Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-17 Joint Board PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board Thursday, February 17, 2000 7 p.m. City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Items I. Public Hearings: A. Tree Ordinance Amendment. (Case No. ZAT/99-1) B. McKenzie, Thron (Neal Avenue) rezoning and subdivisions. (Cases ZAM/99-4, SUB/99-51 and SUB/99-52) II. Other Business: A. General discussion of Phase IV area annexation requests. B. Phase II expansion area development update. C. Update on City search for site for public works/fire station. D. Update on village commercial development at CR15/12. E. Update on Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area. F. Report on building permit issuance in expansion area. G. Other items. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 Present for Stillwater Township: Supervisor David Johnson and Supervisor Louise Bergeron Present for City of Stillwater: Mayor Jay Kimble and Council Member Terry Zoller Others: Tim Kuntz, arbitrator A partial list of others in attendance is attached; it should be noted that not everyone signed in. Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. He provided a brief overview of the request for the Comp Plan change that resulted in a 2-2 vote of the Joint Board and the City of Stillwater's decision to initiate the process of arbitration. He explained the evening's procedures and noted any decision-making would be done at the Sept. 15 Joint Board meeting. Background presentations: Torn Simonson, assistant city manager and community development director, City of Shoreview, gave a presentation on how Shoreview evaluates such requests, including the review process; criteria used in review — consistency with the overall goals and objectives of the Comp Plan, impact on services, traffic and surrounding properties; factors to consider — whether the land use is consist with community values, whether the change meets a community need, whether there has been a change in values or demographics, and whether there are sufficient zoning standards in place to address concerns. He also briefly discussed several tools the City uses, such as multiple or dual land use designations when appropriate and designating policy development areas to achieve more specific objectives and expectations for sensitive areas. Ed Otis, Stillwater Township, asked Mr. Simonson whether the community set its own criteria/values. Mr. Simonson responded that the Metropolitan Council is involved, but generally they are reflective of the individual community values. Mr. Otis asked if Shoreview has ever denied a requested Comp Plan change; Mr. Simonson responded in the affirmative. Patrick Peters, Metropolitan Council sector representative, briefly reviewed how Met Council reviews city/town Comprehensive Plans as they reflect the critical assumptions in the Council's "blueprint for regional growth" and how communities intend to address the regional growth strategy objectives for their community. The Council's regional growth policy maps define the urban/rural edge to the year 2040. Stillwater is identified as an urban area; land in an urban service area should be used to maximize/optimize the regional infrastructure. The maps also identify urban reserve areas and permanent rural areas. Mr. Peters also noted that the City of Stillwater is a participant in the Livable Communities program and as such is committed to providing a full range of affordable and life cycle housing. There was a question raised about the Met Council's map identifying a portion of Stillwater Township north of Highway 96 as urban reserve. Township Planner Meg McMonigal noted the Township's revised Comprehensive Plan, approved earlier that week by the Met Council, identifies the area north of Highway 96 as permanent rural and said that Met Council will be revising its maps based on the updated Comp Plans; Mr. Peters said that is correct. 1 Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 Michael Munson, Metropolitan Council demographer, provided charts of growth projections for Washington County, age forecast and housing demand forecasts. John Rheinberger, Stillwater Planning Commission member, asked how accurate the forecasts are. Mr. Munson readily admitted that forecasts aren't always accurate; accuracy is not the main point, he said, the primary purpose is to monitor and respond to changes. Ed Otis, Stillwater Township, asked when the charts were prepared. Mr. Munson said most are as current as 1998. Mr. Otis noted that the City of Stillwater submitted its Comprehensive Plan and was given Met Council approval in 1996 at which time it met regional as well as local needs. He questioned whether projections for Stillwater had changed noticeably since 1996. Steve Russell, Stillwater Community Development Director, reviewed what has been going on since the adoption of the Comp Plan and some of the essential elements of the plan. Land use maps accompany the plan, he said, and most policies relate to the land use maps. The Comp Plan is closely related to the Orderly Annexation Agreement which involved extensive community participation. The Joint Board oversees development in the annexation area, and he noted the Joint Board had approved several Comp Plan amendments including 10 zoning ordinance amendments, the adoption of a greenways/trail plan, and the 62nd Street Planning Area. He further noted that the City has not been seeing the magnitude of growth that would be allowed by the Orderly Annexation Agreement — 480 units would have been allowed, while there have been 71 units to date. The Bergmann property, the site of the proposed development, is in phase 4 of the Orderly Annexation Agreement, but Mr. Russell noted, properties can be annexed earlier if 100 percent of the property owners petition for annexation. The Comprehensive Plan is a living document, an ongoing process, he said, not a 20 -year contract. The request would change the density of the area proposed for development from 3 units per acre as indicated in the Comp Plan to slightly over 5 units per acre — from 84 single-family units to 142 attached units. Mr. Russell sated the requested change was not initiated by the developer, but by the City to complete the Long Lake neighborhood plan. He said there are guideposts in the Comp Plan which identify attached housing sites and one of those sites is 62"d Street near County Road 15. Jerry Hicks, Stillwater Township supervisor, referred to the Comprehensive Plan which stated there were 105 acres remaining in the existing City limits which were considered residential, including 308 attached housing units. He asked how much of that property had been developed since adoption of the plan and how much had been developed as attached housing. Mr. Russell said he did not have that exact information, but said there was a 20 -unit attached housing development by the Courage Center and some duplexes by Tuenge Drive. Mr. Hicks suggested that would indicate there are sites for 275 attached housing units within the former City limits, outside of the annexation area. Mr. Kimble suggested that Mr. Russell provide updated Stillwater 2 Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 information, noting that things clearly have changed, referring to the former UBC site in downtown which was identified as a possible multi -family site and is now a parking lot. Ed Otis, Stillwater Township, said the City's AUAR calls for an environmental worksheet to be completed for each property to be developed; air quality and other issues have not been addressed, he said, and he questioned whether those issues should be brought back to the AUAR technical committee. Mr. Russell