HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-15 Joint Board Packetter
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, November 15, 2006
Agenda
Case No. ZAT/06-04. A zoning text amendment to the CR, Cottage Residential District for
driveway widths. City of Stillwater, applicant.
Other Items.
-Update of 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
-Building Permit Update
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: wwad.stillwatermn.us
Stillwater City and Town Joint Board
August 29, 2006
Present: David Johnson and Linda Countryman, Stillwater Township
David Junker and Mike Polehna (7:50 p.m.), City of Stillwater
Others: Stillwater Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and
Stillwater City Attorney David Magnuson
Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Case No. 06-45 A request by Tim Freeman of Folz, Freeman, Erickson Inc. for
annexation, zoning map amendment, comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat
approval for a 15 -lot development on 8.9 acres (Brown's Creek Reserve) located on Neal
Avenue and McKusick Road.
Mr. Turnblad briefly reviewed the site. He noted that the Joint Board reviewed Concept PUD
plans for this development and held a public hearing in May. Only minor details have changed
since that time, he said, and staff would recommend approval of the current application with the
23 conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing, and no testimony was offered. Mr. Freeman explained
the various treatments for runoff from the development — rainwater gardens, settling ponds and
infiltration ponds to capture and treat all water from the development. Ms. Countryman asked
whether the trail system could be constructed of pervious material rather than bituminous in
order to further mitigate runoff. Mr. Turnblad noted there had been lots of discussion regarding
trails and the use of pervious/impervious material. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that as a result of
Watershed District reviews, the trails have now been taken completely out of the buffer zones in
order to address runoff concerns.
Mr. Junker noted there had been lots of discussion and review of these plans not only by the
Joint Board but also by the City's Planning Commission and Park Board and moved approval of
Case No. 06-45. There was a question about the removal of the temporary trail once the
Millbrook development connection is made. Mr. Johnson asked why the temporary trail couldn't
be left in place. Mr. Turnblad explained that the temporary trail would result in one homeowner
having trail easements on three sides of his property if the temporary connection isn't removed.
There was a question as to whether Mr. Junker intended his motion to include all four requests
— annexation, zoning map amendment, comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat
approval. Mr. Junker said his motion included all four requests, with the 23 recommended
conditions of approval. Ms. Countryman seconded the motion; motion passed 3-0.
Case No. 06-49 A request by Bruggeman Properties for annexation, zoning map
amendment and comprehensive plan amendment for concept development plan of 45 single-
family lots located between Boutwell Road and Country Road 12 at Newberry Court.
Mr. Turnblad introduced the request. He noted this property is in the South Boutwell Plan area,
which is in the Phase 4 annexation area where early annexation is discretionary if certain
criteria are met. Mr. Turnblad said this request does meet the criteria for early annexation. He
Stillwater City and Town Joint Board
August 29, 2006
pointed out that the Stillwater City Council and Planning Commission have been debating the
appropriateness of several recent requests for early annexation, both bodies identifying a
concern for developing a vision for the area in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update before
allowing any additional annexations. However, Mr. Turnblad suggested that this request is
different in that it is in the South Boutwell Plan area where there is a plan in place, a plan
developed after extensive study. The second issue of concern to the Council and Planning
Commission, Mr. Turnblad said, is the transportation infrastructure. The South Boutwell Area
Plan and associated traffic studies, he said, called for a revised intersection of Boutwell and
County Road 12, signalization of Manning/12 intersection, improvements to Boutwell Road and
Deer Path before annexation would be considered. All of those transportation elements have
been satisfied, Mr. Turnblad stated. Mr. Turnblad explained that the action needed of the Joint
Board was a yes or no decision on annexation and a recommendation regarding the
comprehensive plan amendment. The proposal then will go to the City's Planning Commission
for a recommendation to the City Council. Preliminary plans and final plat would both come back
to the Joint Board for review, he noted.
Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. Steve Fisher, Bruggeman Properties, noted they have
been working with the City for the past six years and have participated in studies at every level.
