Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-07-24 Joint Board Packet
ieo • ter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Meeting Notice Stillwater City and Town Joint Board City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Agenda Approval of Minutes Agenda Items Public Hearings 1. Case No. PUD/02-50. Long Lake Estates mixed use, commercial/residential Planned Unit Development located between CR 5 and Parkwood Lane south of Wildpines. Jennings Bank and Tim Nolde applicant. 2. Case No. CPA/02-02. A comprehensive plan amendment changing land use designation of 1.65 acres of land located between CR 5 and Parkwood Lane and south of Wildpines from Attached Single Family to Business Park Commercial. Tim Nolde, applicant. 3. Case No. ZAM/02-02. A zoning map amendment changing zoning from Townhouse Residential, TH, to Business Park Commercial, BP -C located between CR 5 and Parkwood Lane and south of Wildpines. Jennings Bank, applicant. 4. Case No. CPA/02-01. A comprehensive plan amendment for South Boutwell Planning Area changing land use designations and establishing new street locations, trails/parking and concept drainage plan. City of Stillwater, applicant. Other Business 5. Concept Plan review for CR 15/12 Liberty Village Commercial Plans - for discussion only. 6. Update on permit allocation system. 7. Other business. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 Stillwater City and Town Joint Board October 24, 2001 Present: Town Board members David Johnson and Ken LaBoda; City Council members Terry Zoller and Wally Milbrandt; Town Planner Meg McMonigal; City Community Development Director Steve Russell; City Attorney David Magnuson Others: Sheila Marie Untiedt, Stillwater Township Chair David Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A royal of minutes: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. LaBoda, moved approval of the minutes of June 21, 2001, as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. ZAMI01 -24. A zoning map amendment to rezone 2.5 acres of land from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to RA, Single Family Residential, at 8160 Neal Avenue. Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choiniere, applicant. Mr. Russell briefly reviewed the request, noting that the parcel had been ghost platted by the Township. Services are available. The rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's planning commission reviewed and approved the request, and there was no one present at the planning commission's public hearing who spoke on the request. Ms. McMonigal asked there would be any change in the road jurisdiction. Mr. Magnuson responded that the entire Neal right-of-way came into the City's jurisdiction with the Oak Glen development. Mr. Zoller stated this is an example of what ghost platting is all about and moved approval of ZAM/01-24. Mr. LaBoda seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/01-47. A subdivision of a 2.5 acre lot into four lots located at 8160 Neal Ave. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choiniere, applicant. Mr. Johnson was present for both cases but did not address the Board. Mr. LaBoda, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved approval of SUB/01-47; motion passed unanimously. Other items: Update on Public Works facility — Mr. Russell explained that bids for the project came in $1 million over estimate, necessitating some changes. The roofing material will be asphalt shingle, rather than tin. The infield for the ball field will be rebid, and the prairie restoration will be rebid as a separate project; the plan will stay the same. Mr. Russell also noted development of the park may take longer, as the project will be completed in phases. Mr. Zoller noted that Stillwater City and Town Joint Board October 24, 2001 landscaping/screening was a big concern of neighbors. The landscaping/screening will remain as in the original plan, Mr. Russell said. Boutwell Study — Mr. Russell said Steve Bruggeman owns three sites in the area and has offered the City assistance in completing a plan for the area, Boutwell between 12 and 15. The City has not accepted the offer for assistance up to this point. However, he said the City is considering doing a plan in 2002. Mr. Johnson asked why City staff couldn't complete the plan; Mr. Russell stated the City doesn't have the time or resources to complete the plan. There was a brief discussion about the Town's position on possibly revising the existing restriction on the number of building permits that can be issued per year. Mr. Johnson and Mr. LaBoda said the Township is open to discussing the issue but needs a proposal from the City to react to. Palmer Subdivision — Ms. McMonigal briefly reviewed a request for a minor subdivision of a portion of the Palmer property at the southeast corner of the property adjacent to Manning Avenue and Highway 96. Included in the packet was a letter from Joe Lux, Washington County transportation planner, commenting on the proposal.. After discussion, it was the consensus that the subdivision would be OK based on current zoning in the Comprehensive Plan, large -lot, single-family, and that the issue of access would be looked at when the remainder of the property is developed. Mr. LaBoda, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary N Memo To: Joint Stillwater Township/City Planning Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 17, 2002 Subject: Planned Unit Development, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval for 3.67 Acres Site Located West of County Road 5 and Between Wildpines Lane and Curve Crest Blvd. Case Nos. PUD/02-50, CPA/02-02 and ZAM/02-02. Background. The Planning Commission first reviewed the request for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment at their meeting of April 8, 2002. At the public hearing, concerns were expressed for the commercial use and impact on the residential area to the west. Concerns expressed include traffic, parking, cost of utility improvements, building design and value of project. Based on the concerns and lack of detail in the application, the Planning Commission coninued the request for the applicant to address the concerns expressed at the meeting in the form of a Planned Unit Development (specific plan). On July9, 2002, the applicant returned with a specific plan in the form of a PUD application and accompanying Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment request. The attached planning staff report reviews the PUD request. A summary of the request is to change the land use of 1.67 acres of land, the part of the site adjacent to CR 5 from attached single family to commercial to accommodate the construction of a bank. The remaining 2 acres of the site would continue to be designated attached single family townhouse. Jennings Bank is the prospective occupant of the site. Several conditions of approval were placed on the PUD. Many of the conditions deal with development detail that is not currently available but would be available as part of the final PUD approval. According to the Orderly Annexation Agreement, all zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments must be approved by the Joint Board. Action Required: Decision on Case Nos. 1. PUD/02-50 2. CPA/02-02 3. ZAM/02-02 Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 3, 2002 Subject: Planning Unit Development for 3.67 Acres Mixed Commercial/residential Development Located West of CR 5 Between Curve Crest Blvd and Wildpines Lane. Case No. PUD/02-50 Background. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on a comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment for this site at the April 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Because of concerns expressed by the Commission and neighborhood regarding traffic and circulations, compatibility of design, utility improvements and cost to adjacent property owners and development design, the applications were continued to address these issues. Because many of the expressed concerns were more of a detailed nature than those addressed through a comprehensive plan amendment or rezoning, a planned unit development plan and application have been submitted. To implement the PUD other actions will be required, i.e., Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment and subdivision. Two of those actions, the Comp Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment follow this PUD review on your agenda. PUD Concept Pian The PUD concept plan includes the PUD plan, (Long Lake Estates, Phase Two Site plan) and architectural and site design guidelines. Additional explanatory information on parking and drainage is also provided. The site plan shows commercial use (bank) located along CR 5. Access to the bank is provided by a one way circulation system off the south bound lane of CR 5. Washington County controls access off of CR 5 and have approved the access concept. The bank building site shows an initial bank building and future bank expansion area. Each building is 6,000 square feet. Twenty-two parking spaces for the first phase and a total of 40 spaces for the two buildings is provided. Additional parking could be provided in landscaped areas if needed. This equates to 1 parking space per 300 square feet rather than the 1 per 200 square feet required by the Zoning Ordinance. An explanation for the reduced parking ratio is provided. A 4 -stall drive through teller system is provided with 4 car stacking for each teller. This will take pressure off parking for walk up traffic. An overall landscape plan is proposed with berming and plants buffering and framing views of the site from CR 5 and separating the commercial use from the attached single family use. It is suggested that in addition to land form and landscaping, a low 42 inch fence be located at strategic places along the perimeter drive through travel area to block headlights from the residential areas. The site plan shows a pedestrian trail running along CR 5 and connecting with Parkwood Lane. The pathway connects to sidewalks on the east side of Parkwood Lane and eventually sidewalks at the corner of Wildpines Lane to the south. Other architectural and site design guidelines regarding building design and setbacks, landscaping, screening, signage, utilities and lighting are contained in the submittal. The sign proposed, a 20' tall pylon sign of 100 square feet, seems incompatible with the residential character of the west side of CR 5. A wall sign or monument sign similar in design to the Market Place Shopping Center or the new dentist office on Wildpines and CR 5 would be more appropriate. For the residential area, a park dedication requirement of 12 percent of the residential land area is required. This can be in the form of land dedication or payment in lieu or trail improvements. For this project, staff recommends that the trails that are provided on site be extended to Wildpines and Curve Crest Blvd within the existing right of way as in lieu park contribution and lands dedicated or easements provided for the on site trails. The site plan shows 14 townhouses. The existing townhouse residential zoning district regulations allows 1 dwelling per 5,000 square feet or 7 du/acre consistent with the proposal. The residential design locates parking and garage off a driveway courtyard. Landscaping and Parkwood Lane provide yard open space areas. The attached single family townhouse development is consistent with existing zoning. Actual townhouse parking design and location will be considered when specific townhouse plans are submitted. The enclosed letter to the Planning Commission from area property owners is attached. Concerns regarding traffic and parking, improvements and costs to property owners are addressed in the memo from the city engineer. Basically, the streets have capacity to accommodate the new development and adequate parking is provided. Utilities will be provided by the development. The issue of property values and quality of life are somewhat speculative concerns. This area is within the City of Stillwater and zoned for townhouse development. The development will change the physical character of the neighborhood and patterns of activity as planned for in the Comprehensive Plan. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the PUD plans at their meeting of July 1, 2002 (see attached staff report and conditions of approval). Recommendation: Approval of concept PUD including architectural and site design standards. Conditions of Approval 1. The park dedication requirement for the townhouse subdivision shall be provided with subdivision approval. 2. A CR 5 access permit shall be obtained from Washington County for the proposed driveways. 3. Fencing, landscaping, berming, retaining walls shall be used along the perimeter of the drive through driveway to screen headlights from adjacent residential areas. 4. The final design for the bank building shall be reviewed based on the architectural and site design guidelines. 5. The City Engineer shall review the drainage plan to ensure ponding requirements are met. 6. Drainage, utility and trail easements shall be provided with the subdivision on final PUD approval. 7. The detailed townhouse plans shall be reviewed by the fire department for access requirements regarding road width. 8. A monument type sign made of materials consistent with the bank building shall be allowed rather than the 20' pylon sign. A building sign indicating the name of the bank over the main entry may also be allowed. 9. Heritage Preservation Commission conditions of approval are added as conditions of this approval. 10. The site drainage plan shall be approved by Browns Creek Watershed District before final plan approval. 11. The maximum height of the bank building shall be two levels and 40 feet. 12. A bank or similar professional office use shall be located on the commercial site. 13. No vehicle connection between Cr 5 and Parkwood Lane. Attachments: Application and PUD plans and architectural and site design standards. CPC Action on 7/8/902: +8-0 approval. MEMORANDUM To: Steve Russell, Community Development Director From: Shawn Sanders, Assistant City Engineer Date: July 3, 2002 Re: Response to property owners regarding Long Lake Estates Phase II Question: Who is the responsible for making the decision concerning the proposed curb and future median cuts? Stillwater Boulevard also known as County Road 5 is owned and maintained by Washington County. They are the ones who approve and have the ultimate decision on the location of curb cuts and median cuts. The developer should be in contact with the Washington County Public Works to obtain necessary approvals and permits Question: Can we guaranteed that there will be no commercial traffic to the proposed bank and/or County Road S from Parkwood Lane? In general, public streets are open to all types of vehicle traffic. It is difficult to guarantee that no commercial traffic will travel on Parkwood Lane once the project is completed. However, the preliminary plans do show construction of a berm, separating the residential area from the commercial area, disallowing any traffic from Parkwood Lane to County Road 5. Question: How can we as property owners insure that no substandard sizes will be approved? Typically, the City of Stillwater's standard width street is 32 feet curb to curb. However, new streets constructed in the past few years vary in width from 22 feet to 28 feet from the back of curb. Thirty two foot wide streets allow for traffic in both directions and parking on both sides, while under certain conditions narrower streets may only have one lane of thru traffic when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Narrower streets also help control traffic speed. Parkwood Lane has a 60 right of way, which would allow for a 32 foot wide street to accommodate both parking and thru traffic and also allow for an adequate boulevard area with a sidewalk. Question: Will the proposed multi family units have more parking and wider streets than Curve Crest/ CR 5 development? Typically the drives with in the townhouse area are considered private streets with the streets widths and parking at the discretion of the developer. The City can recommend more off-street parking and private street widths to the developer at the time when the working on final plans for the site. Question: Can the developer be required to pay for all the improvements? Typically, the developer is responsible for all the costs of the improvements that benefit his site, including the costs to extend utility mains (sewer water, etc.). Question: What is the plan for sewer and water to this area. Sanitary sewer for this project will be extended from the northeast corner of the Long Lake Villas development. Water could be extended from two locations, the corner of Parkwood Lane and Wildpines Lane and at the northeast corner of Long Lake Villas with the possibility of connecting the watermain from both locations. There no plans at this time to extend sewer and water to the existing homes on Parkwood Lane unless there is enough interest form the neighborhood. JUN -24-02 MON 10:52 TOP DRESCHER ARCHITECT, 651 433 5601 n � Case No: Gv�-5`cc PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM Date Fee Paled: Recelpt No.: ACTION REQUESTED FEES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 —Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 Vadance $701200 ^Resubdivision $100 ! $100+501iot _Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* Planning !Unit Development * '$30 50 !Certificate of Compliance $ 70 *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. >0 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted In connection with any application. All supporting material (I e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material Is required. if application is submitted to the City Council twelve (92) copies of supporting material is required. A site plan is required with applications. Any Incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION LON& tAY6 Address of Project fP+L.KLVL;00 t-40 1 5nift o1 9 O✓ W. N. Assessor's Parcel No. 0007 Ce09naso CM' coV (6E0 Code) Zoning District Description of Project A FtM3 It) -010J& y'Grrl�rs C'►1 r1l �G7U _4142--I ?CAI -- "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, Information and evidence submitted herewith In all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if It is granted and used." Property Owner. 