall, library, police/fire stations and other similar uses. The Plan proposes to link these social and cultural features to the city's neighborhoods and to the regional trail system as well. Major land use patterns and points of interest such as schools and parks within the planning area are indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan map (figure 6). The Trail Plan provides access to employment, shopping, retail/service, commercial, recreational, educational, and governmental destinations. In developing trail systems, existing land use patterns along with future uses have been considered. We hope this Plan is aggressive and progressive enough to suit community needs through the twenty-first century. Maintenance Proper maintenance of on -street riding surfaces is a key factor in bicycle safety and an important consideration in people's decision to ride a bicycle. Designing bikeways to reduce maintenance, giving priority to sweeping the sides of streets where bicyclists ride, and ensuring that riding surfaces are relatively smooth are all requisites in attracting more of the general public to bicycling. Bicyclists are more sensitive to irregularities and road debris than cars. Roadway features that cause minor discomfort to motorists can cause serious problems and accidents for cyclists. Potholes and improper drain grates can cause bicyclists to flip over or lose control. Traffic signals that detect automobiles but fail to respond to cyclists encourage cyclists to ignore red lights. Repaired patches and railway crossings at acute angles to the roadway will often divert the cyclists' front wheel and cause serious falling accidents. General maintenance objectives are as follows: 18 ■1��11�1rt. • is t/1 1101 ��M�1 • 40 sr . . tV On CD _, '• CDCL CLrL, r► I • Trails located within highway right-of-way should be maintained by the state department. • Strive to provide quick and effective remediation of dangerous and inconvenient facility problems for bicycle transportation. • Assign maintenance responsibility for each pedestrianibicycle facility before construction. • Provide ongoing and regular maintenance for all pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Eliminate or reduce hazards such as grates and other drainage features along pathways. Project Implementation The following are a set of funding and implementation guidelines: • Designate a percentage of total available roadway funds exclusively for provision and maintenance of bicycle facilities. Average percentages designated for trailways range between one and five percent in other cities. • Provide consistent and on-going funding for pedestrian and bicycle transportation. • Accelerate improvements for existing trails and construction of new trails. • Acquire maximum available funding from state and federal sources. The community should make a commitment to increased non -motorized transportation use by committing a higher percentage of state and federal funds to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. • Include trail construction in City Capital Improvement Program. • Require new development to plan trails to our standards. • Generally follow the guidelines and standards set by MnDOT and ADA for the design of trailways. Refer to Appendix A for MnDOT Planning Guide and Appendix B for ADA Guidelines. • Ensure the construction of trails in new development to provide for trail linkages consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Trail Plan. Maintenance • Provide quick and effective remediation of dangerous and inconvenient facility problems for bicycle transportation. + Assign maintenance responsibility for each bicycle facility. ■ Provide ongoing and regular maintenance for all bicycle facilities. • Schedule inspections, maintenance, and repair annually. + Prevent and remove debris from the bikeway. + Eliminate hazards from grates and other drainage features. + Reduce hazards to cyclists from edge markings. 20 Basic References: 1. 1993 Austin Bicycle Plan City of Austin Department of Planning and Development. Making Communities "Bicycle Friendly, " Bill Wilkinson, Planning Commissioners Journal, 410, 1993. 2. Building Bikeways -These paths are no longer the roads less traveled by. Michael G. Jones, Planning, 1993. 3. Greenways -A Guide to Planning. Design. and Development, Charles A. Flink and Robert M. Seams, The Conservation Fund, Island Press, 1993. 4. Libe . Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, City of Liberty, Missouri, 1997. 5. Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1996. 6. NRPC Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan -Technical Supplement, Nashua Regional Planning Commission, 1995. 7. PACTS Regional Bicycle and Interim Pedestrian Plan, Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Committee, 1995. 8. Pro Bike Pro Walk 98 — Creating Bicycle -Friendly-, and Walkable Communities, City of Santa Barbara included in the National Conferences of the Bicycle Federation of America, 1998. 9. 1995 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, City of Stillwater Planning Department. 10. Trails for the Twenty -First Century -Planning Design and Management Manual for Multi -Use Trails, Karen -Lee Ryan, Rails -to -Trails Conservancy, Island Press, 1993. 11. Walkable and Bicycle Friendly Communities, Dan Burden, Florida Department of Transportation, 1997. 21 Appendix A: Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Trails General Guide: So what is an accessible trail? • Under the proposed guidelines, an accessible trail would meet these minimum technical provisions: ■ Clear tread width: 36" minimum • Tread Obstacles: 2" high maximum (up to 3" high where running and cross slopes are 5% or less) • Cross Slope: 5% max. • Running slope (trail grade) meets one or more of the following: - 5% or less for any distance. - up to 8.33% for 200' max. Resting intervals no more than 200' apart. - up to 10% for 30' max. Resting intervals 30'. - up to 12.5% for 10' max. Resting intervals 10'. • No more than 30% of the total trail length may exceed a running slope of 8.33%. • Passing Space: provided at least every 1000' where trail width is less than 60" • Signs: shall be provided indicating the length of the accessible trail segment. Specific Guide: Proposed Technical Specifications for New and Reconstructed Trails to Comply with ADA From: REGULA TORYNEGOTIA TION COMMITTEE ONACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS, FINAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 1999 Following is the portion of the report dealing with trails: 16. OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS Outdoor developed areas covered by this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 4 and the special application sections, except as modified or otherwise provided in this section. 