He noted the necessary traffic improvements have been made, sewer and water is available,
the proposed zoning is consistent with the South Boutwell Plan and both the County and
Watershed District have commented positively on the development plans. He concluded that
they believe the time is right for the City to consider annexation.
Mr. Johnson asked about park plans. Mr. Turnblad pointed out the City's Park Board has not
reviewed plans at this time. A spokesman for Bruggeman Properties noted these are concept
plans and details regarding the park have not been ironed out. The Bruggeman spokesperson
said trails are envisioned, as well as a connection to the westerly neighbor, for perhaps a joint
park. Mr. Johnson encouraged developers to consider active recreational uses.
There was considerable discussion about the City's need for a north/south connector street,
likely Neal Avenue, and how that need affects this property. It was noted that in South Boutwell
Plan discussions, there was a concern that there be no direct through connection at
Neal/Northland, a concern that resulted in plans for a median at a future Neal/County Road 12
intersection.
Mr. Polehna said he had a concern about how this development ties to County Road 12 (Myrtle
Street) and said he wasn't sure that the City's Planning Commission has had enough time to
review how this development ties to properties to the west. He stated he was a proponent of
addressing transportation concerns first, before annexation.
Mr. Junker noted that a future Neal Avenue extension will have a big impact on this site. He also
noted the City is beginning to work on updating its Comprehensive Plan. He expressed a
concern that the proposed CCR (Cottage Cove Residential) for this development is too dense
and said he would be hesitant to consider the zoning component until the Comprehensive Plan
update is complete. He also pointed out that until a Neal Avenue connection is provided, there is
only one way in and one way to exit this development of 40+ lots.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the proposed density is consistent with the Boutwell South Plan.
Mr. Turnblad also noted that the density is consistent with the number of units used for the
transportation figures in the South Boutwell area studies. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the
Stillwater City and Town Joint Board
August 29, 2006
proposed development plan offers flexibility in providing for future Neal Avenue connections and
connections with properties to the west. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Joint Board could
agree that the request qualifies for consideration of annexation and let the City determine what
happens regarding zoning and other considerations. From the Township's view, he said he
could see no reason not to vote for annexation and allow the plans to move forward to the next
level.
It was agreed to take action on this request in three separate motions. Mr. Junker moved to
deny the request for annexation, expressing a concern about the lack or a Neal Avenue
connection and a concern about the need to develop a vision regarding zoning and how zoning
might fit in with each future development in the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Polehna
seconded the motion to deny annexation, saying he was concerned that the City did not have its
whole act together until the Neal Avenue connection is settled. Mr. Junker agreed that once
Neal Avenue is more defined there would be no reason not to annex the parcel. Mr. Johnson
stated that from the Township's standpoint, the proposal meets the requirements for annexation,
and he pointed out that the Neal Avenue connection will be made on a different parcel of
property out of the City's control. There was some discussion regarding tabling the issue, but
Mr. Junker noted the City will not be in any better position regarding the Neal Avenue issue in
90 days. Steve Fisher reiterated that the developer has identified a Neal Avenue connection
with consultants and reviewed the proposed layout in view of that issue. Streets will be
constructed to MSA standards, Mr. Fisher pointed out, and the layout is flexible for the City to be
able to iron out where the Neal connection is made. Mr. Johnson noted that even if the Joint
Board approves the request for consideration of annexation, the plans do not have to go any
further, it moves the development proposal to the City and takes the Township out of those
considerations. Motion to deny the request for annexation failed 1-3, with Mr. Junker in favor of
denial and Mr. Johnson, Mr. Polehna and Ms. Countryman against. Mr. Johnson, seconded by
Ms. Countryman, moved to approve the annexation request. Motion passed 3-1, with Mr.
Johnson, Ms. Countryman and Mr. Polehna voting in favor and Mr. Junker against. It was the
consensus to take no action on the other requests. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that those action
would go to the Council with no recommendation.