7-10A 0 oc.DF _ Mailing Address_ P.O. ipx 119 City - State - Zip 571u r, W1W- , rmnf ST- Telepho g 7 Signature (Signature is required) Representative Mailing Address City - State - Zip Telephone No. Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Total Building floor area 4 square feet ' Land Area— '5.&1 *4. t - Existing square feet Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed square feet -f'aincipl �,sA►] Paved Impervious Areasquarefeet 6cessory 1 22 gh No. of off-street parking spaces -1.2 PW, :r- H:Imcnamara\she11a`PLANAPP.FRM Apd[ 12, 2002 'C9 FM LF&> LONG LAKE ESTATES, PHASE TWO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES 21 June 2002 Goal: • Create a well-designed transition from the County Road 5 corridor to the residential area using a mix of multi -family residential and commercial buildings. • Integrate a pedestrian pathway that completes a connection along the west side of County Road 5 and creates a gateway for the trail into the residential area. • Create a higher density housing opportunity in close proximity to existing infrastructure, jobs and services. Lot Coverage: • 60 percent maximum building and hard surface coverage. Pedestrian Access: • The project will provide pedestrian access via pathways along County Road 5, and between County Road 5 and Parkwood Lane. Building Design: • No franchise or prototypical commercial building design shall be allowed. Commercial structures shall have a scale and massing compatible with the adjacent residential area. Residential structures on Parkwood Lane shall address the street with semi- public spaces (front porches, covered entries, etc.) and walkways from the entry to the curb. Materials • No concrete panels, standard concrete block or metal siding shall be used as exterior materials. • Brick, stone, stucco, painted or stained wood siding is to be used as the main body of exterior materials. High grade, low maintenance materials may be used provided they achieve the same exterior appearance as the natural materials. • Detailing and materials shall be consistent on all sides of the structure. Height: • All buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height. Building Setback: • 40 feet from County Road 5 for commercial buildings. 0 15 feet from Parkwood Lane for residential buildings. Parking: • Parking areas shall be setback 20 feet from public right-of-ways, 10 feet from adjacent property lines, bermed and landscaped. • Drives for commercial buildings shall be setback 15 feet from public right-of-ways, bermed and landscaped. Landscaping: • Areas around buildings shall be planted with deciduous and coniferous trees that assist in blocking sight lines of parking facilities, and highlight attractive architectural features of the structures. The existing planting plan established along County Road 5 will be integrated into the landscaping of the site. • Over -story deciduous trees will be used in the boulevard of Parkwood Lane to define the streetscape. 40 percent of the land area shall be in permanent maintained landscaping, open spaces and ponding areas. Screening: Parking areas that can be viewed from adjacent roads or residential areas shall be screened with a combination of deciduous and coniferous planting and berming. Signage: • Commercial signs are to be consistent with the City Sign Ordinance. • A pylon sign is proposed for the commercial property. The guidelines for the sign would be similar to those used for other banking establishments in the area and those specific to the County Road 5 corridor, maximum 20 feet high, 100 square feet in area and setback 15 feet from the property line. • Monument type directional signs may be used to clarify drive-thru and parking locations. • No residential signs will be used. Utilities: • All utilities will be underground and HVAC equipment will be screened from view. • Roof mounted units will be screened via roof configuration, wall extensions either vertical or horizontal. • All trash areas shall be completely enclosed and screened from view by a structure of a design compatible with adjacent structures and landscaping. Lighting: Site lighting will be shielded down -lighting to eliminate glare between commercial and residential uses. • Maximum height of parking lot lighting shall be 20 feet. • Walkway lighting, building lighting, site amenity and sign lighting shall be compatible with the adjacent residential areas. 2 N kv. 11D St. a, Fi MRI Eft it RE If ',j '`#. �� � � a �'"`1 ! � �.�� .�• iaf�. ter. i _ r �� �y^kly� � f j,Tie. �' x Ji�''.�• YT* t`.;� �,9 , i ��P� I �w �tr� �-' s. y�r$g'.� r'>'*:}. .^ti7'sw ��.:`hq'v .,T ..� i,h 4� . • ��� . .rJr,: ,.�„r.�l„ --•tiE, ,-;--r-sr�`:�. ,ra+:. �' yn r y f F N d. .�. +��',.+� I•A ''%�-. ..AC• kms.. � .x - �+"v Y n "F4t 1�, •"+1+rtf,. - e.w is •rY ... '•{�,1 � � r i3 r ...se,.,ns.;.. . �p � ' �r'' • ;eta �, g,%;w � � •,+ � � :'�� •r tit ,,� ��> 1 a ±x '���` , i �,��:�{ ��i � • �'� 1.. -... wi+ + 7.yr kl `' jjr .: Pr l r .� c •.:'-„,„; -w� - - - — ,,�G.�• w:i. a'dy' °�.� +�'�ix .��3di'i,s :f•, �`T Y .. ,. 1 1 Location Map T i M T E N E N V I R O N M E N T A L D E S 1 G N 41 Judd 5treet ❑ P.O.Box 272 ❑ Marine on 5t. Croix MN ❑ 55047-0272 ❑ Phone (65 1)433-5600 ❑ Fax (651)433-560 I Monday, July 1, 2002 Mr. Steve Russell, Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: LONG LAKE ESTATES, PHASE TWO Dear Steve, The following narrative is included as additional background information regarding the Long Lake Estates, Phase Two project on County Road 5 in Stillwater. The building setback for the multi -family residential units on Parkwood Lane is fifteen (15) feet from the property line. This proximity to the street, along with the improvements to Parkwood Lane including curbs, pavement, concrete sidewalks and boulevard plantings will create an inviting streetscape. Each unit facing Parkwood Lane will have a walkway from the street to the front entry. The front entry of each unit will create a semi-public space, (i.e. covered portico or front porch) for public interaction with neighbors and guests. Calculations have been completed on the amounts of impervious surface on the site. The calculations have been broken down for each block and have used the banks future expansion area for building and parking. In each case the amount of impervious surface is below 60 percent. AREA ac.) IMP. SURF. OPEN SPACE % IMP. BLOCK ONE 1.67 0.94 0.73 56 BLOCK TWO 2.00 1.05 0.95 53 TOTAL 3.67 1.99 1.68 54 The parking requirement for the commercial property has been given extensive thought by the developer and the proposed owner, Jennings State Bank. The existing code for banks calls for one parking stall for each 200 square feet of floor area. In comparison the requirement for business and professional offices calls for one parking stall for each 300 square feet of floor area. Page 1 of 2 Current trends in the banking industry include a dramatic increase in the use of drive -up services in lieu of parking and walk-in service. The increase in the use of on-line banking is also creating a reduction in the need for customers to visit the bank in person. In studying the use and needs of the bank at its existing location, and the trends of the banking industry as a whole, we have proposed using a parking requirement more in line with office space, 1 per 300 sq. ft., in lieu of the existing requirement for banks, 1 per 200 sq. ft. We also feel that the reduced amount of impervious surface (i.e. parking lot) will allow for more open green space, and a superior landscaped project overall. The current proposal illustrates the bank facility in a two-phase construction program. Phase one would include a 6,000 square foot building and 22 parking spaces. Phase two would include an expansion of an additional 6,000 square feet and 18 parking spaces, bringing the totals to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking spaces. Respectfully submitted, Roger Tomten Tomten Environmental Design Cc Mr. Timothy Nolde, President ANCHOBAYPRO, INC. Paul Jennings, Chairman Jennings State Bank Page 2 of 2 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. DR102-38 Heritage Preservation Date: July 1,2002 Project Location: Stillwater Blvd betvreen Curve Crest and Wildpines, east of Parkwood Lane Comprehensive Pian District: West Business Park District Zoning District: Bingle f=amily Attached and Business Park Commercial Applicant's Name: Tim Nolde Type of Application: Design Review Project Description: Design review of planned unit development for a 367 acre mixed use residentialloffice development. Discussion The applicant is requesting design approve of a conceptual development. The development will tx nsist of 14 multi family residential ups nn 2 aaesj and one commercial bank with a drive thru on the remaining 1.67 acres. A site plan of the development and the Architectural and Site Design Guidelines has been provided_ The guidelines give the perspectives and goals of the project. Recommendation= Approval as conditioned Conditiorm of Approval, - 1 . pproval,- 1. BPC will conduct final design approval ofthe signage and building materials, landscape and lighting glans when the pians are completed. 2. All ufilifies shall be completely screened from public view. 3- A lighting plan showing the fudure type, height, location and exterior fighting intensity shall be submitted with building permit pians for Planning Director approval- All lighting shall be directed away tom the sfreet and adjacent properties. Light sources shall be shielded from direct View and protected form damage by vehicles. 4. All landscaping shall be installed before utility release or final project inspection. No project shall be phased untess approval is granted by the 'Planning Commission. 5- Continuous concrete curbing shall be installed to separate parking areas from landscape areas, 6. Handicapped parking spaces and signage, in compliance with State requirements, shall be shown on building permit plans and installed before final inspection of the project. 7. The street address of the building shall be displayed in a Location conspicuous from the public street. 8. The trash enclosure shall be made of a sturdy opaque masonry material, with trash receptacles screened from view and compatible with the color and materials of the project. 9. All trees required to remain on site, as indicated on the plans, shall be protected by fencing or other necessary measures shall be taken to prevent damage during construction activity. 10. No roof equipment shall be visible to the general public. 11. All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent surface. 12. Construction projects shall conform to the City's Noise ordinance. Construction during the dry season shall mitigate excess dust problems. 11. A sign permit shall be required for all project signs. 12. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City Engineer before building permits are issued. 13. Sign package to be approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, including directional signs. 14. Exterior lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 15. All security lights on building shall be downlit. 16. All exterior modifications to the approved plan are to be reviewed by Community Development Director, 17. Findings The proposal meets the intent of the West Business Park Design Guidelines. Attachments: Application Form/Site Plan June 28, 2002 To: City of Stillwater Planning Commission Tim Nolde Mike O'Brien From: Property Owners Affected by Cases PUD/0202; CPA/0202; ZAM/0202 Re: Questions and concerns regarding said cases Commission Member, Tim, and Mike:. We, the undersigned, have never been against the development of the land in question within the standard criteria of its current zoning: attached single family. While we are not against changes, the proposed PUD, CPA, and ZAM have raised questions and concerns. After meeting as a neighborhood, we have identified and listed our current questions and concerns below. We wish to address these questions and concerns at the July 8 Planning commission meeting or before, if possible, to help complete the timely development of the land in question. Our questions and concerns fall into three main areas: 1) Traffic and Parking; 2) Improvements and Cost to Property Owners; and 3) Impact of Construction on Property Value / Quality of Life. Traffic and Parking While we understand that any development will increase traffic on Wildpines and Parkwood Lane, we want to insure safety and that the roads will support the increased traffic and parking. To this end, we prefer that there will be no new connection between Parkwood Lane and County Road 5. There is no connection in the proposed PUD; however, it is unclear if the traffic pattern created by south only access to the proposed bank on County Road 5 will create a traffic hazard of cars making u -turns from north bound to south bound County Road 5 at the Orleans/Wildpines Ln and County Rd. 5 intersection. If this problem develops, we are concerned that commercial traffic might be routed on Parkwood Lane to connect with the proposed bank. Question: Can we be guaranteed that there will be no commercial traffic to the proposed bank and / or County Road 5 from Parkwood Lane? In conjunction with the above issue is the uncertainty of curb cuts and median cuts on County Road 5 to access the proposed bank. Differing opinions have been advanced. A county employee has stated that extra curb cuts or median cuts for a commercial application at the site will not be allowed. Mike and Tim have voiced the opinion that the curb and median cuts can be accomplished in time. Since the question of these curb and median cuts has direct impact on the u -turn concerns, we would like to know who can give a realistic opinion on the feasibility of these extra cuts. Question: Who is responsible for making the decision concerning the proposed curb and future median cuts? The increase in traffic on Parkwood Lane resulting from the proposal for 14 multi -family units has raised some questions about safety, creating the necessity of improvements in the road and the allotment for on street parking. Question: The current zoning is for single family attached, what is the difference between single family attached and multifamily? The configuration of the streets at the intersections of Parkwood Lane and Wildpines Lane creates some problems and risk. Parkwood Ln So. [_�_] �~ There is a high volume of traffic from Croixwood entering Wildpines Lane from Parkwood Avenue N. There have been accidents and many near accidents because drivers do not anticipate traffic from west at this intersection. Attention needs to be given to the enforcement of the stop sign at this intersection. The 90 degree turn at Wildpines Ln and Parkwood Lane S creates a problem with the different sizes of the streets and the curb on Wildpines Ln. The turn is difficult and the curb can be hazardous. While not a problem for the relatively low volume of existing traffic, this intersection will need improvement with increased traffic. As a neighborhood, we prefer there be no substandard road size. The sub standard roads in the development west of County Road 5 and Curve Crest are not compatible or acceptable for the current residential use and character of Parkwood Lane. A short walking tour of the Curve Crest / Co. Rd. 5 development revealed that there were cars (sometimes as many as 3) parked on the curb on each street in the development. This type of over crowding could impede police and fire, presents a safety risk, and can be a nuisance. We also have concerns about snow plowing / removal in such limited space. Question: How can we as property owners insure that no substandard sizes will be approved? Question: Will the proposed multi -family units have more parking and wider streets than the Curvecrest / Co. Rd. 5 development? Improvements and Cost to Property Owners While we will benefit from improvements necessitated by this development, we are not asking for any improvements. The developer should bear the full expense of all improvements including but not limited to city water and sanitary sewer, storm sewer, curbs and paving of streets. One primary concern is sanitary sewer. None of us need or want sanitary sewer, however, in the case of septic failure, we may be required to hook up to city sewer. We have been unable to get an answer about the direction of the future sewer line serving the residences on Parkwood Lane. One option is from the line that ends at Wildpines Ln and Parkwood Ln S. The other option is from the line that services the development at Curve Crest and Co. Rd. 5. This second option presents some concern. A new sewer line could be run to service the proposed PUD, but not extended along Parkwood Lane. Assuming that Parkwood Lane will receive curbs and paving because of increased traffic from the additional housing units, future hook up to sewer would require installers to tear up the pavement, increasing the cost and trouble of the hook up. If Parkwood Lane is to be paved as part of the improvements necessitated by this proposed development, we prefer sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer be included. Again, we are not asking for these improvements, but feel the city would be short sighted not to require the developer to include theses services if, indeed, the street needs to be paved. Question: Can the developer be required to pay for all improvements? Question: What is the plan for sewer and water service to this area? Impact on Proposed Construction to Property Value and Quality of Life As stated above, none of us are against the development of the land in question under the current zoning (attached single family). We think the planning commission has developed a good comprehensive plan with adequate population density for this transitional area. We see no reason that