responded that it is the City's determination that the attached housing development will have less impact, e.g. less impervious surface, than anticipated in the AUAR. Mr. Otis also asked whether there had been any consideration given to the historical use of the land and questioned whether there is anything historic about attached housing. Meg McMonigal, Township planner, reviewed the Township's concerns. The proposal begins to change the west -east rural to urban transition, as called for in the Comp Plan/Orderly Annexation Agreement. The Comprehensive Plan is a legal public document that provides a legal basis for land use decisions, and the Township believes the City should implement the Comp Plan as it was developed for the area in question. The Township's reasons for opposing the proposal include: change in land use concept; increase in density and units; unclear visual impacts; concern about how the development will fit into the overall vision/land use along County Road 15 which is a transitional edge from rural to urban; using cost of utility hook-ups and other factors a a driving force for development. Further, Ms. McMonigal said with future changes, such as potential development of the Gadient and Schmoeckle properties, the Township would ask that the City step back and take an overall look at the annexation planning area, rather than take a piecemeal approach to changes to the Comp Plan. Mr. Kimble challenged Ms. McMonigal's definition of the Comprehensive Plan as a public legal document; it's a "living document," he said, subject to change. Ms. McMonigal agreed that the plan isn't a contract, but is a public document with legal ramifications. Mr. Kimble also questioned where the west/east transition is stated. Mr. Kimble noted that the proposed average rear setback of 65 feet from Manning Avenue more than doubles the current transition. He also noted that the Bergmann proposal is predicated on saving the large wooded area on the Gadient property, and the Brown's Creek area designated as single-family housing has been purchased by the City for natural/open space use, asking how the Township could oppose those changes. Ms. McMonigal reiterated the Township is concerned about changes to the County Road 15 corridor and density. In response to Mr. Kimble, Jerry Hicks, Township Board supervisor, stated the City's greenway/trails plan clearly identifies a 100 -200 -foot corridor along County Road 15 to preserve the natural/rural area. Public Hearing on Bergnarnn progosal: • Review of City boards/commissions involvement Mr. Russell reviewed the impact of developing the Bergmann property as townhomes vs. single family in regard to number of homes; impervious surface; building cover; lineal feet of streets; 3 Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 number of buildings; number of buildings adjacent to County Road 15 and 62nd Street; rear setback from Manning Avenue; park dedication; population; traffic impact and number of school age children. He noted that the City has adopted a 100 -foot setback requirement for County Road 15, Highways 96 and 12 and portions of McKusick Road, and the plans will be modified to reflect that. He further noted that the proposed development augments the mix of housing in the annexation area and contributes to the goals of the Livable Communities program. Roger Tornten, former chair of the City's Heritage Preservation Commission, stated in addition to serving on the HPC, he was involved in the neighborhood network in developing the Comprehensive Plan and assisted the City in developing specific design guidelines for the annexation area. The intent of the design guidelines, he said, is to create uniquely designed neighborhoods through parks and open space, connecting trail systems, a hierarchy of pedestrian travel and streets that are comfortable to pedestrian travel. The intent is to build neighborhoods with a balance of housing, jobs (which would be available at the campus R&D designated area next to the Bergmann property) and services (a commercial property at 12/15 and the Rutherford school). He spoke in favor of the proposal as an important piece of the Long Lake neighborhood to provide a balance of housing, shopping, working, playing and going to school. John Baer, acting chair of the City's Open Space Committee, briefly reviewed the history of that group. He said that in March of 1998, the group was charged with reviewing the Long Lake wooded area, to check on the availability of the Gadient property, to develop an open space and trail plan from the Gadient woods to Long Lake and minimize impacts of development on wooded areas. He said what attracted the Open Space Committee to the Bergmann proposal is that it provides a 5 -acre active park in the center of the development and 2.7 acres of natural/open space versus the approximately three acres of park land dedication that would be required if the property were developed as single-family. He said the hope is that providing the 5 -acre park for active recreation uses to serve the area will allow the City to acquire/preserve the Gadient woods for passive use. Jerry Fontaine, chair of the City's Planning Commission, noted that Planning Commission approval was "no slam dunk." The Planning Commission's view is how a development will fit into the larger community. What the Township can't provide, the City should, he said, and this kind of housing fits into that category. He also stated that in his involvement in the Comprehensive Plan/Orderly Annexation Agreement, he recalled the urban/rural transition as moving from south to north, not east to west. He noted that the Bergmann property is adjacent to Trunk Highway 36, next to a campus research/development designated area and the increasingly busy County Road 15; the proposed townhome development would seem to be the best use of the land, he concluded. In response to Mr. Fontaine, Mary Kauffer, currently a Stillwater resident, asked why the townhouse designation wasn't incorporated in the original Comp Plan if it's such a great idea. 4 Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 She asked that some credibility to lent to the efforts of those involved in the Comp Plan/Orderly Annexation Agreement process and have the properties phased in as indicated in the plans. • Presentation by developer Dan Herbst of Pemton Land Company stated he thought his plan was a well laid out and well landscaped plan. He introduced Tom Hart, land use lawyer; Mary Louise Poquette, demographer/consultant; and John Uban, a third party planner. Tom Hart said the issue is not whether Pemton's is a good proposal, it's an issue between those who think it is a forward-looking proposal and those who think the City entered into a contract of sorts in the Comprehensive Plan. Pemton's plan has evolved significantly over the course of many months and the developer has tried in every respect to do what is right and jump through every hoop. He said the first time a negative vote was received was at the meeting of the Township Planning Board, a meeting to which the developer was not invited. He stated Mr. Herbst was proud of the plan and proud of the way it was developed. John Uban stated things change in regions and Comp Plans are being amended to reflect those changes. Nationwide, he said, communities are facing issues of sprawl. Without reasonable, efficient planning in urban areas, there will be sprawl. He talked about "smart growth," growth taking place in the right places. Smart growth, he said, includes life cycle housing and a mix of housing choices in every neighborhood. He suggested that the Joint Board look at the AUAR to determine whether the change is appropriate to consider, and