Mr. Johnson noted that the other requests would have to come back to the Joint Board if the
City Council approves the annexation.
Other items
A request by Nicholas Henton to ao rove a lots lit at 12340 McKusick Road — Mr. Turnblad
explained that this property, a 5 -acre parcel, is located in the Township and is in the transition
zone, which allows parcels of 2.5 acres if the property is ghost platted. Due to potential future
development issues, he said there is the requirement for an easement dedication to the City to
provide for future road/utility locations. Mr. Turnblad said the Hentons are asking for an
alternative to the easement.
Mr. Henton spoke of the cost to them of a "donation" of 0.9 acres of land to the City of Stillwater.
Mr. Johnson pointed out there is a difference between a "donation" and an "easement." Attorney
Magnuson suggested that the Hentons could dedicate the easement to the Township if that
would be more acceptable to them. Mrs. Henton asked for an explanation of the reason for the
easement. Attorney Magnuson explained that the easement is to provide for a reasonable way
Stillwater City and Town Joint Board
August 29, 2006
to develop the property, location of roadways and utilities, if it is urbanized at some point in the
future.
Mrs. Henton said the restriction determines where they can build their new house. She also
noted the easement requirement will make it difficult to sell the property and said she thought
there were other options, such as covenants, to accomplish what the City wants.
Mr. Henton questioned why they should dedicated 0.9 acres to the City and not be
compensated for that. Mr. Johnson explained the intent of ghost platting is to provide for
changes that will happen over time and is trying to be respectful of the "City growing in our
midst." Mr. Johnson also said he didn't believe that ghost platting determines the direction of
house or the type of house that the Hentons can build. Attorney Magnuson explained that if the
Township allows a subdivision of property, it must be ghost platted to provide a feasible plan for
urbanization. Mr. Magnuson reiterated that the easement could be dedicated to the Town, and
he noted the Hentons could use the easement in any way they want, as long as the use is
consistent with the purpose of the easement. Sheila Marie Untiedt, Town Board member, asked
if the Hentons could position their house as they see fit as long as they meet setbacks; the
answer was in the affirmative.
There was some discussion about the Hentons redrawing the proposed lot division so the future
road could be placed on the new parcel. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that if the lines are redrawn,
the easement still has to be provided. Without the easements, a ghost plat has no effect, Mr.
Turnblad concluded. After discussion and being asked how they wanted to proceed, Mrs.
Henton asked that the request be approved as submitted. Mr. Johnson suggested that if the
Hentons want to "tweak" the plans somewhat, they would not have to come back to the Joint
Board as long as the City is OK with the plans.
Ms. Countryman, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval of the requested lot split with the
five conditions of approval, changing the wording of the easement conveyance to the Town of
Stillwater, rather than the City of Stillwater, with the 6th condition that the Hentons can make
minor revisions of the plans as long as the ghost platting meets the requirements of the City.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Polehna, moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
DATE:
REQUEST:
JB DATE:
REVIEWERS:
PREPARED BY:
r water
R H P i A C E Cl F M N N FI S O A
Joint Board
November 9, 2006 CASE NO.: ZAT/06-04
CR (Cottage Residential District) regulations related to driveway
widths.
November 15, 2006
Community Dev. Director, City Attorney
Michel Pogge, City Planner 01 --of
DISCUSSION
On June 12, 2006 the Planning Commission reviewed a request by a property owner in
the Legends development concerning the appearance of driveways in the development.
The Legends development is in the CR (Cottage Residential District) zoning district.
The CR regulations provide for a maximum driveway width of 12 feet at the front
property line. The objective of this requirement is to limit the driveway 'mass' along
the street; provide separation between driveways; and to maximize green space
between driveways, especially due to the reduced minimum lot width of 50 feet.