the higher density proposed by this PUD is necessary. The developer has made a decision to ask for higher density, we as neighbors disagree. We are against any plan which would increase the population density beyond the standards for attached single family. As we understand current guidelines, the 2 acres in block 1 of the proposal could support up to 12 attached single family units, possibly less given set back requirements. Question: How many units are allowable on this space under current attached single family guidelines? In addition, we are opposed to any change in code requirements like set back distances, parking requirements, lot coverage, etc. which facilitate a higher density than the current attached single family. Question: What are the code guidelines for attached single family zoning? Question: Does a PUD have different code guidelines than the zoning of the area they occupy? Appearance and quality of construction are matters of concern. The quality and appearance of the Curve Crest / Co. Rd. 5 would not be acceptable as a transition to our neighborhood. There is a broad range in the appearance of this type of housing in the east metro area. Before and during construction the neighbors want to work with the developer to assure design and products that support the residential character of the neighborhood. Cooperation by developer in this matter would build confidence with the neighbors and reduce unnecessary delays in the proposed rezoning. Along with the question of appearance is the question of rentals vs. ownership of property. Our short walking tour of the Curve Crest / Co. Rd. 5 development revealed that many of the rental units were unfinished and in need of landscaping and maintenance. We prefer housing to be available for purchase. The architectural and site guidelines presented with the proposal raised several questions. We believe the 60 percent maximum lot coverage is too high a percentage. We think there is not enough green space for the proposed housing. Both Winds and Gallatte's have had children from the Curve crest / Co. Rd. 5 development playing in their yards. There simply is not anywhere for these children to play near their homes. The green space proposed on the PUD appears to be less than what exists in the Curve Crest / Co. Rd. 5 development. Also, the land in question drains poorly. This amount of coverage could produce water problems inside and outside buildings on this site. The recent assessments in the Croixwood neighborhood for the Long Lake drainage issue is an indication of drainage problems in this general area. Question: What is the percentage for lot coverage for single family attached? In the building design section, it was stated that the commercial building design would have a scale and massing compatible with the adjacent residential area. It also states buildings will not exceed forty feet in height. We want single family attached and commercial buildings to have a scale and massing compatible with the adjacent residential area. We think forty feet is too high, out of scale with the adjacent residential area. Question: What are the guidelines for height for attached single family? Buildings set backs listed and on the plan seem to crowd property lines. What are the setback requirements for single family attached? These represent our concerns and questions to date. We will be at the planning meeting on July 8. If anyone wishes to meet with or talk with us, please contact the neighbors listed below. Sincerely, Andy and Megan Sundgaard Art and Mary Lou Junker John and Michelle Seim Mark / Deb Keech Young Life (Vern Hill) Chris and Deb White Steve and Char Gallatte Greg and Linda Wind Vern and Ann Hill Vicky Jensen 1148 Parkwood Lnt�t AUC 1164 Parkwood Ln 1144 Parkwood Ln�A. R . ►n 1156 Parkwood Ln�4 1 151 Parkwood Lig v L 1 172 Parkwood Ln� 1167 Parkwood 6322 Stillwater Ave _•-if►�t� 2800 Wildpines Ln, 1132Parkwood LN � ,�� JUL-08-2002 13:01 July 8, 2002 WASH CTY TRANS PHYS DEV WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT 11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082.9573 661 430.4300 Facsimile Machine 651.4304350 Steve Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 N. Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 6514304350 P.02/02 Dar.ld a. Wl.ni—K P,E, Diraclar Denis J. TheleaR F.E. Dopury DImalontcunly Engmaar Jamas D. Lugar, FW P" Dire= Vlrlm� S. Chace AdnWolrallve Sawlogs Dlviolan Rarlagar Larry S. Waack, PLS-Gauny 5urvoyar Deputy Dlreceor, Survey and Land Manapomenl Dlvlelon Mervin Erlckaon Fadllllea Mane;er el�3— S1 (91 LONG LAKE ESTATES, PHASE TWO- ACCESS TO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 5 (STILLWATER BOULEVARD; CSAR 5) FROM PROPOSED JENNINGS BANK Dear Steve: We have reviewed the drawing that you sent of the Jennings Bank building that is being proposed by Anchorbaypro. After you spoke with Wayne Sandberg, I discussed this with him also. While somewhat unusual, the split access is acceptable to the County as long as the following conditions are met: a, A right -turn lane will be required for the ingress lane. All costs of this must be borne by the developer, including, but not limited to: curb and gutter replacement, pavement construction, storm sewer modifications, relocation of traffic signal interconnection cable, and restoration of landscaping. The egress lane must be located at least 530 feet north of the centerline of Curve Crest Boulevard (at least 50 feet north of the north end of the taper for the right -turn lane for south bound vehicles entering Curve Crest Boulevard). Again, all costs of constructing this access point must be borne by the developer. ■ Each access point must be designed to adequately discourage incorrect movements. The radii of each must be constructed so that there is a physical barrier to exiting from the inbound lane and to entering the outbound lane. We will work with the developer on these designs. • A County access permit is required. The permit fee is $500.00, payable to the Washington County Treasurer. A $10,000.00 performance bond will be required, If the City's bond for the project could be held until our requirements are met, we would not require an additional bond. The plan shows a possible future parking lot with an access to County Road 5. This would be acceptable, if the original would be removed and If it could be located far enough north to not conflict with the Curve Crest turn lane. Wayne mentioned that you had suggested that a single location should be established that would serve present and future needs. We agree. It should be possible to locate the outbound land so that a parking area could be added later and this should have significant cost savings to the developer over building two connections to the County road. Please call me at 651-430-4312 if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, aseph Lux Senior Transportation Planner C: Klayton Eckles, Stillwater City Engineer Tim Nolde, Anchorbaypro, Inc. NAWORDT'lat Review-SGIl WOJenninae Bank CSAH 5 Access,doc LOCATION :6514304350 RX TIME 07/08 '02 12:46 TOTAL P.02 r e Q a , r i l i gdor 'lot 0 � 4 + 1X3 ©< VA z q �p Vi ®� r R K-0-q� >Opm ii- :=>> -0 lool = 0 70 > n 2 2 m r) Z 00 OMc mXZ `" >X r —u C (� C Zp�ZZ-'m'<m � N m < G) Z� M m P G) N � � N� 2 ° Z poo ;-< < m 0 vi 2 zn m O m x m OD m m —I 2 VI z Ln o m — V Z TT ()—W 0 v 0 vii vii --i -� > n 2 2 m r N m m `" v m r C o0 Z� P G) N � � N� 2 � O r) v-) m < m LA � 2 m � O T m m —I 2 Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 3, 2002 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Changing Land Use Designation of 1.5 Acres of Land on CR 5 from Attached Single Family to Commercial (Case No. CPA/02-02). This request was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2002 for preparation of more detailed plans to ensure the commercial use is an office type commercials with low impact in adjacent residential areas and not retail. The concept PUD plan shows a bank use on the site with significant landscaping and buffering. The PUD architectural and site design guidelines will further condition the actual building and site design to fit with the site and not impact existing residential areas. Recommendation: Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Attachments: Application and April 8, 2002 CPC staff report. CPC Action on 7/8/03: +8-0 approval PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 CPQ O"'/e a -4 Case No: /o Date Filed: / c Fee Paid:' Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED Fees _Special/Conditional Use Permit $50/200 Variance $70/200 _Resubdivision $100 Subdivision* $100+50/10 �omprehenslve Plan Amendment* $500 mooning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 _Certificate of Compliance $70 _Design Review $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, efc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay app calti on pro cess. 4Fc 1� t PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 300 3dzp3z 003-0 ),IfrL d of P oject T/�.cw �rF BGvo. /✓e. Assessor's Parcel No. 32-617,1zo 32-oo07 (GEO Code) { Zoning District i Description of Project �8�«� New 11,4.0,- lr,4c,6,r-,y i lip "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify I will comply with fr permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner T n/iv/NG.S Mailing Address /Its TowSA ►D,¢ 1 vS uJE.s__ City - State - Zia5- 8 Telephone No. 6,sl- 3Sl- t 000 Signa tune �.. P rPf+ ENn//N4S Y1, x 7s-." /ov -t- Representative f Mailing Address .7/_Z ,ly: _44i , City - State - Zip 577,�i4�r L Telephone No. 6 -,z (,p Signafur'� r SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIM Lot Size (dimensions)?Vel x 3C �,E'�ax/n:, r ,y Land Area Acres Leight of Buildings: Stories Feet Principal I / -- Accessory H:lmcnamara'Lsheila\PLANAPP.FRM .lune 22, 2000 Total Building floor areal -o„2- square feet Existing 0 � square feet Proposed !4)06-:Z 6oa square feet Paved Impervious Area -* square feet Na. of off-street parking spaces � TMANn rnr/suss/vats wrrff 9F S7 -&C w,9-rz,a- SrfFF- r� L E c)r� Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: April 4, 2002 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Changing the Land Use Designation of a 1.5 Acre Parcel on County Road 5 from Attached Single Family to Commercial. Case No. CPA/02-02. The request is a change of land use designation for an approximately 1.5 acre parcel of land located west of County Road 5 from attached single family to commercial. The policy that has been consistently applied to the west side of County Road 5 is to maintain the area as a residential area. Commercial uses tend to be incompatible with residential neighborhoods and impact the residential character of the area. Also, CR 5 has been maintained as the commercial/residential transition boundary between the business park and Croixwood neighborhood. Strip commercial development along collector and arterial streets was also a land use pattern not supported by the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. There are other vacant commercial sites in the business park that could accommodate the use. Recommendation: Denial Finding: The request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Note: If the Planning Commission feels the proposal is appropriate, a PUD master plan should be provided for the land between the Long Lake Villas project and Bethany Covenant Church and ` Willdwood Lane. coy- y��L _ 100 EWat?ARY SEWEF 10.2 WATER MAIN n 1:100 v, al- 10 FORkOM SANTARYSERVICE ply if 0 11176, CATCHBASIN WATER VALVE PCW CIAO Z4 ftR HYDRANT FLAMED END < UP LIFT STATION 23 CL 125 J14A r. CO Ly i�44 CD Lu 5 1650 1151 FA j 1662 lev CU 75 2-1 DATE 632 . 17 21 11/09/00 PAGE 8c s ff"il 00 1C�Q 8j 11 2001ao�% ,"lf iyy i,� .j }fir rt� ; 4� I� ,a" tr c �`r r C 1 Ll'�.�C3 1! �� a Al TT WATER MAINt 1r (�tii% 0O.g/"�'~° 1,00 3 SANITARYSERVICE VICE WATER SER w hWNIiDLE '��i'a+7a :.-• 1��.��_ '.•'� �ps.l� .-_j.4 .` `f. CATCHBASIN 1109 SUM * WATER VALVE1�4<�e�� fg .�{ � � � 4r� ��' �_� •, '. ' r %��. HYDRANT • ! _ � r r— #� � �'1 � .� i' • r �' ..nia ���'w' �� � i{;' II FLPJRED END Y X28 s� LIFT STATION �tflri _.J ` sJ31 °y p YL5= 'f.6�_, � ►- ��.� -- - '`�="_ p ,�,�,.: .- �"� k �. a .,•, v d m t . _CO 8 Lu 1#4 SV v, '• -y }nJ/I. �~ h LU E '_ V � r' � 41 Lim � +-•�� Y .� • (j�'j 2501/- - E cc fk�` �1 'T �I^ p0. lCi C W f " 781+` ;.- �i` r I , i f""+f$.,. „_j4• 1kl{�r 1f a LLJ "!f j j ! 4.1 ry rr� 1650 _c a v c �' C] � 1 6 / 'tom''• �� µ ' tet-., �' f�� '151 `b3� �;'�'' r 1662 1674 2 �% 1 ti r�i 00 o 4632 1 7 l• -A ✓ ,,;e 2 DATE �'' 11/09/00 8C PAGE �.r�` � �' /' �� •�' � () l r r � � � may, Real Estate Masters, Ltd. Real Estate 312 East County Road D oto Saint Paul, MN 55117 mast March 22, 2002 Mr. Steve Russell Stillwater Community Development Director 216 N. 4`h Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Zoning Amendment — Jennings State Bank Dear Mr. Russell: Jennings State Bank, ("Jennings") of Stillwater is submitting an application to the City of Stillwater for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment. The current zoning for all of parcel #3203020320007 and part of parcel #320302€1320050 is Townhouse and would need to be re -zoned. Commercial Business Park. Jennings is currently leasing space in the Stillwater Industrial Park and is rapidly outgrowing their current space. This new facility would front Stillwater Blvd. North, just South of the Bethany Covenant Church. This location would allow greater visibility for Jennings as they are growing very rapidly. The actual building size will be 6,000-7,000 square feet plus a drive-in facility. Parking spaces would also be provided for employees and customers. Jennings is a true community bank serving the local community with both Paul and David Jennings residing in Stillwater. This new facility will provide employment for as many as 50 people. As a local bank interested in the community, they would like the opportunity to work closely with City of Stillwater to develop a plan that is satisfactory to all. We have also discussed this plan with the neighborhood and there has not been any strong objection to a new bank facility on this site. Sewer and water will be brought in, so the neighbors will have the opportunity to connect at this time also. in summary, Jennings is committed to the City of Stillwater and its citizens and they are working very hard to be a leader in the community. This location on Stillwater Blvd. North would gime Jennings the visibility and presence they need to grow and become the strong community bank they are striving to be. The City of Stillwater will benefit through increased employment and a more broadened tax base. Office- (6.51) 494-4919 Fax: (651) 484-5509 If you should have any questions prior to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 8, 2002, please feel free to call me at 651-260-6979 or Paul Jennings at 651- 351-9690. AS' certly Michael L. *ien Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 3, 2002 Subject: Zoning Amendment Changing Zoning of 1.5 Acres of land from Townhouse Residential to Business Park Commercial (Case No. ZAM/02-02) This request was continued from the April 8, 2002 meeting for preparation of more detailed plans. The PUD plans have been prepared providing specific development and design direction for the site after rezoning (PUD?0240). As proposed and conditioned, the proposal addresses concerns regarding commercial compatibility expressed at the April 8, 2002 commission meeting. Recommendation: Approval Attachments: Planning Commission staff report of April 8, 2002. CPC Action on 7/8/02: +8-0 approval & 200' 47* SA"tYSEWE55 WATER MAIN ot+ 70RC-1-0 MIN -w C� 1,06 SAMTARYSERVCE � —'N WATER SERVICE �l - 0 MANHOLE n CATCHBASIN WATER VALVE 1 . HYDRANT FLAI RED END "2800 lP UFT STATION 7WIL Lu ji44 Tag 0- < Zz-l- C, Q, U an -14�8 ' CL (a LU '9G2 W1 2 —,o - -6 su 0 0 co cu w 32 DATE 11/09100 PAGE 8c 11 I A rg W 90 1w 16 2 1674 2501 9' 1 NNT, 38, X, .44r 10 Alko i3 >; 200' %Z 9.4 'I QI WMIARY p 4 1I 41 WATER MAIN # Alf FORCED &MlNc IN o�o SkNITARYSSWCE 4 -------------- WATER SERVICE hMHOLE • CATCHBASIN zm WATER VALVE HYDRANT24i FLAMED END < 19800 F i NP UFT STATION .7 i'-1 ID 1l'_ S rl 0 0 d co V m w i)44 LU -6 12 E_ m'148 0 CL E2 -vla Cj RZ, = cf) 21 Coal Ig m 8 6 -e:g cir 'Qu S me (U Q 7 DATE 6 11/09100 PAGE 8c L� n 11 fq 1091 61Z jt 65'00 125 1 "') 490- EASEMENT Q Memo To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 17, 2002 Subject: Boutwell South Area Plan The Boutwell South Area Plan was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 8, 2002. The Commission held several public meetings during the Spring identifying issues considering alternative and effect of alternatives. The plan is enclosed. Summarizing, the plan designates vacant areas, single family low density,, existing developed areas remain rural residential (Figure #3). Neal Avenue is extended from Boutwell to CR 12 between Northland Avenue and Maryknoll (Figure 3). The Commission felt strongly that the Neal Avenue extension should not intersect directly with Northland or Maryknoll. Trail locations are designated through the area connecting to exiting and proposed trails and a concept plan for stormwater management is proposed (Figure 95). The concept of Neal Parkway design (Figure #6) is provided to combine the drainage, design, traffic and trail aspect of the plan. A related improvement studied in the plan was the intersection of CR 12 and Boutwell. Several design options were studied for that intersection. The plan is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requiring Joint Board approval. A related issue to the plan adoption is the permit allocation limit of 120 units per year. Recommendation: Review and comment on Planning Commission recommended plan. Attachments: Planning Commission staff reports, letters of comments and Boutwell South Area Plan. Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 3, 2002 Subject: Additional Traffic Information for Consideration of Neal Avenue Extension Location The Boutwell Area plan was heard at a special meeting on June 17, 2002. The plan was approved with the exception of the location of Neal Avenue. Additional traffic information was requested to consider the location of Neal Avenue. Since that meeting, Sheldon Johnson, Traffic Engineer of our plan consultant, has conducted a study and provided additional information. The study concludes: • Northland, MaryKnoll, Deerpath, and Minar will all experience some increase intraffic as generated from the build -out of Settlers Glen. These increases should not create any capacity problems along these roadways. • The Neal Extension from Boutwell to County 12 will be beneficial in reducing traffic along Minar, Northland and Boutwell from County 12 to extended Neal. Without the extension, the volumes generated by Settlers Glen would be even greater along those three roadways. MaryKnoll would probably be impacted to the same degree with or without the Neal Extension. • The additional volumes on Deerpath would probably be greater without a Neal extension, but the difference would not be substantial. The segment of Boutwell, from County 12 to the connection with the Neal extension, will benefit greatly from the provision of that roadway. The 2,400 daily vehicles on Boutwell would be reduced by half and maybe even more. • The Neal extension, and its intersection location, will help to disperse traffic over a series of roadways south of County 12 rather than increasing traffic loads a substantial volume on one roadway. In addition to the consultant's report, a memo reviewing the Boutwell South Area Plan was received from Washington County. The consultant's and county's reports will be reviewed and discussed at the Commission meeting. Attachments: Memo from Sheldon Johnson, 6-28-02 and memo from Joe Lux, Washington County, 7-2-02. TO: Steve Russell Community Development Director FROM: Sheldon J. Johnso ! DATE: June 28, 2002 RE: Settlers Glen — Neal Avenue Extension Project 510-01-109 Neal Avenue is being proposed for extension from Boutwell to County Road 12, through the Boutwell planning area. The extension is proposed to intersect with County Road 12 between the existing County Road 12 intersections with Northland Avenue and MaryKnoll Drive. The City Planning Commission has raised questions regarding this extension and how it may relate to traffic generated by the Settlers Glen housing development on the following streets: • Manning Avenue ■ Boutwell ■ MaryKnoll Drive • Northland Avenue ■ Deer Path • Minar Avenue The Settlers Glen development will provide 220 single-family residential units and 160 town home units. Directional distribution of trips generated by the development, at build out, is that provided in a previous analysis of the project. The development will generate approximately 3,000 vehicle trips per day (1,500 in; 1,500 out). The assumed directional distribution is generally as follows: ■ 55 percent to the Metro area to the east ■ 20 percent to the south to the commercial area along Highway 36 east of TH5 ■ 5 percent south on County Road 5 ■ 15 percent to the east to Stillwater destinations R 5 percent to the north 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates, Inc. Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Bonestroo Principals: Otto G Bonestroo, P.E. - Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. - Glenn R. Cook, P.E. - Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Rosene Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. - Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. - Richard E. Turner, P.E. - Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Anderlilc & Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. - Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. • Richard W. Foster, P.E. - David O. Loskota, P.E. - Mark A. Hanson, P.E. • Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. • Ted K. Associates Field, P.E. • Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. - Mark R. Rolfs, P.E • David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. • Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. - Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. • Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. - James R. Maland, P.E. - Miles B. Jensen, P.E. • L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E. - Engineers & Architects Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. - Ismael Martinez, P.E. • Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. • Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove, P.E. • Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. - Robert J. Devery, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN • Milwaukee, WI • Chicago, IL Website: www.bonestroo.com MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Russell Community Development Director FROM: Sheldon J. Johnso ! DATE: June 28, 2002 RE: Settlers Glen — Neal Avenue Extension Project 510-01-109 Neal Avenue is being proposed for extension from Boutwell to County Road 12, through the Boutwell planning area. The extension is proposed to intersect with County Road 12 between the existing County Road 12 intersections with Northland Avenue and MaryKnoll Drive. The City Planning Commission has raised questions regarding this extension and how it may relate to traffic generated by the Settlers Glen housing development on the following streets: • Manning Avenue ■ Boutwell ■ MaryKnoll Drive • Northland Avenue ■ Deer Path • Minar Avenue The Settlers Glen development will provide 220 single-family residential units and 160 town home units. Directional distribution of trips generated by the development, at build out, is that provided in a previous analysis of the project. The development will generate approximately 3,000 vehicle trips per day (1,500 in; 1,500 out). The assumed directional distribution is generally as follows: ■ 55 percent to the Metro area to the east ■ 20 percent to the south to the commercial area along Highway 36 east of TH5 ■ 5 percent south on County Road 5 ■ 15 percent to the east to Stillwater destinations R 5 percent to the north 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 Given the above assumptions, an assignment of Settler's Glen generated trips has been conducted. The traffic assignment is shown on the attached graphic. The volumes shown are two-way daily volume estimates. Washington County has recently conducted some volume counts on many of the area roadways. The results of these 24-hour counts are shown on the attached graphic. From the information on the graphics the following points can be noted: Northland, MaryKnoll, Deer Path, and Minar will all experience some increase in traffic as generated from the build -out of Settlers Glen. These increases should not create any capacity problems along these roadways. ■ The Neal Extension from Boutwell to County 12 will be beneficial in reducing traffic along Minar, Northland and Boutwell from County 12 to extended Neal. Without the extension, the volumes generated by Settlers Glen would be even greater along those three roadways. MaryKnoll would probably be impacted to the same degree with or without the Neal Extension. ■ The additional volumes on Deer Path would probably be greater without a Neal extension, but the difference would not be substantial. The segment of Boutwell, from County 12 to the connection with the Neal extension, will benefit greatly from the provision of that roadway. The 2,400 daily vehicles on Boutwell would be reduced by half and maybe even more. The Neal extension, and its intersection location, will help to disperse traffic over a series of roadways south of County 12 rather than increasing traffic loads a substantial volume on one roadway. Attachment 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 z F lie- Kms )c►c C 2- 1 2- JJD7� cptifvTS l9v 2,umvll,N4TbAJ C,90NTY — mA+d ITA N -e- OZ- I%bLkr t4 4,Ye- Z-w^� 12-11 �+Vt,IL VALbt -S W T A h .J W '71-2.4o I nl 14�i Q1— 54h,4. SNC JC�kSB O r �d0 . ox I" N&) 211-RoUr7- 7IZAFF1C VOZUmE CbhnrTs t 1� 1 h7c Kil51Gk Nqt ems � � v �'rarxwFr� G� -T K/4 V DA x-57) m tt TE -c / l2JWPk- iv et;,> * E o , BY July 2, 2002 WASHINGTON COUNTY Wisniewski, P.E. DD rector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Donald J. Theisen, P.E. & PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT Deputy Director/County Engineer James D. Luger, RLA 11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH - STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-9573 Parks Director 651-430-4300 Facsimile Machine 651-430-4350 Virginia S. Chace Administrative Services Division Manager Larry S. Nybeck, PLS -County Surveyor Deputy Director, Survey and Land Management Division Marvin Erickson Facilities Manager Sherry Buss BRAA, Inc. 2335 W. Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 BOUTWELL SOUTH AREA PLAN, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA Dear Sherry: We have reviewed the draft report of the Boutwell South Area Plan for its impact on the County's road system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The development of this area will have significant long-term effects on the area's transportation system and we appreciate the chance to voice our concerns. We have the following comments: In Section II. Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways, Streets, and Trails. Some assumptions are made about the planned reconstruction of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) which are premature: The County's current Capital Improvement Plan identifies reconstruction of Manning Avenue from Trunk Highway 36 to CSAH 12 as a 2006 project. No design has been set yet. A pedestrian trail may be located on either or both sides of the road, though if a single trail is constructed it will likely be on the east side since a portion of the trail has been built in the Liberty on the Lake development. It is highly likely, but not completely certain, that a traffic signal will be installed at the CSAH 12/CSAH 15 intersection. Reference is made to the County's efforts to regulate new driveway connections to Manning Avenue. Controlling access of all types, whether driveways or new streets will be a significant part of our design efforts, as it is crucial to preserving the safety and capacity of Manning Avenue, and the transportation system as a whole. Section II. Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways Streets, and Trails, and Figure 3, Proposed Neal Avenue Connection- Washington County has purchased the access rights of all CSAH 12 right of way between Boutwell Road and Manning Avenue. (Openings in the access control exist to accommodate existing private driveways and streets.) The connection of Neal Avenue midway between Northland and Maryknoll Avenues does not meet the County's access spacing standards and will not be allowed. Preserving capacity on CSAH 12 relies heavily on controlling access since the route does not lend itself to expanding the facility by adding lanes. In order to preserve capacity without adding through lanes, we must safely accommodate turning movements at intersections. We believe that this can be done by adding left -tum lanes at some time, in conjunction with the regular repaving of the road. To do so, we must space the intersections far enough apart to accommodate center left -turn lanes. The spacing that is shown in Figure 3 of 660 feet simply does not allow enough room to Page 2 Letter to Ms. Sherry Buss July 2, 2002 construct center left -turn lanes. We are also concerned that the three poorly spaced intersections would lead to safety issues that we would be unable to address with normal traffic controls. This comment also applies to the recommendation on Page 9 of the draft report that the connection of Neal Avenue to CSAH 12 should be in the location shown in Figure 3. • Section II also mentions; "Residents are also concerned about speeds on County Road 12, and would like the County to reduce the speed limit on this road." Speed limits are set by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation, based on the results of a speed study, not the County. The results of several speed studies on CSAH 12 indicate that the correct speed limit is in place. Section II. Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways, Streets, and Trails, states that "Residents on the west side of the planning area expressed a preference for locating trails along County Road 15 rather than along the Brown's Creek tributary." We feel that the City should consider that trails along the creek may be significantly safer and offer trail users a much more pleasing setting than a trail along Manning Avenue. Figure 4, Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 Intersection Modifications- Any reconstruction of the Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 intersection must meet sight distance standards. Constructing Option 2 without adequate sight distance could cause an increase in year- end accidents because eastbound drivers would not have adequate time to react to left - turning vehicles. Option 1 creates unacceptable conflicts between drivers using the bypass lane at Boutwell and drivers using the same lane as a right -tum lane for Eagle Ridge Trail. It must be established whether or not a guardrail is warranted according to Federal Highway Administration standards before one can be recommended in the northeast quadrant of the Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 intersection. Traffic Analysis, Page 10- The traffic generated by development within this area combined with that generated by the Settlers Glen development north of Boutwell Road has the potential to cause significant delays. While the roadways that are studied do have the capacity to handle the traffic generated by the developments, the operation of several intersections may deteriorate to unacceptable levels. The traffic study that was submitted for the Settlers Glen development indicated that the Boutwell Road/Manning Avenue intersection would meet traffic signal warrants when that development is fully built out, That portion of the additional 3,445 vehicles per day from the Boutwell South development accessing Manning Avenue could create unacceptable delays. Furthermore, that the existing traffic on CSAH 12 has shown a tendency to produce unacceptable traffic levels on residential streets such as Deer Path tends to indicate that residents in the northeast area of the City do not view Manning Avenue as an acceptable route to businesses in the Trunk Highway 36/County Road 5 area. Trails, Page 10- We strongly support the construction of a pedestrian underpass near the CSAH 12/Northlane Avenue intersection. Attachments, Option 1- This is the County's preferred option for future development of the Boutwell South area. We recognize that this option is not necessitated by the development of the properties adjacent to the southerly extension of Neal Avenue, but feel that this option could be constructed in phases that accommodate the desires of adjacent property owners. Resolving sight distance deficiencies for a four -leg Page 3 Letter to Ms. Sherry Buss July 2, 2002 intersection at the Maryknoll Drive/CSAR 12 intersection would require a partnership between County and City, but would provide the best long-term solutions to access to CSAH 12. Closing the Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 intersection would help to segregate the intersection operations of Boutwell Road and Deer Path and be a significant safety improvement. We feel that this is the best long-term option to accommodating development in the Boutwell South area while preserving the integrity of the transportation system. Options 2 and 3 are also acceptable to Washington County, but we feel that Option 1 provides the City with more flexibility by providing two appropriately spaced access points to CSAH 12. Please call me at 651-4330-4312 with your comments and questions. Sincerely, l�x �Y oseph Lux Senior Transportation Planner c: Steve Russell, Stillwater Director of Community Development Klayton Eckles, Stillwater City Engineer Larry Hanson, Stillwater City Administrator Don Theisen, Washington County Transportation Division Director/County Engineer Don Wisniewski, Washington County Director of Transportation & Physical Development Wally Abrahamson, Washington County Commissioner, District 3 Jim Schug, Washington County Administrator MAUSERS PMFLUX\WORDTIat Review- SGIMaterVkxAwell South Area Plan Draft ReporLdoc Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: June 17, 2002 Subject: South of Boutwell Area Plan Tonight's meeting is the third Planning Commission public meeting on the Boutwell South Area Plan. The public hearing tonight is to review the draft plan with the intention of recommending the plan to the Joint Stillwater Township/City Planning Board and the City Council for adoption. Background: The Boutwell South Area is part of the City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan Expansion Area (see attached expansion area proposed land use plan). The area is a part of the Phase IV expansion area scheduled for annexation and development after 2015. With the exception of the Public Works Facility, Boutwell Cemetery and Rutherford Cemetery, the remainder of the study area is currently designated Rural Residential as a holding zone for future development. The Draft South of Boutwell Area Plan designates most of the vacant areas single family/low density (2-3 du's/acre). The Comprehensive Trail Plan shows trails along Boutwell, connecting Boutwell to CR 12 in two locations and along Spring Creek and the intersection of CRS 12/15 to the proposed Boutwell Cemetery Park. Several road alignments connecting Neal Avenue to CR 12 were considered. The recommneded alignment is an offset alignment intersecting v4k Boutwell east of Neal Avenue and connecting with CR 12 between Maryknoll and Northland. The proposed connecting road incorporates the design elements of trails, greenways and wetlands to create a green roadway design. Besides land use and traffic, drainage is an area of concern. With the proposed residential land use, additional runoff will be generated and have to be managed in a way that protects Brown's Creek. The draft pian has tried to anticipate land use impacts and proposed conceptual drainage designs that will