16.1 General. All newly designed and constructed pedestrian trails or altered portions of existing pedestrian trails connecting to designated trailhead or accessible trails shall comply with 16. All newly designed and constructed camping facilities, picnic areas, and beach access routes or altered portions thereof shall comply with 16. 16.1.1 Extent of Application. Departures from specific technical provisions of this section shall be permitted where specified, and where at least one of the following conditions is present. The conditions in this section do not obviate or limit in any way obligations to comply with 16 at any point that the conditions are not present. 22 1.Where compliance would cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics; or, 2. Where compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the facility, or portion of the facility; or, 3.Where compliance would require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by federal, state, or local regulations or statutes; or, 4.Where compliance would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction practices. Definitions. Trail: A route that is designed, constructed, or designated for recreational pedestrian use or provided as an pedestrian alternative to vehicular routes within a transportation system. Designated Trailhead: A designated point of access that may contain a parking area, information kiosks, restrooms, water hydrants, and may be reached by vehicular or pedestrian access. Tread width: The path or visible trail surface perpendicular to the direction of travel. The clear tread width of the trail is the width of the useable trail tread, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel and on or parallel to the surface of the useable trail tread. The minimum clear tread width is the narrowest measurement on the useable trail tread. 16.2 Trails. Where trails are provided, the trail shall comply with 16.2. Where provided, elements located on accessible trails shall comply with 16.5 through 16.21. Elements are not required to be connected by an outdoor recreation access route. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where one or more of the conditions in 16. 1.1 exists, and where one or more of the conditions in this exception exists, the provisions of 16.2 shall not apply after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure shall comply with 16. 2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2. The conditions of this exception are: (a) The combination of running slope and cross slope exceeds 40 percent for over 20 feet (6 100 mm); or (b) A trail obstacle 30 inches (760 mm) or more in height across the full tread width of the trail; or (c) The surface is neither firm nor stable for a distance of 45 feet or more; or (d) A clear width less than 12 inches (3 05 mm) for a distance of 20 feet (6 100 mm) or more 2. Where one or more of the conditions in 16.1.1 are met resulting in departures from the technical provisions in 16.2 for over 15 percent of the length of the trail, 16.2 shall not apply after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure is required to comply with 16.2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2. 16.2.1 Surface. The trail surface shall be firm and stable. EXCEPTION. The provision shall not apply where a firm and stable surface can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.2 Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of the trail shall be 36 inches (915 mm) minimum. 23 EXCEPTIONS 1. The clear tread width shall be permitted to be reduced to no less than 32 inches (815 mm) minimum where at least one of the four conditions specified in 16. 1.1 apply. 2. The provision shall not apply where 32 inches (815 mm) minimum clear tread width can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.3 Openings. Openings in trail surfaces shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a.* inch (13 mm) diameter sphere. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of travel. EXCEPTIONS 1. Elongated openings are permitted to be parallel to the dominant direction of travel where the opening does not permit passage of a 1/4 inch (6.5 mm) diameter sphere. 2. Openings shall be permitted to be of a size that do not permit passage of a 3/4 inch (19 mm) diameter sphere where at least one of the conditions in 16. 1.1 apply. 3. Where openings that do not permit passage of a 3/4 inch (19 mm) diameter sphere are not feasible, because at least one of the conditions in 16.1.1. applies, the provisions of 16.2.3. shall not apply. 16.2.4 Protruding Objects. Protruding objects on trails shall comply with ADAAG 4.4.1.and shall have 80 inches (2030 mm) minimu clear head room. EXCEPTION. Where vertical clearance of a trail is reduced to less than 80 inches (2030 mm) where one of the four conditions specified in 16. 1.1 applies, a barrier to warn blind and visually impaired persons shall be provided. 16.2.5 Tread Obstacles. Where tread obstacles exist, they shall not exceed 2 inches (50 mm) high maximum. EXCEPTIONS. 