An unintended consequence of this requirement has been most property owners use the
maximum drive width of 12 feet at the street without adding an approach at the end of
the driveway. The end result has been the areas around the end of the drives are
continually driven over leaving an undesirable appearance. Additionally, some
property owners have added an approach to their driveway by installing rock, stone
pavers, brick, or other material at the end of the driveway along the street.
The proposed ordinance allows for an 18 foot wide drive at the back of curb that then
tapers to 12 feet at the street right-of-way property line. The attached drawing shows a
half plan perspective of a possible drive approach that meets this requirement. The
proposed ordinance is in simple understandable language and provides maximum
flexibility for each property owners to create an appropriate drive approach that works
for their individual property.
CR Driveway widths
ZAT/ 06-04
Page 2
As required by the joint powers for planning agreement between the Town and City of
Stillwater, any amendment to official controls required review and approval by the
Joint Board before they become effective. The submits this amendment to you at this
time for the Joint Board's review and potential approval.
ACTION BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission held public hearings on August 14 and September 11, 2006
on the proposed ordinance. The Commission recommended the Council approval of
the attached ordinance on a vote of 8-0.
ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL
On October 2, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
At that meeting the Council considered and approved the first reading of the ordinance.
On October 17, 2006 the City Council approved the second and final reading of the
ordinance pending approval by the Joint Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the ordinance as proposed.
Ordinance No.:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CODE, CHAPTER 31
ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SUBDIVISION 11.3
SUBSECTION 4 PARAGRAPH 9 RELATED TO DRIVEWAY WIDTH IN THE
CR ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain:
Purpose. The City Council finds it necessary to regulate driveway widths in
order to limit the driveway `mass' along the street; provide separation
between driveways; and add additional green space, especially due to the
reduced minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet.
2. Amending.
A. The Stillwater City Code, 31-1, subd. 11.3, subsection 4, paragraph 9 is
stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
9. Driveway width maximum: 18 feet at the back of curb tapered to
12 feet at the street right-of-way line.
3. Saving. In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force
and effect.
4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2006.
Lo
Jay L. Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk
Memorandum
City of Stillwater
Community Development Department
To: Joint Board Members
From: Bill Turnblad, Stillwater Community Development Director
Date: November 9, 2006
Re: Comprehensive Plan Update
The Metropolitan Council expects submittal of an updated Comprehensive Plan from the
City of Stillwater by the end of 2008. To begin that process the attached RFP was sent out
last month and an informational meeting was held with interested consulting firms this
week.
Proposals are due from the interested firms by December 1. The proposals will then be
forwarded to the City Council for approval. It is hoped that a consulting firm will be
selected by January.
Attachment: Comp Plan Update RFP
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
The City of Stillwater is requesting proposals from well-qualified professional firms for an
update to its 1995 Comprehensive Plan.
CITY PROFILE
The City of Stillwater, incorporated in 1894, is a growing community located in central
Washington County along the St. Croix River, approximately 20 miles east of the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Stillwater encompasses an area of approximately
7.65 miles (4,896 acres) and serves a population of about 17,400.
The City operates under the "Home Rule Charter" form of government under the provisions
of State of Minnesota Law. The Mayor is president of the Council and together with the
four -member City Council compromises the governing body of the City. The City Council is
responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing
committees, and hiring a city administrator. The city administrator has the responsibility of
carrying out the policies and ordinances of the City Council, for overseeing the day-to-day
operation of the city. The mayor is elected at -large and the Council members are elected by
Wards to serve four-year overlapping terms of office.
The City provides a full range of municipal services. These services include: general
government, public safety (police & fire), public works (streets & fleet), parks and recreation,
public improvements, and providing and maintaining sanitary sewer, storm sewer, signs &
lighting and parking infrastructure. Water services are provided by the Board of Water
Commission, a legally separate entity.
Local economy. Although the City's tax base is primarily residential, the economy is
influenced by a large number of public employers. Stillwater is the Washington County Seat
and the headquarters for Independent School District #834, while the adjacent cities of
Bayport and Oak Park Heights are the homes of two major state correctional facilities. The
Stillwater area is also influenced by the Andersen Window Corp, located in Bayport, which
employs approximately 3,700 people.