accommodate the increased. drainage. The draft plan before the Commission, is the result of the existing conditions and issues reports and discussions held at the Planning Commission meetings of March 11 and April 8. Tonight, the plan is presented for comment, consideration and recommended for adoption. When adopted, the plan will provide a guide for future development of the South of Boutwell Planning Area. Recommendation: Review and approval of South of Boutwell Area Plan (resolution). Attachment: Draft South of Boutwell Area Plan As an exception to the Phasing Schedule. the City may annex pr erty not described in. Phases I. 11, or III by Resolution if the proper is adjacent to the City, is petitioned for by onehundred percent (IC SOL'T� of The property owners within the area to be annextA and if the Phase III T; -1.V resulting annexation will not create a level of growth that exceeds t� 2002 LAKE �, one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation. h { ^ e PhaIV* ,. = Phase 1 t L� se fa`{ 2015 1996 ri= Pre Phase I a Ciri Limits 1999 Ir , Phase 1V* `1. rye 1❑❑� 2015 Phase`� + [c`• n I 1 1996 w LJ r�L—JLit Pre Phase I � - 1 I�_ � �--• Ci Limits Phase Iq� 1996 LIG ,- ±� - ' i� tj 1 LILY i LAKE l t t Phase I -- i 1996 j ' 1 - r IBM FT i Phase IV* ISM, 2015 t� _ - Concerns addressed to City Planning Commission by Richard and LaVerne Schultz: clelwo 1;1 The proposed extension of Neal Avenue which cuts across our property is of concern to us as current property owners. The road extension and the park area proposed along it and between the two ponds on either side of our land appears to take over one third of our property. It is difficult to determine how much because no mention of acreage is mentioned in the report. That in itself makes us nervous, because we don't know how much land will be taken from us. We question the need for the road, and it appears the draft proposal also questions it. Please refer to the first two paragraphs on page 10. I quote, "The new Low-density Single Family land use areas proposed in this plan could generate up to 3,445 total daily trips on area roads, if the 120 acres are fully developed at the maximum 3 units per acre. The number of trips would be well within the capacity of existing area roadways, particularly when Manning Avenue (Count 15) is upgraded, and planned improvements have been completed to Boutwell Road. County 15 in this area currently carries nearly 14,000 trips on an average weekday." Also refer to page 4 of the Draft which indicates a reason not to put a road in at that location. I quote, "The existing steep grade on County Road 12 makes sight lines problematic for locating a new intersection east of Northland Avenue." It was our understanding from the former planning meetings we attended that the majority of residents in the area did not favor an extension of Neal Avenue. People seemed to indicate that upgrading the intersection of Boutwell Road and County 12 was the preferred method of handling the traffic flow. Our question is why the Draft Proposal is now suggesting both the upgrade of the present intersection and a new road be constructed? This does not seem to be necessary or the wish of the property owners involved. Stillwater Planning Commission: Re: South Boutwell Area Development Commission Members: I am concerned about the plans for the development of the South Boutwell Area. I feel like I've been on the wrong end of others decisions ever since I purchased my property and now I am in a similar situation as noted in the following. At purchase my original property corner was a quarter section marker. I was told that a planned road (Co. 12) if built would be south of my property line and that there would be a planned vehicle entrance at that quarter section line. Then when a planned road was constructed, I had to sell three acres of land at a set price or go to court to protest. The DNR (A. B. Jackson gave land to the DNR) wouldn't allow a then swamp to be filled in. I was told that the county would establish a new property corner. When that didn't happen, I inquired and was told it was my problem. However, I had a written promise from the county land purchaser that this would happen. I now had a new corner post and the point of view that this would be the new road entry point. Again, because Orin Thompson moved the Northland entrance West of that point the opposite entrance was given to the next property owner leaving me out again. When I sold my land for the highway, I had to sign a no ingress -egress statement. I assume that this will apply to any new roads between the current North side vehicle entry points at Northland and Maryknoll. I was also told that if Neal would be extended it would be along my West line — sharing the road width with the other property. I accepted that plan — apparently no longer a consideration. My former neighbor purchased land West of him so he could build a house there when the new Neal was built. Suggested Option: Traffic lines are now established with current development in place. The number of houses/lots East of Neal are limited in the area North of Boutwell. The next entrance West is at Minar Ave N. Cars use this route to Co. 12 as 80`h St and Manning Ave N. is a busy intersection currently. The Boutwell entrance to Co. 12 and Eagle Ridge to Co. 12 and now well established and at the last planning there was an unanimous vote to use those roads with the planned upgrade of them in the future. This would continue to serve the area North of Boutwell. With the exception of current households along Boutwell all traffic emanating from the area East of the creek and South of Boutwell to the Boutwell and Co. 12 intersection could exit from the two entrances currently in use. This would keep traffic off of Boutwell and exiting on Co. 12 from a given area. Also, it would create a neighborhood concept for the Boutwell area similar to what we know of the North Hill or South Hill. The Minar Ave N. would then be used to service the western area as there are good sight lines at Minar and Co. 12. It would be more that reasonable that the developer of that western area should have some responsibility to provide exits for the traffic they create and it would be reasonable to vent that traffic before the Neal area. The figure six plan is out of perspective. It shows a relative closeness of the two collection ponds. On an actual plot of the area, the distance between the two pondsis approximately 400 feet (see option 1 map) and not as low as and as narrow as the figure map suggests. I really believe there needs to be more communication between all parties involved in the planning manner. It is not enough to hear information and plan development that isn't what the owners directly involved are saying. The owners hopes and desires have to be considered. Thank you, for your time and consideration. Richard and La Verne Schultz 13055 Boutwell Rd. N. Carlson Wagoot Travel` Saturday, March 23, 2002 Steve Russell and Planning Commission Members: We would like to clearly express our opinion regarding the proposed planning/development in the phase IV area as discussed on March 11th, 2002. The area is not scheduled to be (and should not be) developed until 2015 under the current agreement. This date was the direct result of years of planning — with the concurrence and testimony of hundred's of county, city and township residents and officials. Plans can be changed when conrlitinns warrant. We do not believe most of those same people would support any change in this date - especially one that would advance the time period by over ten years for the sole purpose of quicker development. It is beyond us why the city is even entertaining this proposal. The request for the larger parcel as proposed would not, at this time, enhance the city. It is not as though: 1. The Planning Department is "twiddling their thumbs" with nothing to do, and thus needs work to employ their paid -for talents 2. The city is suffering from lack of development of housing units. 3. The city is not utilizing its permit allotment under the plan. 4. The city and county will be in a surplus fiscal state and must find projects to invest this money in. We would suspect most area residents appreciate the look and feel of the current open space provided in phase IV area. Personally, we have no intention to develop our property. Regardless of our personal desires and preferences, the following factors nonetheless stand out as relevant: We think no one will debate that traffic volume has gotten heavier in almost every corridor of the city — that in fact it continues to get worse, not better, despite all attempts to mitigate. The city already has several major developments in progress — the, final result and im act of which has et to berealized, In the twelve years we have been on 75th Street, County Road 12 traffic has increased tremendously as people view this as the quickest way in/out of the city from the East/West. The point is that any development in phase IV (as proposed) will affect safety and flow on County 12. Of even more significance and a greater negative impact is the contemplation of extending Neal Avenue South to County Road 12 as a "collector" street. The volume of traffic that would thence feed into Neal from Boutwell, from along existing Neal and Load Presence, Global PmveC' Carlson Wagonlit Travel • 1826 Tower Drive West • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-7513 • (612) 439-3522 • Fae (612) 439-h46 Owned and Operated by: Tubby Lolimer's Travel Carlson Wago4fit Travel` from McKusick Road (Orrin Thompson and Oak Glen} would be incredible. Why? We are no traffic engineers but are capable of basic logic. Human nature and physics dictates the inevitable. Peo Ie like water WILL take the agh, nfleast La—me. (remember Deerpath?) As an example: Destination: Cub or Target. Do I work my way out to County 15 -- through lights – to Highway 36 via an off ramp to more lights to Highway 5 and more lights to the destination? Or simply go via the "new" Neal Avenue onto then Maryknoll or more likely Northland, out to County 5 to Target? All of a sudden, Croixwood, like it or not, becomes a thoroughfare. If Neal were extended there would be no way to avoid that result. We are sure residents of Croixwood would soundly oppose .any developrilert'th,at requires their residential str ects to bc:--Wme main arteries. Far from alleviating an existing major traffic problem, extension of Neal would, quite the opposite, create a problem of greater magnitude. As in the Greek Myth of Hydra, in the process of cutting off one head, you create two. We do understand the long sought after desire of a North/South artery in the city – but just as tributaries can only flow downhill to the larger river, there are some forces of nature you simply cannot, or would not be wise to, try and change. We have Highway 95, Owen/Greeley Sts., and County Road 15 for North/South flow – there simply is no other topographical logistic available. In any case, we primarily feel the city should allow development to unfold in the other areas as already allowedefareconsideringjadvancin yet more Phase IV. It is only logical and reasonable to see firsthand how city services land traffic actually evolve and are impacted (as apposed to planned) as the build out in these other major areas is completed. There are always unexpected circumstances that arise in any endeavor. We compare the situation to a business that perhaps, in an effort to expand, diversifies into so many areas that their core business may begin to depreciate and suffer from neglect. No one denies the right of a property owner to petition the city to be annexed - but the right of petition does not always mandate a right to be accepted. The city's prima obligation is to its current residents and to thus consider this or an ry the overall benefits/detriments as it affects the quality of life for all current proposal in development is in fact a legitimate business out to make a profit. The fact that developers were willing to subsidize fifty percent of the initial "area plan" to assist themselves was not out of their benevolence for the city. Their "largesse" in service to their ultimate goal does obligate the city to consider their proposal seriously, it does NOT therefore follow though that the city must agree to their visions over and above a majority of existing residents. Sincerely, Bob and Tubby Lohmer Local Presence,, Carlson Wagonlit Travel • 1536 Tower Drive \fest • Stillwater, Minnesota 55083-7513 • (613) i; -;,33 . Fax (613) 439-1446 Owned and Operated by: Tubby Lobmer's Travel Mr. Robert Hultman Chair, Stillwater Planning Commission 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 February 26, 2002 Mr. Hultman We are writing to further express our concerns the South Boutwell planning area. We attended the meeting on April 8 and have a number of concerns that remain about the potential early annexation and long-term plan. Infrastructure ✓ Any development in the plan should be undertaken only after an upgrade to Boutwell and CR15. To continue to further develop the area without first upgrading these roads continues a "cart before the horse" approach that has lead to the road issues we have today. Boutwell is already a dangerous road for the many pedestrians that use it. The City Facility and development at the CR15 end of the road will only make it worse. Neither of these should have been done without first addressing the Boutwell issue. However, that is history. Certainly no further development should be added to this load. Any traffic study should also include Moth vehicular and pedestrian use. I believe it is only a matter of time before we have a tragedy. 2. CR15 and the CR12/CR15 intersection are already traffic issues. No further development should be done without first addressing that capacity. I know the Met Council has some concerns on this issue. I understand that CR is not scheduled for an upgrade until 2005 at the earliest. ✓ Is there truly sufficient water and sewer for another development at this time? The development at the end CR15 end of Boutwell and the continued growth in the Liberty area should be completed before any further stress on the system. Are the people in Liberty satisfied with their services? The ability to serve additional development needs to be documented and proven prior to any commitments. Land Use ✓ The land should be zoned for single family, rural — not high density. The 'h acre lots discussed at the meeting are not acceptable. The area is primarily rural and virtually all adjacent property owners (except those who want to sell land) want to keep it that way. Two minimum acre lots would be compatible. ✓ Any development in South Boutwell must have some strict guidelines to prevent the Woodbury -style "cookie" cutter approach. The zoning should call for significant construction diversity. ✓ The duplexes proposed by the current developer are unacceptable both from both the density and style issues. Even the developer indicated at the meeting they were the same, except for some color diversity. Report for Boutwell South Area Plan: Draft Report Stillwater, Minnesota June, 2002 File No. 510-01-109 Table of Contents ❑ Executive Summary ................................... 2 ❑ I. Project Summary .................................... 3 ❑ II. Existing Conditions and Issues .............. 4 ❑ III. Planning Process .................................. 7 ❑ IV. Recommendations ................................ 8 LandUse.........................................................................8 Roadways....................................................................... 9 Trails.............................................................................10 Stormwater Management..............................................11 Integration of Stormwater and Circulation .....................15 Sewer and Water Services ............................................ 16 ❑ V. Implementation ................................... 17 ❑ Attachments ........................................... 18 City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan j Executive Summary City of Stillwater Boutwell South Area Plan Boutwell South Punning Study I. Project Summary This plan was developed to provide a comprehensive framework that will guide land use, development, circulation, storm water management, and other infrastructure decisions in the Boutwell South Planning Area. The area is slightly more than 350 acres in size, and is bounded by Boutwell Avenue, County Road 15 (Manning Avenue), and County Road 12. The area is currently located within Stillwater Township, but proposed for annexation to the City of Stillwater after 2015. Figure 1 identifies the boundaries of the planning area and existing conditions. The City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan (1995) identified the majority of land use in the Boutwell South Planning Area as "rural residential" through 2015. The Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the annexation area assumed rural residential land use in the Boutwell South area when it analyzed the environmental impacts of proposed development in the Annexation Area, and developed the mitigation plan to address these impacts. Both the Comprehensive Plan and AUAR assumed that no urban services would be provided in the area before 2015. However, two property owners in the Boutwell South area have expressed interest in developing their land in the near future at urban densities. City policies allow landowners in areas adjacent to the existing city limits to petition for annexation. One of the properties is located at the corner of Manning Avenue and County Road 12, and the other is in the eastern half of the planning area, south of Newberry Court (see Figure 1). Other landowners in the Boutwell South area also expressed interest in annexation during the course of this planning study. The City prepared this Area Plan for the Boutwell South area to coordinate and guide land use, zoning, parks, trails, circulation systems, public utilities and storm water management in the area. The City will then consider the property owners' request for annexation and changes in land use based on this overall plan. The plan also reviews the environmental impacts identified in the AUAR, analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed land use and utility plans for the area, and discusses mitigation strategies. City of Stillwater Boutwell South Area Plan 3 ilk ��� sl��a �_„�,;,� - i � �g ,.A � � 'T Jj.r.: "' �I � � ,fit �►� 1 .,� � Z �� �, � �� � �{ „!f I~�. �: � � 'a •.J[-� ...Iwo � I� �T � { � � ` � its � �.