he also reviewed the "positive" impact of the townhome development versus single-family use. He also addressed some issues regarding the Manning Avenue corridor and landscaping methods; he suggested the proposed development would be a "good beginning" to that corridor. Mga Louise Po uette, demographer/planner, provided statistics showing the "dramatic rise" in the cost of real estate and the lack of affordable housing ($150,000 or less) available in the Stillwater market today. The area is ripe for better choices in housing, she stated. Dan Herbst concluded the developer's presentation by noting that the west -east rural/urban transition might be appropriate in some places. However, in this instance, commercial activity is already present, an the effects of density increase would be negligible. He stated his development proposal exceeds any expectations regarding the provisions of trails and parks and creative placement of units. Township comments: Ms. McMonigal reiterated the concern that if a lot of change has occurred to compel a change in the Comp Plan, that the change be part of an overall plan, rather than a piecemeal approach. She also noted that the Gadient property is not tied to this request. Why does density increase help save the woods? she asked. Ms. McMonigal restated the position that the cost of utility extensions not be a reason for a land use change. And, she stated that a land use change would 5 Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 not guarantee affordable housing. She again said if enough changes have occurred, the City should take a step back and do some proactive planning, not piecemeal changes. In response to Ms. McMonigal's comments, Mr. Herbst said when they looked at the Bergmann property, the only connection made between that property and the Gadient property was where to put an active park, and it made more sense to put the active -use park on the Bergmann property. Mr. Russell noted there is not enough information/experience to come forward with more extensive changes to the Comprehensive Plan at this time; change is difficult without specific requests, he said. Ed Otis suggested that the Gadient woods is being used to rationalize the Bergmann property development. * Public testimony: Jerry Hicks, Stillwater Township supervisor, said a lot of time and money was spent in development of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and without the Comprehensive Plan there would not have been an Orderly Annexation Agreement. In discussions regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he said he remembered discussions regarding the transition area and comments that residents be able to drive along County Road 15 without feeling they were in the City. He referred to the City's Greenway Plan which calls for a 100 -200 -foot greenway of native, indigenous plantings accommodating existing topographical conditions along County Road 15; a 10 -foot high berm, as proposed, is not a natural condition, he said. He appealed to the Joint Board and arbitrator to look closely at what the intention of the Comprehensive Plan/Orderly Annexation Agreement was. The requested change is not in the best interest of the Township, he concluded. Sandy Fundin slang, Stillwater Township Planning Board member, strenuously objected to Mr. Hart's comments regarding the Town Planning Board's decision. She stated the Town Planning Board had been left out of the loop on the project; there was never an exclusion of Mr. Herbst. She further stated that if township residents have been able to vote on annexation, "we wouldn't be here tonight." There is not community consensus representing the township, she said, "we feel like we've been invaded." Paul Hannon, Stillwater Township Planning Board member, stated he was "offended" by Mr. Hart's statements characterizing the Board's actions as "unscrupulous." Regarding comments about urban sprawl and that townhomes would be better according to AUAR impacts, why not build all townhomes? he asked. He also stated that this development does not meet the definition of cluster housing and does not belong on the Bergmann property. He stated the Comprehensive Plan will accommodate this type of housing elsewhere. Ed Otis, Stillwater Township resident, stated the Orderly Annexation Agreement is "all about money" — to broaden the City's tax base. He noted that when the Met Council approved the Comprehensive Plan, it already addressed multi -family housing need located throughout the annexation area. He stated there is no need for a five -acre park if there is enough parkland in the on Stillwater Township and City of Stillwater Joint Board Meeting September. 1, 1999 Legends/Liberty developments, and the parcel was not even identified by the City's Open Space Committee as a priority parcel. He stated changing the land use would be of no benefit to the Township at all and represents "not even half an attempt to honor the agreement." George Berginaim, property owner, said his family has lost two members in the recent past and something has to be done with the property. The Bergmanns are 100 percent in favor of the plan, and he expressed the family's hope that the City and Township can get together and approve the proj ect. Marc Hugunin, Metropolitan Council representative and resident of the city of Grant, noted there are growth and development issues everywhere. He stated his hope that the issue would be decided on policy rather than process. He noted there is a shortage of 100,000 housing units for people with below average incomes. The free market does a good job of providing housing styles for those with high incomes, not so good for those with below average incomes. People in need of such housing are our kids and our parents, he said. He spoke in favor of approval, calling the proposal a good use of the property and a good development. As a resident of Grant, he did agree that the County Road 15 buffer is an issue. Mr. Johnson thanked those in attendance for their comments and patience. He adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Amendment to City of Stillwater Tree Protection Ordinance (ZAT/99-1) Date: February 9, 2000 Background: A major revision to the City's Tree Protection Ordinance began in the summer of 1998. The City Council appointed a task force and hired a consulting forester, Kathy Widen, to assist with the project. The task force met for several months reviewing tree ordinances from other communities and becoming familiar with the Stillwater tree regulation situation. The Tree Task Force Committee presented a revised tree ordinance to the Planning Commission in February and March 1999. After the Planning Commission review, an amended ordinance was presented to the City Council in June 1999. The public hearing on the draft ordinance raised issues with ordinance application, replacement standards and general impact on property owners. At that time, staff requested the ordinance be indefinitely continued for restudy and revision. A revised ordinance using the exiting City Tree Protection Ordinance as the base oridinance with additional provisions was then drafted. The newly revised ordinance was then presented to the Planning Commission in December 1999. After two public workshops, the Planning Commission finally recommended it for Council approval. The City Council held a public hearing on the ordinance on January 4, 2000 and approved the ordinance for first reading. As a result of that hearing, minor changes were made to the ordinance. The January 4, 2000 Council minuted are attached. The final revised ordinance approved by the Council at their January 4, 2000 meeting is enclosed for Joint Board approval as called for by