1. Tread obstacles shall be permitted to be 3 inches (75 mm) maximum where running and cross slopes are 1:20 or less. 2. The provision shall not apply where tread obstacles greater than 3 inches (75 mm) exist, because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.6 Passing Space. Where the clear tread width of the trail is less than 60 inches (1525 mm), passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of 1000 feet (3 00 m) maximum. Passing spaces shall be either a 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum space, or an intersection of two walking surfaces which provide a T-shaped space complying with ADAAG 4.2.3 provided that the arms and stem of the T-shaped space extend at least 48 inches (1220 mm) beyond the intersection. EXCEPTION. The provision shall not apply where passing space cannot be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.7 Slopes. Slopes shall comply with 16.2.7.1 and 16.2.7.2. EXCEPTIONS 1. For open drainage structures, a running slope of 14 percent is permitted for 5 feet maximum (1525 mm) with a cross slope of 1:20 maximum. Cross slope is permitted to be 1:10 at the bottom of the open drain, where clear tread width is 42 inches (1065 mm) minimum. 2. The provisions of this section do not apply where one or more conditions in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.7.1 Cross Slope. The cross slope shall not exceed 1:20 maximum. 16.2.7.2 Running Slope. Running slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the provisions of this section. No more than 30 percent of the total trail length shall exceed a running slope of 1:12. 16.2.7.2.1 Running slope shall be 1:20 or less for any distance. 16.2.7.2.2 Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 200 feet (61 m) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 200 feet (61 m) apart. 24 16.2.7.2.3 Running slope shall be 1:10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart. 16.2.7.2.4 Running slope shall be 1:8 maximum for 10 feet (3050 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 10 feet (3050 mm) apart. 16.2.8 Resting Intervals. Resting intervals shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length, shall have a width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1:20 in any direction. EXCEPTION. The provision shall not apply where resting spaces cannot be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.9 Edge Protection. Where edge protection is provided along a trail, the edge protection shall have a height of 3 inches (75 mm minimum. 16.2.10 Signs. Newly constructed and altered trails and trail segments complying with 16.2 shall be designated with a symbol* at the trail head and all designated access points. Signs identifying accessible trail segments shall include the total distance of the accessible segment and the location of the first point of departure from the technical provisions. OUTDOOR RECREATION ACCESS ROUTES Definition. Outdoor Recreation Access Route: A continuous unobstructed path designated for pedestrian use that connects accessible elements within a picnic area, camping area, or designated trailhead. 16.3.1 Surface. The surface of the outdoor recreation access route shall be firm and stable. 16.3.2 Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of outdoor recreation access routes shall be 36 inches (915 mm) minimum. EXCEPTION. The minimum width shall be permitted to be no less than 32 inches (815 mm) minimum for a distance of 24 inches (610 mm) maximum where at least one of the conditions in 16. 1.1 applies. 16.3.3 Openings. Openings in the surfaces of outdoor recreation access routes shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a * inch (13 mm) diameter sphere. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of travel. EXCEPTION. Openings are permitted to run parallel to the dominant direction of travel so long as, the opening does not permit passage of a 1/4 inch (6.5 mm) diameter sphere. 16.3.4 Protruding Objects. Protruding objects on outdoor recreation access routes shall comply with ADAAG 4.4 16.3.5 Tread Obstacles: Where tread obstacles exists, obstacles on the outdoor recreation access route shall be 1 inch (25 mm) high maximum. EXCEPTION. Tread obstacles of 2 inches (50 mm) high maximum shall be permitted where beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 and where at least one of the conditions in 16. 1.1 applies. 16.3.6 Passing Space. Where the clear tread width of outdoor recreation access route is less than 60 inches (1525 mm), passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of 200 feet (61 m) maximum. Passing spaces shall be either 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum space, or an intersection of two walking surfaces which provide a T-shaped space complying 25 with ADAAG 4.2.3 provided that the arms and stem of the T-shaped space extend at least 48 inches (1220 mm) beyond the intersection. EXCEPTION. Passing spaces shall be permitted at intervals of up to 300 feet (91 m) maximum where at least one of the conditions in 16. 1.1 applies. 16.3.7 Slopes. Slopes shall comply with 16.3.7.1 and 16.3.7.2. 16.3.7.1 Cross Slope. The cross slope of outdoor recreation access routes shall be 1:33 maximum. EXCEPTION. Cross slopes of 1:20 maximum shall be permitted to ensure proper drainage. 16.3.7.2 Running slope. Running slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the provisions of this section. 16.3.7.2.1 Running slope shall be 1:20 or less for any distance. 16.3.7.2.2 Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 50 feet maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 50 feet apart. 16.3.7.2.3 Running slope shall be 1:10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart. 16.3.8 Resting Intervals. Resting interval shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length, shall have a width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1:33 in any direction. EXCEPTION. Where the surface conditions require slopes greater than 1:33 for proper drainage, a 1:20 slope is permitted. 16.3.9 Edge Protection. Where edge protection is provided, the edge protection shall have a height of 3 inches (75 mm) minimum. One of the first steps towards bringing outdoor parks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not to "pave the wilderness," but rather to evaluate existing environments and provide information to users about the level of access. Appendix B: Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines 26