«; •.,►� `��' ! i. 1� �+' � � c'•i Pa l Wit,: fir,, / • i t ' ■ e♦ r WWI Future Land Us 7 '4. 4iAli �. ,.� '- � ` �� " 1 � � � '�. - ♦� t4!w lt .,��{� � � 5.�� � �✓,. �,r�.. f �.'���y `� � ��� it .J'R ��i7 ,�,�y � r � ► y. � r, 1 /C�CRioJ�1 II. Existing Conditions and Issues The City's staff and Planning Commission met with residents in the area and Washington County to identify important existing conditions and issues to be considered in developing the area plan. These issues included the following: Roadways, Streets and Trails • Manning Avenue (County Road 15). Washington County is proposing to upgrade Manning Avenue in the project area around 2005. This will include creation of a four -lane roadway, adding a stoplight (probably at the County Road 12 intersection), and adding a bike and pedestrian trail on the Stillwater side of the county road. The County will regulate the number of new driveway connections to be made to Manning Avenue. • Neal Avenue. The City is considering options to connect Neal Avenue with County Road 12. Issues related to this proposal include the following: o A new connection of Neal Avenue to County Road 12 could replace or improve the existing Boutwell Road -County Road 12 intersection, which is poorly configured. o The existing steep grade on County Road 12 makes sight lines problematic for locating a new intersection east of Northland Avenue. The City and County are discussing options for road design to accommodate a new Neal Avenue connection. o If a new route for Neal/Boutwell is identified, access to Boutwell Avenue would need to be maintained for homes east of Neal. o A variety of options for the new Neal Avenue route are available. Each has potential traffic and land use impacts. (Figure 3 and Attachments) o Residents in the area are concerned about potential traffic impacts of connecting Neal Avenue to residential streets to the south. o Residents are also concerned about speeds on County Road 12, and would like the County to reduce the speed limit on this road. Existing Traffic. Many local residents expressed frustration concerning existing poor circulation in the area, and the potential for these problems to worsen with additional development. They also expressed City of Stillwater Boutwell South Area Plan 4 concerns that a Neal connection near Maryknoll Road or Northland Avenue would route unacceptable volumes of traffic to these residential streets. Trails. The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a number of existing and proposed trails within and around the study area. Issues for the planning study include: o Creating good pedestrian connections through the study area and among the proposed trails. o Providing safe trail access from the Boutwell South Area and other residential areas to the north to the parks on the south side of County Road 12. o Residents on the west side of the planning area expressed a preference for locating trails along County Road 15 rather than along the Brown's Creek tributary. Stormwater Management and Wetlands Stormwater management. The AUAR proposed that stormwater in the Annexation Area (including the Boutwell South area) be diverted away from Brown's Creek to protect the designated trout stream and associated resources. The City is currently constructing this diversion system. Land use changes proposed for the Boutwell South Area could increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from this area beyond the level identified in the GUAR. Related issues include the following: o The AUAR proposed storm water ponding in several existing basins in the South Boutwell Area to manage runoff. The size of these ponds may need to be increased, or other storm water management strategies required if land use changes in the area. o The $5,000 per acre impact fee that is being assessed to new development in the Annexation Area to pay for the cost of the stormwater diversion would be assessed to new development in the Boutwell South area. o Storm water facilities in the area could be designed to serve as amenities for development in the area, and provide multiple benefits such as open space, buffers among land uses, and trail corridors. Wetland Buffers. The Brown's Creek Watershed District requires that 100' undisturbed vegetative buffers be established along the Brown's Creek City ofStillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan tributaries and wetlands in this area. This will affect the size and configuration of developable areas. Land Use Existing Land Use. Much of the Boutwell South area is currently occupied by large lot single family residences. Many of these residents indicated that they plan to maintain this land use for the foreseeable future. Issues related to the future land use in the area include the following: o Identify appropriate long-term land use designations in the Boutwell South area. o Evaluate which land use(s) would be compatible with existing development in the area, and identify needs for buffers or separation between some land use types. o Evaluate which land uses are compatible with roadways and storm water infrastructure capacity available for the area. o Identify an appropriate land use transition from the city limits going westward o Existing residents in the area expressed strong concerns about increased densities proposed for the area. Many were opposed to any change in land use designations before 2015. Single family housing that is compatible with existing homes in the area was preferred over attached housing and other land uses. Parks and ©pen space. Additional open space and neighborhood park areas should be identified in the Boutwell South area if land use densities are increased. Open space areas may also be designed to serve storm water management functions and provide transitions among land uses. Open space corridors and trails in the South Boutwell areas should connect with those in surrounding areas. Phasing issues. The City has a limit of 120 new units per year within the whole annexation area. The timing of new development in the Boutwell South area may be affect by these limits. City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 6 III. Planning Process This section will summarize the following: • Planning Commission meetings, public input, and recommendations—Feb. 11, March 11, and April 8 Planning Commission meetings and June 17 Public Hearing City Council recommendations • Washington County Physical Development Deparment meetings and recommendations • Joint Board meetings and recommendations • Brown's Creek Watershed District meetings and recommendations City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 7 IV. Recommendations for the Boutwell South Planning Area Land Use Recommendation: Most of the existing Rural Residential areas in the western half of the Boutwell South Area should be maintained in this use, with densities of one unit per 2.5 acres. Two areas (corner of County 15 and County 12, and County 15 and Boutwell Avenue), plus the area east of the creek, should be identified as areas for Low Density Single Family land use. Net densities up to 3 units per acre would be allowed in these areas. (Figure 2 identifies the proposed land uses for the Boutwell South Area.) The areas identified for Low-density Single Family land uses will extend the existing land uses from the City Limits to the creek that bisects the planning area. The creek tributary and its wide corridor will provide a transition from these new land uses to the existing larger -lot areas to the west. While the proposed land use designation is a higher density than the existing Rural Residential land uses, it is still of relatively low density and should be compatible with existing uses to the east and west of the planning area. Areas identified for Low-density Single Family land uses are also located at the western corners of the planning area. These areas are adjacent to major transportation routes, the City's Public Works Facility, and denser development south of County Road 12. The designation of these land uses will allow for a wider range of housing types in the area, and may help the City to meet the housing goals identified in its Comprehensive Plan. Low- density Single Family uses may include both attached and detached forms of single-family housing. The proposed densities allow for "clustering" of units on sites where this will protect natural resources. Clustered designs could be used to make the proposed developments more compatible with existing land uses in the area. The distribution and amount of land designated for each land use type in the Boutwell South Area is as follows: Rural Residential 167 acres Single Family, Low-density 120 acres Parks/open space/wetlands 48 acres City (Public Works Bldg.) 17 acres City ofStillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 8 0 cn CD Q. r CL C pC/D� VI CL 11 CD cc ■� �� CD co 0 mac_ G CD U) 0 rf T� ^^'V cc mD CD 2) -•-- r j I O i i o � -m -, _� r T 3. CD 0CD a m CL cn - CD 0 N U. 3 Iz OD � o a_ rn o Q o � Roadways Neal Avenue and County Road 12. Recommendation: Neal Avenue should be extended to County Road 12. Figures 3 identifies the preferred route for this extension. The route shown in Figure 3 would connect with County 12, but would not provide a direct through connection to residential streets to the south. Recommendation: Completion of the proposed connection should include modification of County Road 12 to improve sight lines (i.e. reduce the vertical curve of the roadway). The County should also be encouraged to reduce the speed limit on County 12. The City and Washington County should cooperate in creating and implementing plans for the proposed Neal Avenue connection and modifications to County Road 12. This alignment for Neal Avenue though the Boutwell South Area is recommended for the following reasons: • It provides good access to collector roads for all developable properties in the Boutwell South area. • It will consolidate access to County 12, and reduce needs for individual accesses along this roadway. • The broad curves may require reduced speeds and help to calm traffic through the area and discourage through traffic to residential streets to the South. • The route may be designed with a "parkway" appearance that includes a trail and compliments storm water management strategies for the area. A variety of options were developed for the proposed Neal Avenue -County Road 12 connection. Drawings of these options are included in the attachments to this report. Boutwell Road -County 12 Intersection Recommendation: This intersection should be modified to improve safety at the intersection of Boutwell Road and County Road 12. Figure 4 provides several design options for the proposed improvement. Additional engineering analysis and cost estimates need to be completed to recommend the best alternative. :T•1TfMT _ ICZ:fT The city of Stillwater has scheduled improvements for Boutwell Road to be completed by 2005, including a new 26' roadway and a trail along the north side. Storm water management improvements should be completed at the same time. City of Stillwater Boutwell South Area Plan 9 - ° �--fir--- �-�•,.�•-��•�--�-- �-a•—------�- c�,.,_.---- .a, - r _ `S'nLLWATM TOWNSF{IP L . ❑ ❑ ° 1 SiiC1WA f, � � r, ...7._. QTY a I �' �i �'1 / / / n0° �❑ yt ,,� v 4 � �. ��Q,,'--"�e�...r� ��,4' s � f �' � Lu ❑ � �• !� xY eL � ,�LkL�1iY� " ° � 00 � •+J v. o .11f o J --k r rte• y, LSA -.� , _��! '"r If ❑01 0 salr• �t�:r ""."° ll`�' qy 9 / ` `] - r , t } 4 p ��ri ❑ ' u`b / OJ , ° ';.���❑�-.�..». r 'h" t�. 4#'Sc.e 'n f_e' /gags - p.ml _ 6 r. c.. I d t 4 3 /' X +„��„� [� d 1 / ,E I j �' �� � °' r`� O w� � t // �,G`r;� L� .�•�, a O �•.,, ,L7 r�� � +��-- + f..;. �%•' %', h� 7! I' I : -'' ❑ ° r�OO y+ ., L �� r�� ° .ri / ' `r it J'' Lktta YC$Ur f� o [1 [iO.a� 5 �e.'�G "� U❑ � ��j'�� .'+ ouRorz� ':� j ��y_ O ❑ tiT �, AR' q ❑ "f°}day �. a Li Q ❑ /ir.:M.r lye �, ,� i„ i�yi '`� _„i .rr .a_-• -rte k.57�:00 0 COco 0 ! Rp A J` ('000 l0❑ O O O ° a .r w ❑ _ ? i ...cfe t4 $ _ V, :+ �.{ y '"C�'y-r + `�. { f>' ��}' .. �. :i 3 L �-- ,, �� ° � -•� a Ofi� 0 O '2y,.� � 0Sa O � t 'f/ l� 1 I.. .} r....�i�-'���, 1y, r1 ; so i_O o ° –I� I +r. ta (a G ...• .2 we l a° f� Loo 0809 A } �....., g 0 1 1 C �t p•.�% .r �.; r [] "' rll f! s- �-^r ° _ _ O TJ QI' a ^ ^.{'C#� O 1 ^,"�•..� %k r�k.��' z s al r I d 1 ❑ o o` a�? 4. _ •t+, `� � x+ � u,��, to • � F ''�''.` s p �r gy CITY I ❑ o a $ Yp ❑ a ❑ �� 'r ! , _ ` t '� v ' I ,,�0 _�__�I } ]i 7. . O �.r' � O �" ,� �% ❑ � I. � t7 °,;,.--\ �':� r' ��.' ':ay, Im ,/���:+•..�;; ` s: ySYs' � � > � `r 7 ❑ O r� t. -.. — --" !. fes. F k t• ""' �'^. _ "(` l.':,$ yf_❑^'� I .ssi, a~ •'SSI y�tl �� � � r '� / -% - tl�1 - ��- -_-�. A 5 � � �+.•.i °/ }/•r �'4" I F.;.,_!c� Wig 0 I ❑ 1 rn � 1y� � L.� a �` „r a � i ° ti7 cC rtC d AL � � [ - AREA _ ra a."n.',.• -• ` �` -O" �, QE C A .75 AC ❑ 1 O Lill �---- '.`.� a s ' ti � q � ''�' t 1 1 � ❑ f' ' ..,,� 4 q •� `' ''� ,� � � �}�� • _ Pip d' Gj '30 iia ! e. • . > C4 c' o 1 n ARFSa 0 cu s� AREA .24 AC 49 Ah LL. .� CL ,kwR Mol TY OF sm r w%l a , ❑ tiS.nLLWAIER TO' C3� S if f i a1 i n Tn L SHP -- I L W �r�' re?m.fa�ruvc.nen �Hw. iy `i� / ^Y � ❑ �� � 4� ^� 19°7xYY.fi❑_. O q O10 d ( Y � � .sem-�:'•!.— �..'� -.,,Q� � • °�' . �' J .�--"���. 1���� ;O•- 70 a` o 71 it tel/ *� avw�iw, '� _ r•N^�� IF ss r H Oo 16-1 4 PJ 0 m W V A RfiAu �v E�wtwEw lu N AlT' Co. WD. IZ to- K- 12 AT W6v 1 w riW 0 ti 120 Poll m • ASD LZFT "NPN LSE (A N STYkvGT (rte ItNO ME, IS ._..r If a L W IV & S ft'ALD OVS W" - v p -N L pN ES � l -rte L • �� �� r �� a.. r �� �.� �r /ter • * ornor-4 2. 'ProxWgu, oro►q log- 2 lh lv Ur -j t-, l5Nr "me .m-.. ~ OP -MO .. ...w...... loom...... POW .�......... .. . X11..• .•� .�. N pu Ln 3 G1C o' m � v_j �N Q I u m 0 a� > > u 0 cn� d m 41 Q h a► _ N pu Ln 3 G1C o' m � v_j Traffic Analvsis The new Low-density Single Family land use areas proposed in this plan could generate up to 3,445 total daily trips on area roads, if the 120 acres are fully developed at the maximum 3 units per acre. The number of trips would be well within the capacity of existing area roadways, particularly when Manning Avenue (County 15) is upgraded, and planned improvements have been completed to Boutwell Road. County 15 in this area currently carries nearly 14,000 trips on an average weekday. County 15 will be the focus of many of the work and shopping - related trips from the new residential areas. The City will construct a new Frontage Road from the intersection of County 15 and 62nd Street, parallel to Highway 36, to the Market Place area at County 5 and Highway 36 as development occurs in the area along Highway 36. This will provide a convenient connection for residents from the Boutwell South Area to this retail area. (See map Concept Plan for 62nd Street Frontage Road in the Attachments.) Trips that do not use County 15 will be dispersed among other area roadways—primarily Boutwell Road and County 12. The proposed alignment for the Neal Avenue connection to County 12 connects at a point midway between residential streets to the south, to encourage the use of County 15 and disperse traffic among other streets, rather than creating a direct connection and higher traffic volumes on residential streets to the south. Trails Recommendation. Trails should be developed in the study area as shown on Figures 1 and 5, and include the following: • East side of Manning Avenue • North side of Boutwell Road • South side of County Road 12 (existing) • Brown's Creek tributaries, connecting with existing trails to the Brown's Creek Open Space site and Long Lake • Proposed Neal Avenue connection. Recommendation: An underpass should complete the trail connection under County Road 12 near Northland Avenue. The underpass is proposed to allow a safe crossing to the park and elementary school on the south side of County Road 12. The exact location of the underpass will be determined in the City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 10 future, and will depend on potential alteration of the grade of County Road 12 and soils in the area. Trails should be physically separated from roadways to provide a safe and pleasant experience for trail users. The route of an historic trolley route from Como Lake in St. Paul to Stillwater is still visible within the study area, and in other portions of Washington County. Consideration should be given to preservation and use of this feature, particularly if it can be used to make trail or habitat connections to other areas within the County. Stormwater Management Recommendation: The two existing landlocked depressions within the planning area should be used to provide flood control for the surrounding development and moderate water level fluctuations. Outlets are recommended for both depressions. The City will require developers to provide water quality ponds, use infiltration or filtration strategies, or other feasible management strategies to provide water quality treatment within local development sites and to control volumes and rates of flow to protect the functions of these two regional ponds. Recommendation: When Boutwell Road is reconstructed, the roadway and culverts should be constructed as described in the analysis below, to prevent flooding of Boutwell Road. The Boutwell South Area includes subdistricts S208, S209, and S206 of the Stillwater Drainage District, described in the 1997 Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). Figure 5 identified the boundaries of these subdistricts. When the AUAR analysis was completed, these subdistricts were proposed to remain in rural residential land uses (1 unit per 2.5 acres) through the year 2015. This plan suggests that portions of the area be designated for Low Density Single Family uses, at a density of up to 3 units per acre. The change in proposed densities requires that the AUAR analysis be reviewed, potential impacts identified, and recommendations developed to avoid or mitigate for potential impacts. The AUAR proposed to avoid impacts of proposed development in the Stillwater Annexation Area by diverting storm water away from Brown's Creek, a state -designated trout stream, to McKusick Lake and a ravine downstream. The diversion system included in the AUAR Mitigation Plan was sized to divert 100 percent of the runoff from events up to a 3 - inch, 24-hour event. The recommendations for the Boutwell City ofStillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 11 West Crossing East Crossing , k06 If 1 0 • a • + r� `'��1 3r jiiQ '1 'L..Y � ��C%1. r 1, o i i l y 4 • fl i I 5207 ` , S -P 08.2 S -P208.1 ,;;.. S208, 1 • '� � � 1 ti � FL1 _ 0 LEGENDS7- • / k' V♦ !