the orderly annexation agreement. After Joint Board review and approval, the City Council can finally approve the ordinance. Joint Board Action: Review and approval of Tree Preservation Ordinance. Attachments: Tree Preservation Ordinance and attachments. //i 7/.1 &Zta ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 31 SECTION 31-5 SUBDIVISION 3 TREE PROTECTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1. ADDING The City Code is amended by adding a new section entitled "Tree Protection" that will hereafter read as follows: "Subd. 3 Tree Protection Tree protection regulations are as follows: (1) Findings and purpose. The City of Stillwater finds that preservation of trees and woodlands within the City is critical to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens; that development within the City has the effect of reducing and in some cases eliminating wooded areas, which, if preserved and maintained, serve important ecological, recreational and aesthetic benefit to existing and future residents. Therefore, the purposes of this subdivision are the following: To preserve woodlands and trees on individual sites; protect the safety of such residents by preventing wind and water erosion, slope instability and rapid runoff; promote the health of such residents by absorption of air pollutants, contaminants and noise; and protect the welfare of residents by increasing rainfall infiltration to the water table; provide a diversified environment for many kinds of animals and plants necessary for wildlife maintenance and important to the aesthetic values and recreational requirements of the area; and promote energy conservation by providing shade in the summer and windbreak in the winter. (2) District boundaries. The tree protection regulations apply to all zoning districts within the City. (3) Definitions. The following words when used in this subdivision shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly dictates a different meaning: a. Clear cutting means removal of all or substantially all of a stand of trees in one cutting. b. Crown cover means the ratio between the amount of land shaded by the vertical protection of the branches and foliage area of standing trees to the total area of land, usually expressed as a percentage. c. dbh: Diameter at breast height of a tree measured at a point approximately 54 inches above ground. d. Development means the construction, addition, installation or alteration of any structure, the extraction, clearing or other alteration of land or the division of land into two or more parcels, for the purpose of transfer of title or building development. Major Development means any planned unit development, subdivision and any other development of more than five acres. e. Development permit means any subdivision, planned unit development, zoning permit, grading permit, preliminary plat approval, rezoning, special use permit or variance. f. Dimensional requirement means minimum and maximum setbacks, yard requirements and structure height or size restriction established in the zoning and subdivision ordinances. g. Person means any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other private or governmental entity. h. Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or erected that is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable or temporary structures. i. Significant Tree means a tree measuring at least 6 inches in diameter at 54 inches above ground (dbh). Cottonwood, silver maple, and box elder are protected as a size of 20 inches (dbh). Buckthorn and Siberian elm are not considered significant trees at any size. j. Woodland means a group of trees at least one-half acre in area with a crown cover of the area of at least 50 percent. (4) Application of Regulations. No development permit may be issued for any development unless the development is compliant with the following regulations. a. Development sites located in the Bluffland/Shoreland District, Wetland or Wetland Buffer Area, ravine areas or on slopes greater than 24 percent must abide by Vegetation Alteration Regulations contained in the Bluffland/Shoreland Ordinance (City Code Section 31-1, Subdivision 23), Shoreland Management (Section 31-1, Subdivision 33), Conservation Regulations (Section 35-1) or Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 32). b. Development should be conducted so that the maximum number of trees are preserved by the clustering or siting of structures in clearings. The use of other innovative and creative design techniques is encouraged. c. Grading, contouring and paving shall not detrimentally affect the root zone or stability of trees to be preserved. Trees to be preserved must be provided with a watering area equal to at least one-half the crown cover. d. Private development may not reduce the existing tree or woodland cover by an area greater than 35 percent. The understory plants and root area around preserved trees should not be disturbed except for removal of invasive plants or underplanting of desirable plant material. e. Replacement trees used in reforestation or landscaping must be compatible with the existing landscape and plant conditions (see approved City tree list and planting standards). f. Diseased trees or trees seriously damaged by storm or other acts of God may be removed and are exempt from these regulations. g. No clear cutting of trees is permitted on any land except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development (PUD) or other site development permit. (5) Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan must be submitted for all development permits for property where significant trees are located within 15 feet of development structures or land disturbance. The plan must address the City's tree protection standards, but need not be prepared by a professional. a. A tree protection plan must be submitted for concept PUD or preliminary subdivision plan review, or be included with submission of a grading plan if not a part of a subdivision or PUD. For PUD's, subdivision, and major developments, the tree protection plan must be prepared by a forester, landscape architect or land surveyor. b. The tree protection plan must include the following information: 1. The name(s), telephone number(s) and address(es) of the applicant and the property owner; 2. the location of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces situated upon or contemplated to be built upon the land; 3. the delineation of all areas to be graded and the limits of land disturbance; 4. the location and listing by size and species of existing significant trees, and delineation of the canopy cover of areas of significant trees greater than 10,000 square feet in size. The data on the significant trees should be listed in tabular form on the plan or included as an attachment; 5. a list of measures to be taken to protect significant trees; 6. a map showing trees prepared to be moved, removed or impacted; and 7. the signature of the person(s) preparing the plan, their certification, and employer or firm, address, phone and fax numbers; (6) Tree Replacement. the following standards shall be met when tree replacement is required: a. Trees removed for subdivision improvements (drainage, road and utilities) must be replaced on the basis of 10 trees per acre of canopy removed. b. All significant trees removed above the maximum 30% removal limit for private lot development must be replaced on a one-for-one basis. If 30 percent or less is removed, no replacement planting is required. c. Trees replaced under this requirement are in addition to any other trees required to be planted pursuant to this ordinance or other City planning subdivision requirements. d. Replacement trees must be planted on the development site according to an overall project tree replacement plan. e. A replacement tree fee may be paid to the City if on-site tree replacement is not feasible. The fee shall be based on the retail costs of a 2" diameter deciduous tree. f. A tree replacement plan must include the following items: 1. Location. Applicant must provide a plan showing the size, species and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement requirements. 