Development. In 2006 the City continued to work with developers to implement Phases I -III
of the Orderly Annexation agreement between the City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township.
The current Comprehensive Plan calls for growth of the City to the north, west and south.
In the historic Central Business District construction continues on three mixed use projects
that include 357 condos and 28,000 square feet of retail space. The majority of the condos
are already occupied and a significant percentage of the retail space is leased as well.
s
1water
T tt E B
I R T H P l A f: [: O F M19 ! N N E S 0 1 A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
The City of Stillwater is requesting proposals from well-qualified professional firms for an
update to its 1995 Comprehensive Plan.
CITY PROFILE
The City of Stillwater, incorporated in 1894, is a growing community located in central
Washington County along the St. Croix River, approximately 20 miles east of the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Stillwater encompasses an area of approximately
7.65 miles (4,896 acres) and serves a population of about 17,400.
The City operates under the "Home Rule Charter" form of government under the provisions
of State of Minnesota Law. The Mayor is president of the Council and together with the
four -member City Council compromises the governing body of the City. The City Council is
responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing
committees, and hiring a city administrator. The city administrator has the responsibility of
carrying out the policies and ordinances of the City Council, for overseeing the day-to-day
operation of the city. The mayor is elected at -large and the Council members are elected by
Wards to serve four-year overlapping terms of office.
The City provides a full range of municipal services. These services include: general
government, public safety (police & fire), public works (streets & fleet), parks and recreation,
public improvements, and providing and maintaining sanitary sewer, storm sewer, signs &
lighting and parking infrastructure. Water services are provided by the Board of Water
Commission, a legally separate entity.
Local economy. Although the City's tax base is primarily residential, the economy is
influenced by a large number of public employers. Stillwater is the Washington County Seat
and the headquarters for Independent School District #834, while the adjacent cities of
Bayport and Oak Park Heights are the homes of two major state correctional facilities. The
Stillwater area is also influenced by the Andersen Window Corp, located in Bayport, which
employs approximately 3,700 people.
Development. In 2006 the City continued to work with developers to implement Phases I -III
of the Orderly Annexation agreement between the City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township.
The current Comprehensive Plan calls for growth of the City to the north, west and south.
In the historic Central Business District construction continues on three mixed use projects
that include 357 condos and 28,000 square feet of retail space. The majority of the condos
are already occupied and a significant percentage of the retail space is leased as well.
Stillwater Comp Plan RFP
October 23, 2006
Page 2 of 5
The historic downtown district finds itself at the threshold of significant change. The driving
factors for this change include such projects as the new St. Croix River bridge, the downtown
flood levee, and perhaps a municipal parking ramp. As these major projects are completed,
the City will have the opportunity to redefine pedestrian flow and riverfront usage, both of
which offer are exciting prospects.
MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Major responsibilities will include:
• Prepare a Comprehensive Plan update, as further outlined below
• Assemble and lead a team of necessary and qualified professionals such as land use
specialists, traffic engineers, civil engineers, park and riverfront design specialists,
downtown pedestrian flow specialists, economic analysts, etc.
• Develop and maintain effective relationships with the Metropolitan Council,
including early identification of issues and communications with the agency
throughout the update process
« Review Stillwater's system statement and current Comprehensive Plan for required
amendments, additions or deletions
• Conduct visioning meetings/charettes
* Conduct regular meetings with City staff for purposes of coordination, consultation
and input
• Conduct meetings of the Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee (likely to
include members of the Planning Commission, Parks Board, Downtown Parking
Commission, Joint Planning Board, Heritage Preservation Commission and City
Council)
■ Attend public meetings to develop the Comprehensive Plan update. These meetings
would include Planning Commission meetings, Park Board meetings, joint
Council/Panning Commission meetings, Joint Planning Board meetings, and regular
and work sessions of the City Council
• Conduct open houses to illustrate how the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update
implements the goals of the neighborhoods and downtown groups as expressed in
their visioning/charette meetings earlier in the process
SCOPE OF WORK
The professional firm selected will be responsible for assuring that the Comprehensive Plan
Update complies with Minnesota Statutes and the Metropolitan Council guidelines, including the
Local Planning Handbook, systems statement and demographic projections.