* ;y 1 I Redevelopment locati no Major Watershed Bo>J dary --�-�— Pipe Regional Pond 0 600 1200 Scale in feet BOUTWELL SOUTH PLANNING AREA - SURFACE WATER ELEMENTS FIGURE 5 Bonestroo _ Irk Rosene CITY OF STILLWATER Anderlik &Associates I:\510\51001109\CAD\DWG\51001109GIS2.DWG Engineers & Architects JUNE 2002 South Planning Area include the rate control necessary to maintain the storm water management goals of the AUAR Mitigation Plan. Stormwater Analysis Assumptions During development of this plan, the drainage system for the area was reviewed from a regional perspective. In modeling the subwatersheds in the Boutwell South Area, two assumptions were made: 1. Development of the Boutwell South area was assumed to occur at the maximum proposed densities. 2. The contributions of local water quality/quantity ponds or infiltration approaches within local development sites were not included. Only the completed retention ponds in the Public Works Facility have been modeled. Therefore, the results are conservative. Subdistrict S208 Recommendations There are two landlocked depressions within S208. The Tables and accompanying text below summarize the analysis completed to identify impacts to these ponds from the development proposed in the Boutwell South Area. To provide flood control for the surrounding development and moderate water level fluctuation, outlets are recommended for both depressions. The change in proposed land uses (represented by the curve number on the tables) is associated with only a minor change in High Water Level from the existing conditions for the two depressions. This is due to the addition of the outlets. Table 3 provides the summary of the proposed pond characteristics. Regional Pond S -P208.1: The farthest upstream depression, designated S -P208.1, has the following characteristics. • Drainage area = 24.75 acres ■ Surface area at NWL (903.2' based on 1996 aerial topography) = 0.72 acres. • Estimated existing watershed curve number = 65 • Proposed watershed curve number = 75 • Proposed outlet to be restricted by a 6 -inch orifice. • Table 1 provides.HWL comparisons between existing and proposed conditions (assuming a starting water surface elevation of 9032). Table 1 - Regional Pond S -P208.1 City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 12 Storm Event 24-hour Existing HWL Proposed HWL 1- ear 903.9 904.0 2- ear 904.3 904.3 100 -)tear 907.1 907.2 Regional Pond S -P208.2: The outlet from regional pond S -P208.1 was routed downstream to depression S -P208.2. The drainage characteristics of S -P208.2 are as follows. • Drainage area = 19.66 acres • Surface area at NWL (896.0' based on 1996 aerial topography) = 0.41 acres • Existing watershed curve number = 65 • Proposed watershed curve number = 75 • Proposed outlet to restricted by an 8 -inch orifice • Table 2 provides HWL comparisons between existing and proposed conditions (assuming a starting water surface elevation of 896'). Table 2 - Regional Pond S -P208.2 Storm Event 24-hour Existing HWL Proposed j HWL 1- ear 896.8 897.3 2 -year 897.1 897.8 100 -year 900.3 901.1 i av►e s- rona zo-rzud.7 & a-rzuts. z ummary Pond NWL 100 -Year HWL Peak Discharge WS) Storage Volume (acre - feet S -P208.1 903.2 907.2 1.8 4.9 S -P208.2 896.0 901.1 2.1 5.0 Boutwell Road Recommendations Boutwell Road frequently floods where the road crosses two channels. The road is expected to be rebuilt in the near future due to its age and condition. There are two primary culvert crossings along Boutwell that were evaluated in this study. The west crossing occurs in subdistrict S206, the east crossing in subdistrict S209. The 1997 AUAR Feasibility Study recommended improvements for flood protection at these culvert City of Stillwater-Boutwell South Area Plan 13 crossings. These recommendations were re-evaluated and have been revised as discussed below. The revised recommendations were developed to restrict flow rates under Boutwell Road, to provide a system that meets the AUAR mitigation strategy. The Boutwell Road improvements are needed regardless of the potential for redevelopment upstream of Boutwell Road. Boutwell Road East: Boutwell Road east crossing receives flows from its direct drainage area (subdistrict S209), Long Lake channel, and subdistrict S208. The proposed culvert is a 36 -inch pipe (estimated upstream invert 879.0). The modeled 100 -year storm HWL along the road is 883.0', with a peak flow of 53 cfs. The existing road elevation of 885.6' provides sufficient freeboard. Boutwell Road West: Boutwell Road west crossing receives flow from subdistrict S206 and areas in Stillwater south of CSAH 12 and from the City of Grant (west of Manning Ave.). This road crossing is the most susceptible to flooding due to its low profile at the crossing and insufficient culvert capacity. One 36 -inch and two 24 -inch culverts at staggered elevations are recommended. The 36 -inch outlet is proposed to convey channel flow (estimated upstream invert elevation = 878.5'). The 36 -inch culvert will provide rate control for the 3 -year and smaller storm events. The two 24 -inch outlets with upstream invert elevation of 881.0' will be used only during high flow events: The modeled 100 -year storm HWL along the road is 885.6', with a peak flow of 126 cfs. The HWL and peak discharge assumes ponding in Grant as proposed in the AUAR. Without ponding in Grant the HWL will rise to 888.9 feet (unless the road is allowed to flood periodically, though at a lower frequency, or additional culverts are added). The existing road has a low point elevation of 882.9 feet. The road profile will need to be raised to provide flood storage volume upstream of the road, cover over the proposed culverts and freeboard protection for the road. City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 14 The recommendations for Boutwell Road may be modified when Boutwell Road is reconstructed. As stated previously the recommendations assume a conservative scenario were future local water quantity and quality ponds within the redevelopment areas directly draining to the road crossings were not taken into account. Integration of Storm Water and Circulation Systems The location and design of infrastructure systems in the Boutwell South area provides opportunities to create connections and amenities that will add value to the area. Figure 6 suggests a conceptual design for the Neal Avenue extension and adjacent storm water facilities as a "prairie parkway" that showcases the character of the local landscape, connects wetland and upland habitat patches, and provides areas for storm water management and recreation. The concept design includes the following: • A curved parkway that emphasizes the rolling nature of the landscape, and provides views of the ponds, and upland open space areas. The curves and plantings could be designed to reduce speeds on the parkway. • A wide boulevard along the parkway with groups of trees and wide swales planted with native grasses and wildflowers. The swales may be used to infiltrate storm water runoff from the roadway and adjacent areas. • Ponds planted with native wetland and meadow plants, and preservation of existing wooded areas that serve storm water management and habitat functions. • Open space areas that provide opportunities for passive recreation and casual play. • A recreational trail that connects the proposed trail on Boutwell Road with the existing trail on County Road 12. The proposed underpass for trail connections under County 12 is just west of the proposed parkway. Design elements of the parkway, such as curves and plantings, could be continued along new residential streets in the Boutwell South area, to emphasize the character of the local landscape and give the area a unique signature among Stillwater neighborhoods. City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 15 7 1 • If, M L. V %NvaF-TftS Cu lZ 4,vO L.� Boutwell South Planning Area — Neal Parkway Concept Design Figure 5A Borrestroo Rossne 4k City of Stillwater T , Aures Fnn1n•,nrc i dr..hk .� Sewer and Water Services Recommendation: City sewer and water services should be provided to the areas proposed for Single Family land uses in this plan. The areas in the eastern half of the Boutwell South area can be served from existing City services at the current Neal-Boutwell Avenue intersection. Areas in the western half of the Boutwell South area that are proposed for Single Family land uses can be served from existing service lines to the north or south. City service capacity is available to meet demands estimated for the proposed land uses in this area. City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 16 IV. Implementation Based on final recommendations adopted in the plan, this section will discuss the steps that will be needed to implement the plan. City of Stillwater—Boutwell South Area Plan 17 City of Stillwater Boutwell South Area Plan 18 '� -, F ._ ....- - �� - a �-( ��----7�..,,t ••• ice-. Y��^�— �y.0--,�Tv,,.m ��J-. rY� .._.-.___�[ r ° -. � �, � r r+ y � �� �,�. +, • ... -,. •u' 1/ t PCO O p -� i wai o a rOWNsH P - STILLSYA° .,pla ` I !� f ! ~ �p.3..r 40TY • �•... ' / f ° 1I'p � .:�` '� y P t s ;•L-r r .^ r i. O q X�� [4y O ° _..��• rte..: __"+�., S sarin.....+ % - :: it ! ': c r � a f + 0. .•�L'. sf,+'" ' 26 41° ° .� O / f O C `q7-*� *r' y°:���� �. � c � +,`,, -� � n,, ^I r/ � •-I ° .JS P O ° •fr +� t $ / / ' ° r- _f ° . r �' t F e.F ¢ -.y r �cd.s in r� E K+ _r r... %4�9'1f / F i c�.:' .-� •yrd� �'r,�"j�J's ° o j LI f3` - OAK1 °.. o _' / �.}•e7 P`� e. { •� ' R K, O - �° l,y a E ,{r.. ? ! L3If 3CCXU: a < ,1 Vin, ��oo �fL!' d w I� l °,y .10 0 �U , °�" `-••�.� T ° F ° of- • EA O a O ° o I "' C ._ . t yam' • _„P�.,t� ^' i I.07 l + .gyp 3 \, =-,�� O f 0400 p O a� O � J '" Ii}1�•+� K...w.' H r� o u. � �`` J '•tii r C�.� I �� � EISIcp '1j/,.,�o o _ --.' a o ° y I ,� . I` O L,F., . xr. r •� ��r, = n'•1 ° u el 6v _ — �l �...•..^^^^^j � r J� _ �� � �� .P � f�i,�tn ?� ""^"� ti a -iY ��-r � �� al - E O '. _ 4! ❑ ?' °.'. U61 . p fie 00�i. °its 5L• G °ioj 00 .•-.I r.��r' -�? ' L+ ti % + r � F� S ff i ��:�'�-^ � O - "�•q x � +a - � I - - +, � � �� �= C '� �' � ��i' Ir a i - r' Fj �+">� � r .•.,.ter �",r�r..ti � I j - r + � f _ � � � '.�. G $ i C '-f I ' °•e7 / �r J'r 1 4 i °° 1 +IP 0t.) 7 �f°Q � SAN o a or Cir f t� L k ARE: l 14NSNlP ;-'`_ ��.. , + . �- r " "r-j` , Y ! AL j ARC-A .24 AC O _ tr r , Li CLZ - t ! 1 ° -v.E V/V ° ,r i � �,s•r ,"fir �' � J 11Lf,WAlEft 7OWN5 IP I ter* � o �g a 4 � � ti. --^• r+ v �'°' . I--- C1CY OF 5i1LLWATER •��—° f .. _ � .I i`i•i "'L+.°R4 E �, ¢J Y '.�.�L �` � ,�' ��• � 1 � ��y'+� 7. ,%' '" � � y.;c +d .a �� .C— _��� a' � 'wi.• .r ,e. _.'«L'': T.: s�y]'��L v 'Y rr::f 3° ': P ouuoa n°°as o j - �i!--�� P frl _I= r � 1 r y `` rrner• O'� ' � � 1" ' t "` � �" I l WAN o a i /�.�^�,n ruo f a.narr tii...,,�..r �...�- . ,yt,1• t saw .7 i Jai.. ✓ {yr„.,,,r �{ r r °•:�• �' '� a i-,..... f,.{� �, T � ,P. � r� � jam- �� �,�_��,N .� LL�-. o . r �1 ter- - - /' � �:� �� ° _ r.r •'ar _ -- -------�^ _—�r-.._�,* `may. y sr .. % .._ � ` ° �' - � . ;: 1 .._ /,• I I% �. � id p'` u ti STILLwATER romgglA �7 r `a x77 ST}Lr.WAT' 1 / _.=e !:�- 'rE , f i f , fir' �,s ° j yti + :"llE. a"Y111��� ° y O / I � O a i C« _ •s �. � 'L .-,� �� ��;^ra� � � � 4 �, F. 40;y ;-,J• `� A��' .y �� +y, �����e� 'yl" 1 fyf .i„�� ��tj.�({,'1 F;M1� � I1� 2" O Dr �•� F� - ~ + °a // '•i�.,.s`iww:.�+ , `'"� r f'��= ::\' �„�¢ f &a.9 ia _ I ! rtl ''r"d... / , ° �i,►t^S ' a p. ry. n.DJ `�"G.7r....•s-"'".• ,�g:s l;$ {� *ti rG, ,sr '•7'. .-y, +� :j ss'^ t 1 0 / o-�— ary E �� a j _ AA I� // j , '!�''�`• ^� J •�` 4 `_tl D pp n // .*.'+.°` ~D •� ); •¢ ''`L�' .e7 wJ°�...._/ter` Jq� 1"RO ..� j`f� �*''1�.'t'1"'i s %ff LAKE .il�,•.Fi(�4�Sp {. / P tl —b /, • ° ' _.! .:_ t ' rte' 1 �I rj.+ • ' `` �� ;F�Tv7 tl ►++ r X 31r,J v + o4�0 Y ". � � ° .-� S D ° aR� � / 4�D � � � t�� xs,'-� Tr".�. �-�'• r �. r t^-Sl..lfr ' �4�; -� i �g$ { I�+ RCA tl° ,fes 4 a wnor. ">, `" ;,. ,!d ...�..�� :i �• �~� r �. ' ��,,�. w�K. La 0zt q p L_.� qD 0 D '� , �" ri,��'r,, j///' ,-=.� f�+,•," ` ti C'q�^'- C.+ $ x F !' j]} lill:'s. �° a � � .;`. '.--' i..3•..�,� I .�1a T .��r r•�.. �.J r I �Fr� z z i E. S a A ' .,J 9.u..,. a .. Lr,- ,�.-.411. .� _....:.� ' .1 J ! If`r�5i 4• -,�. 7 r ° .D D p O �`'�' •r. - ^`r V r '^i' p e. y. tp r % 1 _i#5 f =� ell , o D�,p'- a p � • „ �_�—r �� ,,,.�,.,r~+,'.• I�°r'..I 'S`r/ a/03`}Ly�` .s ;¢�Dr j i -`.,1'u �+r ; �•,,a` r1 � _..`.'.� y'g O° s, em�; ( ••�1�'xE �� o !- .f .r .l� r �.o ° � . � '\, •�.; +• �•- r . �. j s�� v' f I - - 1 pl O - I P ,i r .tC ^. _�� `C1 t yf .•' . 4 _ _ 0 ^/ i_ Q•iY-. U� `r', �'rT'i p D la /��'1 lF1Yf4i s°-QO)° ° - �� ! r5 � w.,,+�. _" .. _ �. s � L —.-.�� r 1 - �' �i +• _ j4 � } � � � � } -{ r � -' � f • a r '.� +i✓ •I /! f� � \ li it�,j; k I '1 �!^d _ I! L { •4. " ~..r w�....�. OV, p x; i a r } r'. �,r]-� _ _ _.I .'Lr.,..�� Yf ^..+4 •.u„iv ,I 67 O �r r'I d Ja-= r t S \lN ''L.l ° _ � tl D 'I I ��� F" r' �� �r.G�- �.^ "� ��i�•:: + �;, p�CT�•�,~,- � Iy�.n, C � � �i j �+ � �� �i� '^[j�f(]L.�� � � F � O ,q � � 9+a/r✓ S.I/ \ ti t .,gip aV 4 � C u) r6 ■ 1 ' \.f -i ¢'': yl, i'.,..,«` 'yw y r 'L'' r d d700 '� 1 'i+"...•_ J � 4 _� gyp" 4f A y D°!"!� { WN, IA �r gtl°r� `.AREA .24 AC^wts�y s' IT +i cs I \0 °° �r '— + VN WAs5 0 S nLLW kTiR _ �� o j ` .. '7 J t r �� �4 �. ° � Q � � +•� � _ �1 � `'"? •. + IIS-'} R�.�3 00 0 -'-"' +oe �"` �_. I l M i aoC000 I .,,� -� _- � `" � �• -•,�, f'��h`�45 A � a,v� �J f ¢ ,� �•-- �r � Cry}•, :� '"'"S-.t� :,� �,° ° J. as r b°� t7"a..ks a opo h ; ,~ . .- Q � ��� p o ° Q 1 II0 0 00 ' `J' 77 p r I ° lIE f � I N$H,P r t ;Zilt.LWAIER TOft;N;P O `. oD 57111WAT- � ......� 'City i C � LE; 4 .•� +'�" .\\ ` �. Pq /, r ! I a- O a I ��3� �s •I � O O � � 1 / I Q � �Q7 - � � �•'�S�f`y i ,�y.�,-1 0.S, t � � t; �l �` �'�1, =0. I /(y `' I'�' �4 � ' „° � � 1 4 '' �� ,�tiat'f'>$ 7"� ��' ° / � f p ° 4;.d::�, ••i'...'�' �'Ar ` � �: , .z '! i�c . 5 t� � � �,R.. i / r r � d � � ]r ." mss¢• �``� � t� j�7� ,� s � p ., s 1 a �_, � �,�3� r' J. :r- f �,�- :-„�•.,��i�h '-` � ��,, �� /I I rs _ - 4h• �” ° - .:..+-. 7- 9 + i +ter ° ° r / ° L =r y; , 1 "L ;i:-'f.� I'+ 1 .+ t'y� - `, ,. M1 n•` - / I - '' .. -.� r f.` � Q• � - i i Q ❑r �F t ° /� L I. 15�LS rii� 41� r r µ'ms �.... ; r 1 "�' _ --A feat - i�"""�""• �.� � .�• � 9_ Q J/�- Scc.e � f -e[ •Y{'FA tt1 t 'TS .,4 {[• 1� I a; ".i .S rra ! �SI "'O / 6•-•:— / (] ,� a O 0-, • �b.C1 - 4..� Lu —cc, s'` •'� - / i a - �, "' r .i _` .� � 1`•; •Y .,�.-. � �.rT / / Gr.��� 5v •}�.i:l�! .f � ❑ �-�... _]j +_ s _ � aux• p ...••"I t p' �ti-.�e �.,ys. `2'-, ro 7 f '1'� l,!,` t G,3 r Ia Hca or ° . / feM1 - L- ; `c f- o { a_. f'_ 'r� `'r •?i r e I I y Qom. "} J .. ° ° rti c �,� op, � — . ��~ r r ti /� >_ig 1 i CIA-( .RE O ° I Y !Q ' CS7 !. +7 �! WROIA� V r�'.i• / d^r v l.�r— - ] I IIIlI 3iLff2 °p[3 3 i ell ik, y � ] A. �� ° � ! f ' Q..r'" � ° � p p Q 'S. _ ""'�"• ' _ ._.�.:� Iw�y� M �� � .� -,� � : � a...r � ti"'�ye„ti'�4,.�_i: ~ ��v �n;�� � K i � ++ p a ° p ° 4 o I I ,r .4 ,..� ;�.•.•,, �,,� ".�- ,,..��`: � rrf r.'��/'� �v t a 0.9-r_���: �' 8 Z7 - •p -- -s .r---•--� = I s. `'"" t * �'' `•-%"` a n;� '1. y x I:.r ��TVF4 ' -f pX17 0 .W. /'a7 r Q! 1 _ I Icy ° $ t ] , ' 4 }� ',! �7� Q �.:'f - r ire _ �:j� 'ti. ,�f • 1 r ,n °`f - fir, c�, ,' p...i-. °� h` J � ° _ � 'a. O ° dS ! �° Q '. / p0 �-� .s.•a`S'�- \. �` t`' rF,yc 3 '� ty,. ,�� t4 � �n �s # `, �.�. o _ _y_ _ � f' } '.} I •^� 9 I �..� ° s / d �.,�. ei{� r � � �' vC,..�i7' ' s ..' � �' �i � ' � � � � r1 O sry � f .....,-t f ,1 '' ..a_. • =C3 �f � y7 y 0' O oc I � � ARE i ARE .�� I_,,,r _s Fa '1�rri�� •�''• �7�- r p +: 0 AC '" � G � l -r --v O � � -. � a:, �-•I 1���+.. 3�yrit e 4i � /-r� d�' ' i 7 � � � YrH51•fIP � ' p E +� ° co , AREA � .24 AC I �l:EA ° � 1 �f j �� f/��f`"��r !" � ALL 16 CK I!T VAI LJ AL -� fy bF S[IllYAiFR ��� � +�� r.�■ � ° s �° x. � rrs �,'�, .-a-r, �s'r � ''.:-T i— �`-�---• y�, + 4 ' - �� � ter.,' Jr-� �` f :� i �.�_ .aa �.11 Wer 1 � � ��.°O'LQC".Ci � � •� � �•...r.+ r� � r ,��-, R t ^r ` ° Y, I e � � � I i 1 •,, i �.. _.1 - _.I. ' � �� I I ��:F I 3w v !d a.� �,�C i ` rP' � 1 ..,•......�:-_�'.-._'� 'r' � � . Q , .`" r .� , = � . 1�'`"_ -y, 5 ".r^�C, t �'z+.rhi f 1J � - °:&-0 O 000 Op Il•� n•.�, � �- s � � r - �'•-• +`Z"� -'•� r r., p 0- L Ql {, IY J�'�.JO ,r wisar. � p -- - .•�+ `- . l �'"..�.�' r1 r -'-•�_vJ ; �, � ' A 1' //,^, ; �,�.n;/0.r' �� r40 '�`":�. {y�y5L+�y7 ��_ , fi�d=" !S1..t, "�•:y3'�-' Ft.7' :-^n� _ c'If Ar..;r t7��• � �_ .�, r w.✓`+i^ ;�� =�•'''Ys..._T'+L7¢� �* !_ - ° =C7 'n�` O-+ Y�,..,...:� r ,�- _ ?;. 'r`, 'gay `'"' `•' �"` �=.�'. _^-..J, f , � (. Y`.'!,�_8 1ti .�[: ' \ ,.�°p t ',�i ° _ °. � y ' r p Q�� ,•, . � 9i ��� � ,� y 1. r ��d � Q ., ..�1 �_.,,� -„`",� F-F,Au Err VCMW Eu. I u NKr- �o. F-0. 12- D 2D AlPv m ttj m, QV7r + vX-tir Lail c-tg cl J Go - K - a A -r t6v-rtN ra w C Wrm GT V v` A*v F-* 1 L k pr r fJ . E. GOvh1eK- OP-n 0 m 4, WAS L WIDE S RuUoS" W mk -Tv F -N Xis -n r� ComA • FUU orl Drvuw U - C, AT Cwto-r-1 F -o t z • ADD !