2. Species. Replacement trees must be species which are included on the approved tree list of the City. Greater than 50 percent of the replacement trees must be species indigenous to the area. Improved cultivars of native species may be counted as native species when planted in a boulevard or landscaped areas. In woodland restoration areas only native species should be used rather than improved cultivars. 3. Size. Replacement trees must be an average of 2 inches in diameter for deciduous trees (except bur oak, bicolor oak, ironwood and ornamental trees, which may be an average of 1.25 caliper inches). Coniferous trees must be an average height of 6 feet. 4. Trees moved from one area of the site to another will be counted as replacement trees if they are in a healthy condition and approved by the Community Development Director. 5. Warranty Requirements. Any replacement tree that is not alive or healthy, as determined by the Community Development Director, within two years after the date of planting, must be removed by the Applicant and replaced with a new, healthy tree meeting the same species and size requirements. 6. Planting standards. Planting must adhere to the tree and shrub planting standards of the City of Stillwater. The tree and shrub planting standards of the City are those adopted by resolution of the City Council and on file with the Community Development Director. (7) Oak Trees. Because of their high value and susceptibility to disease, the following standards shall apply to oak trees: a. Oak Wilt Management. If oak wilt is found in any area of the City, measures must be taken by the property owner to halt the spread of the disease. An oak wilt management plan must be submitted to the City. This plan must contain: 1. A copy of the tree inventory map for the property with delineation of areas containing oak wilt disease. 2. Proposed management plans to control spread of the disease such as: a. Removal of red or pin oaks before Mach of the year following wilting to prevent spore production of the oak wilt fungus; this should include plans for storage/disposal of infected trees. b. Installation of root graft barriers if there are healthy trees of the same or similar species within 30 feet of diseased trees. 1. An oak wilt control specialist should be consulted as to placement of root graft barriers for most effective control. 2. Barriers should be installed by currently recommended practices. 3. Removal of diseased oaks should not be done until any root graft barriers have been installed. 4. A copy of the location of any root graft barriers must be submitted to the City upon completion of installation. c. Other measures such as injection of diseased bur oaks, or healthy red or pin oaks within root graft distance (30 feet) of diseased tree, by a licensed pesticide applicator experienced in tree injection using a pesticide registered for oak wilt control. b. Oak Pruning. Oaks may not be pruned or wounded between April 15 and July 1st to prevent insect transmission of the oak wilt fungus to healthy trees. If pruning or wounding occurs during this period, the wound must be covered with a recommended tree wound dressing immediately. Fresh oak stumps must be treated as wounds during this period and covered or ground out immediately following felling of trees. (8) License Required for Commercial Pruning — Chemical Treatment or Removal of Trees. a. License Application and Fee. It is unlawful of any person to conduct as a business the cutting, trimming, pruning, removal, spraying, or otherwise treating of trees in the City without having first secured a license from the City. b. Application for the license shall be made at the office of the Community Development Director on a form approved by the City. c. All licenses expire on the next 31 st day of December following the date of issue. d. Proof of insurance. All applicants for the license must file with the city clerk proof of a public liability insurance policy covering all operations of the applicant hereunder for the sum of at least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) combined single limit coverage. If this insurance is canceled and the licensee fails to replace it with another policy that conforms to the provisions of this section, the license is automatically suspended until the liability insurance is replaced. e. Chemical Treatment Requirements. Applicants who propose to use chemical substances in any activity related to treatment or disease control of trees must file with the office of the Community Development Director proof that the applicant administering the treatment has been certified by the State Department of Agriculture as a "Commercial Pesticide Applicator" for the current year of operation. f. Revocation of License. Failure to comply with any part of this chapter will result in the revocation of the license by the City Council, following a public hearing. Written notice of the public hearing must be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the current holder of the license. The notice must outline the violation(s) considered by the City to be grounds for revocation and inform the holder of the opportunity to be heard at the public hearing. (9) Effective Date. This ordinance will be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. This ordinance will not apply to any new development that has been given preliminary plat or PUD approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 2. SAVIN—. In all other ways, the City Code will remain in full force and effect. 3. EFEECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this _ day of . 2000. Jay Kimble, Mayor ATTEST: Morli Weldon, City Clerk Ordinance No. Amendment to Chapter 31, Section 31-5 adding Subdivision 3 Vegetation Alterations Sec. 31-5. Conservation regulations. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose and intent of the conservation regulations is to protect the public health, safety and community welfare and to otherwise preserve the natural environmental resources of the city in areas having significant and critical environmental characteristics. The conservation regulations have been developed in general accord with the policies and principles of the comprehensive plan as specified in the Middle River and Brown's Creek watershed management plans and the bluffland/shoreland regulations and adopted area or specific plans. It is furthermore intended that the conservation regulations accomplish the following purposes: (1) Minimize cut, fill, earth moving, grading operations and other suchmanmade effects on the natural terrain; (2) Minimize water runoff and soil erosion caused by human modifications to the natural terrain; (3) Minimize fire hazard and risks associated with landslides and unstable slopes by regulating development in areas of steep slopes and potential landslide areas; (4) Preserve riparian areas and other natural habitat by controlling development near the edge of ponds, streams and rivers; (5) Encourage developments which use the desirable, existing features of land such as natural vegetation, climatic characteristics, viewsheds, possible geologic and archaeological features and other features which preserve a land's identity; and (6) Maintain and improve to the extent feasible existing water quality by regulating the quantity and quality of runoff entering local watercourses. Subd. 2. General provisions. (1) Applicability. The conservation regulations apply to every zoning district within the city Where conflict in regulations occurs, the regulations set forth in this section shall apply. (2) Relationship to minor land division and subdivisions. To the greatest extent feasible, no minor land division or subdivision may create lots which would necessitate exceptions to this section. Where a division of land would require an exception to this section, precise building envelopes must be specified on proposed parcels and tentative maps so that maximum feasible conformance with this section can be attained. (3) Slope regulations. a. Steep slope. Slopes greater then 24 percent (24%) as measured over a distance of 50 feet measured horizontally. b. Applicability and purpose. The following regulations are enacted to minimize the risks associated with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or unstable slopes. These areas include ravines, blufflands and shorelands. A further purpose 11 is to avoid the visual impact of height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on any steep slope. 1. Building permit applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two -foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. 2. Slopes 25 percent or greater may not be considered in meeting the lot area size requirements for subdivisions. 3. Parcels with a portion of the area in slopes of 25 percent or greater require the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district in slopes of less than 25 percent. The area in slopes of less than 25 percent must be contiguous to the proposed building site. 4. No structure may be located on a slope of greater than 24 percent or within 30 feet of a 25 percent or greater slope. 5. All public or private driveways roads and paved surfaces must be set back ten feet from the top of the slopes greater than 24 percent. 6. Structures located on slopes greater than 24 percent in the conservation districts require a conditional use permit. b. Driveway design standards. 1. Driveways must be designed to conform with existing contours to the maximum extent feasible. 2. Driveways must enter streets so as to maintain adequate line of sight. 3. Driveways may have a maximum grade of 12 percent. (Ord. No. 846, § 1, 10-7-97)Cross reference(s)--Wetland conservation act, ch. 59. Subd. 3. Vegetation alterations. Vegetation alteration in ravines, along bluffs and on slopes greater than 24 percent as measured over a horizontal distance of 50 feet are subject to the following standards: 1. Selective removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed, provided sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars, dwellings and other structures. 2. No cutting or removal of trees over six inches in diameter measured at a point 54 inches above ground level within the required building setback shall be permitted unless the trees are dead or diseased. A certificate of compliance must be obtained prior to the removal of any trees. 3.. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is completed in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. 4. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the removal of trees, limbs or branches that are dead, diseased or pose safety hazards and vegetation alteration necessary for the maintenance or construction ofpublic utilities. 2 MEMO To: Mayor and City Council From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Consideration of Recommended Tree Ordinance Date: December 28, 1999 Backeround As a result of the Liberty/Legends expansion area development project impact on trees, the issue of tree protection and existing City tree protection standards was raised. The City Council was approached by a citizen group interested in preserving and protecting tress. A Tree Task Force was appointed by the Council and a consulting Forester was hired to review current standards and revise the current ordinance as needed. The Tree Task Force met several times over a six-month period reviewing existing City tree protection regulations and reviewing Tree Protection Ordinances used by other Twin Cities communities. In Spring 1999, a draft ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission. After reviewing the ordinance at its February 8 and March 8 meetings, the draft ordinance was recommended for adoption to the City Council. The City Council reviewed a draft ordinance at their meetings of March 2 and June 1, 1999. Through the draft plan review process, changes were made in the ordinance to address community and private property owner comments on the draft ordinance. After the June 1, 1999 Council meeting, staff was directed to take a new look at the Tree Protection Ordinance and come back with an ordinance that has community support and does not unreasonably limit individual property rights. The ordinance before the Council attempts to reach that balance. As you can note from the comments on the ordinance, most concerns expressed by owners of trees have been addressed in this ordinance. Key Provisions- - The ordinance applies to all areas of the City similarly. - The ordinance only applies to projects that require development permits. - Thirty percent (30%) of significant trees can be removed on private lot development without replacement. - For subdivision improvements trees shall be replaced on a 10 per 1 acre of removal basis. - A tree replacement plan is required for major projects. - Oak wilt management provisions are added to the regulations. - Licensing is required for commercial tree trimmers. - Tree removal in sensitive natural areas, ravines, slopes greater than 24% and wetlands is Mayor and City Council Page 2 December 28, 1999 regulated. Tree protection and tree planting standards are added to the regulations. The Tree Ordinance was changed after the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting to address concerns expressed at that meeting. Action Required: Consideration of revised ordinance and adoption (first reading). Attachments: Ordinance, comments, Planning Commission Staff Report of 12-13-99, Memo from Kathy Widen, Consulting Forester and comments. To: City Council City of Stillwater From: Katharine D. Widin, Ph.D. Forestry Consultant City of Stillwater 12/20/99 The draft of the proposed Tree Protection Ordinance for the City of Stillwater which is before you has been revised after much input from Stillwater residents and City Staff As directed by the City Council we have arrived at a compromise version compared to the draft of the ordinance which went before the Council in June of this year. Changes to the existing tree protection ordinance came about as a result of a City Council directive that tree protection within the City of Stillwater be strengthened. This amended version of the ordinance should adequately address the specific situations in Stillwater which require greater tree protection. As a forest health professional, I would not suggest further changes that would result in any less protection. The Planning Commission approved the ordinance 4:1 at their meeting on Dec. 13th. They suggested a few minor changes to the ordinance which have been incorporated. I would like to point out the following information about the ordinance: 1. the ordinance applies to all zoning districts 2. tree protection, removal and replacement requirements only apply to projects which would require a development permit 3. the ordinance references other sections of the City Code which contain language regarding tree removal