The work will include performing research and analysis, conducting public meetings, developing
goals and policies, preparing alternative plans and final plans, and recommending measures to
implement the plan.
Stillwater Comp Plan RFP
October 23, 2006
Page 3 of 5
The work will include, as a minimum:
1. Review, analyze, and update the existing Comprehensive Plan
2. Review the following plans, studies and documents for possible incorporation into the
Comprehensive Plan (all except the 1997 AUAR are found on the City's Community
Development web page, which can be found at www.ci.stillwater.ntn.us, once there
follow "City Departments" link, then the "Community Development" link, then the
"Plans and Studies" link)
a. Locally Preferred Plan for the downtown Stage III floodwall/levee project
(submitted to St. Paul Office, Corps of Engineers July 30, 2004)
b. North Main/Lowell Park Plan Update (dated January 2004)
c. Aiple Property/Kolliner Park Master Plan (dated 12/8/98) NOTE: Only the Aiple
Property portion of the plan is to be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update;
the Kolliner Park will be left in its current state
d. St. Croix River Crossing FEIS map of Shoddy Mills buildings relocated to Aiple
Property (SRF, dated 1/1/06)
e. Orderly Annexation Agreement
f. Revised Boutwell South Area Plan (dated October 2004)
g. North 62"d Street Area Plan (BRA, 10/98)
h. 1997 AUAR; 1999 audit/update; 2005 update
i. Comprehensive Trail Plan (dated 11/16/00)
j. Current and Future Trail Plan Revision (BRA, 11/1/05)
Please note that the Surface Water Management Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan is
currently being prepared under a separate contract.
SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Update, including the downtown plan
element, would be submitted to adjacent municipalities and other agencies for their six-month
review on June 30, 2008. The Comprehensive Plan Update could then be ready for submission
to the Metropolitan Council on December 30, 2008. This would not meet the City's September
2008 submittal deadline as set by the Metropolitan Council. However, due to turnover in key
staff positions, the City will request the Metropolitan Council to grant a deadline extension.
WRITTEN PROPOSAL
The written proposal should address at least the following key elements:
A. Project Approach The proposal should reflect the professional firm's understanding
of the requirements of the project and address how the scope of work is to be
accomplished, including the process and the product. The approach should discuss the
roles of the City Council, Commissions, City staff and residents/interest groups in
preparing the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Stillwater Comp Plan RFP
October 23, 2006
Page 4 of 5
The approach should include three alternatives for providing public participation. These
alternatives should represent different levels of involvement, complexity, and costs.
Examples of possible alternatives include formal public hearings, neighborhood
meetings, visioning charettes, task forces.
The proposal should make use of the studies referenced above in the "Scope of Work"
section. The City will accept proposals for either: 1) updating the downtown plan only,
or 2) updating the entire Comprehensive Plan including a downtown plan element.
B Project Pers0111101 The proposal should include the names of all team members who
will be involved in this project. This should include not only names of the personnel
from the professional firm that will lead the team, but also the names of each team
member who may be employed by other firms. For each member of the team, a
description of their key responsibilities, roles and duties should be provided, along with a
biographical resume with an emphasis on their involvement and responsibilities with
other comprehensive plan updates. Also, an organizational chart should be included to
delineate lines of authority.
C. Related Experience The proposal should discuss the lead firm's experience with other
comprehensive plan updates in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. If the project team is
to include members employed by other professional firms, discuss the extent to which the
lead firm has worked together with the team members from the other firms.