-,f'f I V PPJ tAr * Gert `,rr WCT "fmv M L- AT fi N - F'. G44-Ney, C7r77 oN fib. ,PrVVA,WEw Psu U I -j t -I r4 T" 114S-SEG1R ()+-1 100 YR. STORM SEWER PIPE AND OVERFLOW CHANNEL --\ HIGHWAY 36 STILLWATER, MN NORTH 62ND PLANNING AREA CONCEPT PLANS Bonestroo Rosene ■�■� Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director��-�' Date: July 18, 2002 Subject: Information for Review on County Road 12 and 15 Village Commercial Attached for your early review and comment is the concept plan for the Village Commercial at the corner of County Road 12 and 15. The site plan and building design will be presented at the meeting for Board information, comment and review. The Village Commercial Design guidelines and Village commercial zoning regulation are also attached. Recommendation: Review and comment for action required at this time Attachments: Village Commercial Plans . . 4 ORDINANCE NO. 830 AN ORDINANCE AINIENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, CHAPTER 31 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW DISTRICT ENTITLED "VILLAGE COMMERCIAL" The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: 1. The Stillwater City Code, Chapter 31, Zoning Ordinance is amended to add anew zoning district. A new subdivision entitled "Subd. 23. VC Village Commercial _District" is added to the City Code that will hereafter read as follows: "Subd. 23. VC VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. 1. PURPOSE: To provide a local center for convenience shopping and personal services primarily in proximity to a residential neighborhood. 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED: No building, structure, land or premises may be used and no building or structure may be directly constructed, except for the following uses, that are permitted by Special Use Permit: a. Local convenience retail business or service establishment, such as grocery, fruit and vegetable store, bakery, drugstore, general store, barber and beauty shop, clothes cleaning and laundry pickup station, business and professional office and the like, supplying commodities or performing services for residents of the immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas. b. Day Care/Nurseries. C. Medical and dental offices. d. Parking facilities. e. Professional, editorial, real estate, insurance and other general business offices. f. Residential Uses - Second Level. g. Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops and soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages. h. Service stations. i. Other uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. j. Other use or service establishment determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the foregoing specially permitted uses and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties may be permitted. 3. HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS: The maximum height of buildings and structures and the minimum dimensions of lots and yards are as follows: a. Maximum height: It. Principal structures - 35 feet/2 stories Accessory structures - 20 feet/1 story b. Minimum lot area: 10,000 net square feet when not within a P.U.D. C. Front yard: 50 feet when not within a P.U.D. d. Rear yard: 25 feet when not within a P.U.D. e. Building and Imperious surfaces: 60% when not within a P.U.D. f. Landscaping and open space: 40% when not within a P.U.D. g. Additional setback requirements: When a property within this district is directly across a street or thoroughfare or adjacent to any residential district, all parking and loading facilities must be at least twenty feet from the property line and buildings and structures at least twenty feet from the street. The setback space must be permanently landscaped. h. Other requirements: All uses shall be conducted wholly within completely enclosed buildings, except for service stations, parking facilities and other outdoor uses when appropriately located and designed as approved by the Planning Commission. 4. DESIGN PERMIT: A design review permit is required for all village commercial uses. The country village architectural and design guidelines, set forth in Exhibit "E" to the Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City and Town of Stillwater dated August 16, 1996, are the standards that must be applied to this design review. 5. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: These development requirements may be modified based on an acceptable planned unit development for the entire village commercial district area." In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. 2 Exhibit "E" Country Village Architectural and Site Design Guidelines Goal: Create high-quality country village consisting of country store with fuel, country school (daycare) and other village scale professional services. The building shall have a related though not identical village residential character. Architectural Style: Gable roofs are preferred. Architectural detailing should be consistent with the style of the structure selected. Materials: Brick, stone, painted or natural architectural cedar or red wood siding are to be used as exterior materials or high grade reduced maintenance materials that will achieve the same exterior appearance goals as natural materials may be used. The roofing shall be heavier weight asphalt shingles or cedar shingles or high-grade reduced maintenance materials that will achieve the same exterior appearance goals as the natural materials may be used. - Building Design: No franchise or prototypical commercial building design shall be allowed. The village area shall have a unique rural character related to its surroundings: Canopies: Pump area canopies shall be of a subdued design consistent with the building design and materials. Any under -canopied lighting shall be recessed and not show the light source from off the service area. Building Orientation: The country village will be visually and functionally connected to the immediate neighborhood, be accessible but not visually prominent from County Road 12 and 15. Building Setback: 50' from County Road 12 or 15 Parking or paved Streets or Driveways: 20' from public right of way for County Road 12 or 15 (if bermed and landscaped) Lot Coverage: 60 percent maximum building and hard surface coverage. EXHIBIT E 1 �1 Building Height: 35' to gable peek Road and Parking Configuration: The preferred configuration is one of curved and angled orientation Landscaping:, 40 percent minimum of the land area shall be in permanent maintained landscaping, open spaces and natural wetlands. Areas around building shall be planted with hearty species of deciduous and coniferous Stock and should assists in blocking sight lines of parking facilities and highlight attractive architectural features in a landscaped setting. Screening: Parking areas that can be viewed from adjacent roads or residential areas shall be screened with a combination of deciduous and coniferous planting and berming. Signage: Commercial signs are to be placed on linear walls, composed of -the same materials and bearing a similar design theme to the building being identified. Interchangeable tenant identification will be provided but if internally lit must show lit letters only, not letter backgrounds. Preferred building identity signage is by cut out letters of durable materials, mounted on the above mentioned walls, lit with internal backfacing lighting or reflective lighting from ground, wall or tree mounted spots. Spot lights must not provide glare to adjacent roadways or perimeter residential uses. Identity monument type freestanding country village signs without tenant identification consistent with the village design and material may be allowed along County Road 12 and 15 and at the residential roadway entrance. Utilities: All utilities will be underground and HVAC equipment will be screened from view. Roof mounted units will be screened via roof configuration, wall extensions either vertical or horizontal. All trash areas shall be completely enclosed and screened from view by a structure of a design compatible in design to village building and perimeter landscape. Lighting: Site lighting selected to minimize visibility and glare from residential areas. Overall site light levels will be achieved by a blend of streets and parking lights not to exceed 20' in height. Walkway lighting, building lighting, site amenity, sign lighting and vegetation lighting shall be reviewed to make sure it is compatible with the residential quality of the neighborhood. LIBERTY VILLAGE ARCH (T E C T U RA L IMAGERY OF T H E °SHOPS ON THE SQUARE" PROFESSIONAL / RETAIL BUILDINGS Liberty on the Lake Contractor Property Developers Company. Homer Tompkins, Pres. Planning, Landscape Architecture & Design by: Putman Planning and Design Architectural Concepts by: SALA Architects, Paul Hannan July 12., zoos pp, „.,� Ma.7 .++- _ t+ f ,,�� �:{ -='�” � - ;r+�,..-- - — v. � •or rws•; f�•,rr� -. _. .sem >..k:7�i's�i 'c:: ,1' r. _.tel • s" �ax�sxu � 4a ri.•, � z,..t..:-�,�1f`.--,,�! '�r•.■eyse�.�c�.�.��.L.r�.v!e�r,veo.ar5T°a'�rfr�LtR',4� ,,�,"JS}�..uLx!s.'i�T.q.r,�tr�n.T■� .t{..^•._". E��-�Y-`i.-..-�4_5- :� a! �=�--+f'.,. �s�r.�,VF"al--�� �F'r .v.:fa�es�■�rr; •..��` �jplya^,r.::. .{4rC.'wr+:r�riior.w�ra•`P—�^_�v. . i�'�,.���7iggr.rc.d ��1 l ti—_Y.`'. •'1����10�.�.R,r.--�'..�•, .. .t.om-`�-• r4 T.--..- .. Y .o-: i'ss r,.s�xeYco1¢oa3s�ra. .''F.F�.^3. i.a:M..��q. .J..- 3�i7a i.L.- ir' -®��i�.�s r i4♦r,�:.'g�Si r7c..'.-_i*�7. y a�IrP_.. r_..r.}..�. e�.7l.��i�"x11-3 's '1:�'f4Y`r,�i�s FG�:reirt:�.'.S+.,. � i.�.f.r--�a�s��era., �■ifr :.- [y�r�y:�:��r�.C".• 4 .. ' . ti iFEM �. 4�0�7 r� ,raaaaaaaaaal■c_ "l•�,Gf�l� .� .'L-=•1 •-.•�■ � �����.'i. .n.. -- - xsr�n .� ��rt`.s a '"3� '��` fy;: ".--_.._-•�-ezaa., " r_ .,._-I '" �c,'ger', "1:�� !_d _a: ......sPr .... iLiu,-.� -'� ; " a- ror _ - �:.a •�.. , ;;�xa ''- 1 �'.a'�}�C�t�. n ;'�v• ��!-irt��i �': vi`n a4' :r.w .:.ter �• >erar ,�. :{ �' , ,+.`',:��•�I ....--�� _ �, . • °�_-.� _ >� .. • i .fir � :� ar....� �I s, ; IF r� rr�.\ rler �a .^n a emrxrr.�=-. f3 + -�. �.r.s .+■ - _ 'm* _..,, :rwr+rrsarreaar--.... � �-. .- rr �.;s„ _ .,- �-- ;,�� _ =lug t f � ..r,v,�.m,,,;gqq �y .f r�,� 2 � ..m+ra�=....�a*.G= - , �� . - - . �+'■'�.....�r� ._ - !' _ _- ..ir-- ��,�� �. }r Y � �� r ,: a�.sramsaora{.�:� a ar.VVM �.�. � '- ,'.�wnrw.r„r�a �a .{}.�',1 r• � � 1 �.r. 4 - y TyWA�y1 - w+rryt .ywrrs,i�w.svYw. - ,.. � ,W-l.�rj � ii ■ � } .. t� •• lana :,....^'."�'.. .c s-r..-;.r---'�- - tk _ - . .. .... {_- _ as _.: r — - •.sr.a .�__'--`:'F_^.•r,.4 ■ [:;: T; • ir..... _ . ,, f .,g �, _ rr,..�r .+, .' `s -- ------_a.` - .er ,. �. 1 1 . F. � r�■-_ ., ^r.n--.-w.._-.._. r.�;;.aY eyi ''ter � ' - �'y' �" ;'at.�. � � - 'ir"� � ':' ' �. �, �.:� � id � t �_ ..,r, [�, uea:aai. : }r yr ■ qr .r•:— arr +� ,.:9r1 � ; a .$ c • ..:. ...:. ,tae F "� � � '�'f�"�" a.3��c.i��' .�. a-•: !� :a.a,,.� rr{ �• ' f:>� ts�i�� � � nti-ana. r.�':�c r�..�t......�. :� :r C: �; �v" r :rta.- � E msM-!i""d'• � �r - a ,� r��r� s `I a ■r 1.. :+�' �"r"� � - i fir° r;• ,•r - ..} t,_ • c m■Kx�r -� - =� i I L.. � R :oras' ?'"' ~:a -:+C; .� ..+r �•'-- :saw* I i=a ]y(yi��r�i �.. e . r• -m � w:s � 6 e an . >m • g' Y, S rna.rw , .4 yLre "'-' �., �. i 3 r � s a�w � .ae _ - a� � f.. g ate., ,ea �j,� �ts.•� .,r r 'fK. 'fql y � +a-�,.e�T.=�..�'^ I.�`� °'"',`r��. .`a' � s ! - r.� ��ir .�" i r,r r_ arro�i, .� I., :g i!4i r+ - "� w.'I•:1 � . �aerrst'p - r - +..f� Li c'�'riR3:1 ,�,` '4r ,a,�: � �.. "1 w _•.r' . f �-. + x Y -r�ai -'I' # er !� � N: *.. a.. �r r�r .ae.+ .'..uxa.: � >.. r } _ awi �r ¢. ...,r,-.�,rl .* � ►: C.c�i .:;�. � .Y. "3r" �� '{. �. r..J,.: rr : i. (�� _ r k { r. -. , '.,;...'�r. ! . ssyyr� ra rs ,.i -� CGrda _ r L:,,. � �.-r::....c�r � r a �'✓.� :}. � ..o.i . y.��,.,.�jar., 13� - yr3 .tom„ w :i-e�� � `>r��F i t . � �r� t,''i+.a e e arr�r Yq'?•:, ' j. F a: • "� I 1 w : ,.. - X 34 '� .3 [=.rE' 1 I r _ `n i "II C ti.�1-� 4; .•� I J r� - C, ll..�•,..�s� 7��3 x: •. , ,I a%��..1I'.�.°!' .r.'.1=:c3 cam• r•:="'?• . r� a , ii y but ;9 OVIDLd _4 I r -W F3 �4 1 R' �V � ,�..��...�, � i�:. 'r is'w" 1 .7•i s� '�'Y�f� q � � `�a �� _���yTs,�6.,^ � . i * c f yr.r�rr ► 1 _ =19�`:s'..... rs-+.''�=s 1l�r�w•�.f+ ^r�.2 :rs - , - �e., a .�yFyFy r>af !7•. ��^--� rjs draw.` tw � � �n� nt�G�.{o �� E:�: � c. >. +E�wwr s� ■ FFG! U. F'� SJtjI ®. y ��.'. lu Eska, —��I 3 .i ; i.�. �. 2�i� � r� G-�� [ 3 � 1' wmr�fe : � 1'3 .�T7 a�." i rr� FFFFF : iy s. Fr}{ar � - i:.� �j �i� e ! �` `E.4.'• L: ¢r, �r � .PI � W .� .' w - F�i 1 m ap►Y#� �1j i�[� +��� yaami mI':arnelt RN J1E5566 �.' �.t;i - Y'=?L.. h �. �`l •'i RLA[ �I�.rw +^.Ii1��P �L�' .� � ammi i E2 [c ®R-; ,! ii !..'�5S � x . r p-.C#71, F ail `" ra t^ . x " - w' 'x'9 .3swl_ 1�_ :rafpp F.,i� l9k33it�iP E yam, 3 : F a'nd �l�s+31, y, �Er ; r,[ }ail i 'rte ,s a+rtl++�� •1:•` -;t if. - 1»to`F ! F.t i R �l.st - •.i `; mm TA T .�. �.. -w �., r I+[' --•._..ice.' j4 a.��t� ! �_. �_.�_.. �. F � ! . i � �. !Z� i��i'i✓ Y•._. '�' "'v+,rs�. a .r`[ .1.. .. A �_M I �3 i� �. -W nti -TION5% MOM m1mv lj� s Moo, P!!!R . iAt yea pwq lira i WON. ,off a Is, �.' ` r. ` /.��"o*«^^ ______ _ +=S�ti -' s' ��r�-+ +�� _- ; � .• YN �} .a„�'d' S� �-��p, `•may.. ..ar .a�'. 4� X5.1 S � A C- E� i• �`��a � , �� �'� ,,•.��. .� "'ec _ "M1Y- :_:t^'s„.�"lux�t�i.:r 3�' µ..Y++a.��.a�syu:� _ '`�, - _r-'.�e��-rte • � �"�`w—�'w.ry�+-r _ _ r A SSL .-..'N+ Yfi..r..LY��..-+1- .�" Et` . ^...�•....^�-�� �1. ','.I N •.. 1� .-ra"'i � '�RJ. ,4. "'I��iv�-v 4�iH+ 5 � max. ��1 �[""r 'i �' �`, •x •� i��' � _ 1�{7Rp� Ves US '� .1. '1 ��i�7-��v:��,,-"•�. F .t*i � P4�"°A-:r�l� 1, � _ '1 _ J/d'al i'•'�� j .�y • p _ LL SSS i [ � J y T a' is r •� ns '---a � � _ 4 un. .a �6.i1 L r� _ . ; �� mss, ���� .. � .•. - yry� f fi _ .fff� ME g.� On"ItON No'—am KNE INE TI c;) n oc) M o o N h !\ 11 POND 0 1\ BUILDING 6 SETTLER'S WAY BUILDING 7 -n n m 56,368± sq.ft. •LA ARCNrrr-CTURL 4 • DLNTAL OtJ QN •ARC F'IPTLCTURAL ILLUITRATICN R •GRn11C ot_ Jr • Fe.y�i6e.gl.s.iKYaiiwijtiidY �y^r i�. fF , • wY i ;' 7100 NORTHLAND �•• CIRCLE, SUITE 108 ' MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55428 PHONE: 793.971.0477 FAX: 793.971.1576 LIBERTY VILLAGE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BUILDINGS 6&7 i 6 Lrve.ul'A�a.51 ul L....p. A�6u,u 6r..T Jw Svc. .I V....,..0 S4.- N: M.. P.— D.w: U..Pw: mwlawwqalomIP� DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN TRANSMITTED 0 2002 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN -l11. hn5,y Je PR Luti P.swm P.1 a. e!iqsrau. 41rc7nu� h. LODI�PMPrvP.� 1P tlrorl Siw �+1>'4w 1... PE ryiu .e rvrwx#: DPSD. PI w A, mpon o4mi P•niwbn ka D'm .r din .Le.,. • j C]� hJLJI`•Ib�F�� NOTE: THIS CONCEPT SITE PLAN REFLECTS CITY AND ENGINEERING INPUT AS OF 8-20-2001, AND SHOWS VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS FROM ORIGINAL LIBERTY ON THE LAKE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DATING FROM 11-17-1997. PARKING AND PONDING MAY REQUIRE MINOR REFINEMENT. I • RL -A=, INTNG ALCL-/ C.l U, Ai �k ok & D ESIGN. OWN -.- ,1 /A�r �� I 4 �,L4 ILI L I B E R T Y VILLAGE LIBERTY ON THE LAKE CONCEPT S IT E & PLANTING PLAN =jp, N—: M- P- CgC �KME D DRAWN 0 2002 PUNAN PLANNING& DESIGN 7100N.,tl.dpick S01.108 M-01* MN 55428 Pr .Yo3ofo.F7 F-763.971.100 OWN -.- ,1 /A�r �� I 4 �,L4 ILI L I B E R T Y VILLAGE LIBERTY ON THE LAKE CONCEPT S IT E & PLANTING PLAN =jp, N—: M- P- CgC �KME D DRAWN 0 2002 PUNAN PLANNING& DESIGN MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Expansion Area Building Permit Update for 2002 Date: July 18, 2002 For calendar year 2002 building permits for 228 housing units were issued. The table below shows total expansion area building permit activity for the 1996-2002 period. The orderly annexation agreement allows building permits for 120 housing units per year or 840. Year Permits Issues Permits Allowed 1996 0 housing units 120 housing units 1997 0 housing units 120 housing units 1998 13 housing units 120 housing units 1999 104 housing units 120 housing units 2000 201 housing units 120 housing units 2001 228 housing units 120 housing units 2002 53 housing units 120 housing units Total 599 housing units 840 housing units With the approval of the Settlers Glen Project (380 housing units) permit activity may increase in 2002-2003. Recommendation: Receipt of annual building permit report. Attachments: Orderly Annexation Section 4.01 SECTION FOUR TIMING OF ANNEXATION OF PHASES 4.01 Under no circumstances will the growth in the Orderly Annexation Area exceed a cumulative total of 120 dwelling units per calendar year measured from the year 1996 as year one. This limitation shall apply to the issuance of building permits. The City shall provide a written report to the Joint Board on July 15 and January 15 of each year commencing in 1997 identifying the number and location of building permits for new residential dwelling units issued during the previous six months. 4.02 Phase I property will be annexed to the City after the execution of this Agreement. The Municipal Board shall order annexation of the Phase I property within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Joint Resolution. 4.03 Phase II property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 1999. 4.04 Phase III property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 2002, 4.05 Phase IV property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota . Municipal Board any time after January 1, 2015. 4.06 The City may annex Phase II property prior to January 1, 1999 provided that the accelerated growth does not exceed the one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation. 4.07 The City may annex Phase III property prior to January 1, 2002 provided that: a) the accelerated growth does not exceed the one hundred and twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation; and b) that seventy-five percent (75%) of the net developable area of Phase I property annexed to the City has been platted and developed into occupied residential dwellings. 4.08 The City is free to deny an annexation or extend the timing of a phase at any time at its sale discretion. This Agreement does not confer any rights upon any individual property owner to require the City to annex his or her property. -a 4.09 As an exception to the Phasing Schedule, the City may annex property not described in Phases I, II or III by Resolution if the property is adjacent to the City, is petitioned for by one hundred percent (100%) of the property owners within the area to be annexed and if the resulting annexation will not create a level of growth that exceeds the one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation. 35667.01F 05/23/96 -4-