D. Performance The proposal should describe the lead firm's resources, including
size of firm, current work load and ability and willingness to commit key
personnel/principal partners of the firm to the project.
E. Conflicts of Interest The proposal should list contracts which the lead firm has or has
had in the past five years with landowners and developers in Stillwater. The proposal
should also state whether the lead firm has or has had any contracts with the Metropolitan
Council in the past five years.
F. References The proposal should contain references and dates of other comprehensive
plans and comprehensive plan updates for which the lead firm has played the lead role.
G. Schedule The proposal should include a detailed schedule of tasks to be performed
within the time framework mentioned above. This schedule should include the
anticipated number of public meetings and the anticipated number and regularity of
meetings with City staff and Metropolitan Council staff.
H. Costs The proposal should include a "not to exceed" cost for the project and a
schedule of billing rates for the individual team members.
Costs should be separately provided for each of the tasks. Costs for each of the public
input alternatives should also be separately itemized. Costs should include printing and
Stillwater Comp Plan RFP
October 23, 2006
Page 5 of 5
binding, assuming 120 final copies. [Deliverable products are to include at a minimum
the 120 copies of the printed Comprehensive Plan, a copy of the Comprehensive Plan in a
digital format that can be placed on the City's website and can be copied onto CDs for
sale by the City, and data for all maps in a format immediately useable with ArcView.]
I. Submittal Twelve copies of the proposal should be addressed to Bill Turnblad,
Community Development Director, 216 North 4th Street, Stillwater, MN 55082. The
proposal must be received no later than December 1, 2006 at 4:30 PM.
SELECTION OF LEAD FIRM
A. Process and Schedule A single informational meeting will be held with key City
staff and all firms that plan to submit a proposal. The meeting will begin at 1:00 PM at
Stillwater City Hall on November 8, 2006. Please email any questions you may have
prior to the informational meeting. The questions may be emailed to Bill Turnblad at
btunib lad(c"'ei.stillwater.mn.us
After the December 1 submittal date City staff will review the proposals and forward
them to the City Council. The City Council will review the proposals and may choose to
interview the firms.
Final selection of the lead firm is expected in January of 2007.
B. Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria:
• Conciseness, clarity and organization of the proposal
• Relevance and suitability of the project approach
• Qualifications and expertise of the key team members
• Experience of both the lead firm and team members with comprehensive plans and
comprehensive plan updates
• Working knowledge of and recent experience with the Metropolitan Council
• Demonstrated ability to complete the comprehensive plan update in a timely and cost
effective manner
• Incorporation of the adopted plans and studies listed above into the proposal
• Project costs
• Potential conflicts with private landowners and developers in the City and with the
Metropolitan Council
• Ability to work as a team with City Council, Commission and Board members, staff, and
team members outside of the lead firm
• Ability to interact positively and effectively with the general public
,- ova ter
N E HIP ' H P; ACE O F M I N N E. 5 0 1 4
City/Town of Stillwater
Joint Board
DATE: October 26, 2006
ITEM: Expansion Area Building Permit Update for July 2006
JB DATE: November 15, 2006
PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner 1U5P
DISCUSSION
Through June 30, 2006, 29 building permits for housing units were issued. The table
below shows total expansion area building permit activity for the 1996-2006 period.
The orderly annexation agreement allows building permits for 120 housing units per
year.
Year
Permits Issues
1996
0 housing units
1997
0 housing units
1998
13 housing units
1999
104 housing units
2000
201 housing units
2001
228 housing units
2002
172 housing units
2003
142 housing units
2004
106 housing units
2005
53 housing units
2006 (Through June 30)
29 housing units
Total 1,048 housing units
Permits Allowed
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
120 housing units
1,320 housing units
For the remainder of 2006 there are 272 permits available for issuance, 152 carryover
and 120 for the 2006 allocation.
RECOMMENDATION
Receipt of July 2006 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 sole discretion. This Agreement does not confer any rights upon any individual
property owner to require the City to annex his or her property.
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-