in environmentally sensitive areas, such as ravines, near wetlands, bluffland, shoreland and buffer areas 4. tree removal for drainage, roads and utilities requires replacement of trees at a rate of 10 trees per acre of canopy removed, which is the same as the existing ordinance in City Code 5. on private lots which are part of a development, or which require a development permit, 30% of the tree cover could be removed without replacement; however, beyond 30% removal, each tree over six inches in diameter which is removed would need to be replaced 1for 1 6. the $25.00 per diameter inch penalty has been removed 7. the ordinance includes a section on oak wilt management 8. the ordinance includes a section requiring licensing of commercial arborists Information on tree protection methods and tree planting methods are contained in the city's Tree Protection Standards and Tref, Planting Standards. These documents, as well as approved tree lists, will be made available to property owners/developers who need to comply with the ordinance requirements. City Council Meeting No. 2000-1 January 4, 2000 Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings to adopt Resolution 2000-17 approving the minor subdivision of a 55.413 square foot lot into three lots (Lot A = 22,443 square feet; Lot B = 6,035 square feet and Lot C = 16,935 square feet) at 8220 Neal Avenue North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Mitchell T. McKenzie, applicant, Case. SUB/99-52. Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble. Nays: None. 1. Case No. ZAT/99-1. This is the day and time for the public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance Text amendment establishing tree protection regulations requiring licensing of commercial tree trimmers, protecting trees, establishing standard tree replacement for removal of trees. City of Stillwater, applicant. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on December 23, 1999. Community Development Director Russell summarized the background of the development of the proposed tree ordinance. As a result of the Liberty/Legends expansion area development project impact on trees, a citizen group interested in protecting trees approached Council. A task force was appointed and a consulting forester hired to review the current standards and ordinance and revise as necessary. After a six- month period of study, a draft ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on February 8 and March 8, 1999, at which time approval was recommended (4-1 vote). Council reviewed the draft at the March 2 and June 1, 1999, meetings, and directed staff to come back with an ordinance that has community support and does not unreasonably limit individual property rights. Community Development Director Russell stated the ordinance presented at this meeting attempts to reach the balance of protecting trees and addressing the concerns expressed by owners of trees. As indicated by the written comments received, it appears most concerns have been addressed. The key provisions are as follows: 1) applies to all areas of the City similarly; 2) only applies to projects that require development permits; 3) thirty percent of significant trees can be removed on private lot development without replacement; 4) subdivision improvement trees shall be replaced on a 10 per 1 acre removal basis; 5) a tree replacement plan is required for major projects; 6) oak wilt management provisions are added; 7) licensing is required for commercial tree trimmers; 8) tree removal in sensitive natural areas, ravines, slopes greater then 24% and wetlands is regulated; 9) tree protection and planting standards are added. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Don McKenzie, 12620 72°a Street N., thanked Councilmember Bealka for his continued close following of the issue. He referred to written comments he submitted to Council (included in packet) in which he suggested numerous language changes to the ordinance. He also presented suggestions from others not able to attend the meeting. He also recommended the requirement that a tree protection plan prepared by a professional be submitted for all subdivisions and PUD's be amended to apply only to major subdivisions. Angela Anderson, N. 4th Street, stated the ordinance is necessary to protect natural areas and provide a method to assess and evaluate natural woodlands before development occurs. The protection of trees and natural composition from construction impact is important to the community. Leonard Huebscher, 12525 75th Street N., stated he was speaking as a property owner who has planted over 1000 trees. The 30% area limit of reducing the existing tree or crown cover is excessive control. He also 10 City Council Meeting No. 2000-1 January 4, 2000 felt the portion of the definition of significant tree as al least 6" in diameter should be changed to 8". He also expressed concerns with slope requirements. Edward Otis, 12070 887th Street Circle N., Stillwater Township, stated the ordinance is too narrow and recognizes a limited use of trees. He referred to various uses of tree products. He further referred to problems that can be created by trees, such as allergy problems and leaf cleanup issues. He stated he does not see that there is any shortage of trees and that no ordinance is necessary. Laurie Maher, 3018 Marine Circle, thanked the volunteers on the tree committee. She stated tree removal would add to the silt in McKusick Lake. She referred to a comment from a Department of Natural Resources employee that increased silt will destroy Brown's Creek. She urged Council to not budge from the 30% removal limit and 6" diameter definition of significant tree. Leah Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks Lane, stated she reiterated the comments of Ms. Maher. The work of committees and residents doing plantings makes it better for all to live here. Kathy Widen, City forestry consultant, explained that a significant part of her work is determining why trees have died. Often it happens 3-6 years after damage to the tree during a construction project. The tree standards have been developed to provide information to residents and assist them with minimizing damage. The current draft is more reasonable, workable, and enforceable. She urged Council keep the 30% removal threshold. She stated the 6" measurement is currently the standard in the City Code. Hodge VanTassel, 13093 McKusick Lake Road, stated homeowners have done a fantastic job. There are more trees now than ever before. The current ordinance is ample. Individual property rights are not being considered. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Bealka to amend the draft tree protection ordinance by changing 30% removal threshold to 35% and definition of diameter of significant tree from at least 6" to 7". 2-3 Kimble/Bealka/Thole - nay Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller to have a first reading of ordinance amending the zoning ordinance by establishing tree protection regulations, and amending by changing the 30% removal threshold to 35% and changing the language related to the requirement to have tree protection plans prepared by a professional for all subdivisions to apply to only major subdivisions. 4-1 (Bealka nay) Recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Possible second reading of Ordinance No. 886 amending solid waste collection fees (first reading Dec. 21, 1999) City Coordinator Kriesel reported fees for solid waste collection have changed, effective January 1, 2000, based on the amended agreement with Waste Management, Inc. Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Bealka to have a second reading of Ordinance No. 886 amending the solid waste collection fees. 7 �• er THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Notice is hereby given that the Joint Stillwater City/Township Planning Board will meet on Thursday, February 17, 2000, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, to consider a request from the City of Stillwater for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing tree protection regulations requiring licensing of commercial tree trimmers, protecting significant and heritage trees, establishing tree replacement or payment for removal of trees. Case No. ZAT/99-1 All person wishing to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Steve Russell Community Development Director Publish: February 9, 2000 CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 MEMO To: Joint Board n From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director l/ Subject: (1) Rezoning Request for 2.5 Acres of Land from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, Single Family Residential (2) Subdivision of 1.25 Acre Lot into 3 Lots of 22,443 SF, 16,035 SF and 16,935 SF. Mitch McKenzie, applicant. (3) Subdivision of 1.25 Acre Lot into 3 Lots of 18,450 SF, 3,791 SF and 13,591 SF. Dan Thron, applicant. Date: February 9, 2000 The 2.5 acre site is located west of Neal Avenue and east of Creekside Drive. The site has previously been annexed by the City. The request is for rezoning of 2.5 acres of land from Agricultural Preservation to RA Single Family Residential., 10,000 square feet/DU. The RA zoning is the same as the adjacent Oak Glen zoning and new Creekside Subdivision zoning. The Joint Board has approval authority over the rezoning. In addition to the rezoning, the owners of the two parcels of 1.25 acres each would like to subdivide the two parcels into six lots. The lot size and dimension requirements meet the requirements of the RA zone district. Action Required: 1. Approval of rezoning ZAT/99-4. 2. Review of subdivision for consideration with zoning and comprehensive plan. Attachments: Application and staff reports, ZAM/99-4, SUB/99-5 and SUB/99-52. MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development ment Director Subject: Subdivide 55,832 Square Feet of Land into Three Single Family Lots (Case No. SUB/99-5 1) Date: December 10, 1999 The request is to subdivide a 55,832 square foot lot into three lots of 18,450, 23,791 and 13,591 square feet. The zoning for the site is Agricultural Preservation, AP. If the zoning amendment is approved (ZAM/99-4), the lot would be zoned Single Family Residential, RA, requiring 10,000 square feet per lot. The proposed lot division meets the lot size and dimension requirements of the RA district. The application will be reviewed for comment by the Joint City Township Planning Board Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall pay in lieu park dedication fee for two lots and trunk utility fees. 2. Comments from the City Engineer regarding easements, grading and utilities shall be met before final plat approval. 3. The owner shall show evidence that the Creekside Crossing developer has an agreement to be compensated for the road and utility improvement costs benefitting this property. Recommendation: Approval. Attachments: Application and subdivision plans. CPC Action on 12-13-99: +6-0 approval. CC Action on 1-4-00: +5-0 approval. SEWER EASEMENT PER DOC 993258 f A i �i P >� Ni �$ R21W MOW R19W 73':,K L1' a w 3f e x f tAA51 T30N T30N 729N 729N T28N T29N T2-t, 27N 127N R22W R21W R20W it J 11aG 1n 4 yyER SS?o DOC ua 303398 I a 2 F 4� a 4 3 SVA f •4e� •i STILLWATER TOWNSHIP r, as bn EAGLE RIDGE TRAIL R e� c,. "' O ' STILLWATER TOWNSHIP 4 6 9 bn m 4 16Seo �I.M c 25 26 f! �4 LL O b Ur'+ bs d- z a -7 �wn aaw u4c Z r ¢ w+r U7 1 f u3 5 Lu 61 F to Y iii tu a OUTLOT B L-7 Location Map b b U �$ R21W MOW R19W 73':,K 732N 731N e T31N f tAA51 T30N T30N 729N 729N T28N T29N T2-t, 27N 127N R22W R21W R20W it 8 yyER SS?o DOC ua 303398 I a 1 a 3 SVA 41= bn a� O ' 6 J m N c 25 26 LL O b Ur'+ bs d- z a �� a r ¢ 4•W 21 £ 1 f Z Ln 6 30 1 R40F EAGLE RIDGE TRA 1 B 2 8 3 8 4 w R x.w TEi tY0 ZSUNS8701 pi WALNUT wCREEK DRIVE s a� 4 Z a w ES ATE! O 4Xa en e �Y 4ad 6 / 5 a� Y L � a on J L 6 Vicinity Map 0 210 Scale in Feet amwP,�3� rowla9.aarlc�aa ��qqss Ian w ,>�4w�a crrq pq8 — alrvu La �rard tr My ba eu.,.bk 6. Wasluiglao Gwtryerw mlXnbbk a,rany iurcuncia. Swwc: WaaLiwuw Cowry SurvsywS off., PW- (612) 4364X15 Parcol Jabs ,�uwglXOc[Mcr31, 1999 R21W MOW R19W 73':,K 732N 731N T31N f tAA51 T30N T30N 729N 729N T28N T29N T2-t, 27N 127N R22W R21W R20W Vicinity Map 0 210 Scale in Feet amwP,�3� rowla9.aarlc�aa ��qqss Ian w ,>�4w�a crrq pq8 — alrvu La �rard tr My ba eu.,.bk 6. Wasluiglao Gwtryerw mlXnbbk a,rany iurcuncia. Swwc: WaaLiwuw Cowry SurvsywS off., PW- (612) 4364X15 Parcol Jabs ,�uwglXOc[Mcr31, 1999 Case No: SVD 1 Date Filed: V2� Fee Paid: Receipt No. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review Planned Unit Development* Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Subdivision* Resubdivision Total Fee FEE 70 501200 25 500 701200 500 300 100+$5 /lot 100 *An escrow fee is also required to cover 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, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION a `, L-5 -3 i �-�-3 Address of Project ';� 6C, I k, Assessor's Parcel Noji' . 010 .; L, ZoningDistrictDescription of Project 50b`U;L I~�± ! q sad r ;; J 3 r - �^ 1 P 51 7 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. " Property Owner i)--im ;ti; Representative Mailing Address 9 L - o �Qcz l LE ; . Mailing Address City - State - Zip 9 6xJ[f i': City -State -Zip Telephone No. U — !:L- q l UA) Telephone No. (a i it .� O -7 C-- Signature Imo± _ - - Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Total building floor Area sq. ft. Land Area Existing sq. ft. 'ieight of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed sq. ft. Principal Paved Impervious Area _ sq. ft. Accessory Number of off street parking spaces provided Revised: September 16, 1998 Planning Commission December 13, 1999 Case No. SUB/99-50 A minor subdivision into two lots, Lot A of 12,132 square feet and Lot B of 12,243 square feet, at 617 W. Myrtle St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dan and Tom St. Claire, applicants. Mr. Rheinberger abstained from the discussion and vote on this case. Both applicants were present. They questioned the requirement for a turn -around. Mr. Russell explained that was determined by the city engineer. Mr. Zoller asked about the existing garage. The applicants stated the garage meets setback requirements. An easement for sewer and water is provided, they said. Kathleen Charlsen, 728 W. Olive St., stated she thought there was a moratorium on building in ravines. Mr. Russell stated there is no moratorium. Kitty Johnson and Carlos Johnson, neighboring property owners, asked about the sewer and water easement, whether a lift station would have to be installed, and how that would affect their property. Mr. Zoller noted the requested subdivision meets all requirements. Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval of the request as conditioned; all in favor, with Mr. Rhemberger abstaining. Case No. ZAMI99-4 Case No. SUB/99-51, Case No. SUB/99-52 Zoning map amendment and minor subdivision of 8260 Neal Avenue North and 8220 Neal Avenue North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Don Thron and Mitchell McKenzie, applicants. Mr. Thron was present representing both applicants. He pointed out that the condition of approval regarding park dedication for both subdivision requests should be for two lots, not three as indicated in the staff memo, as there already is an existing lot. Mr. Thron also asked that condition of approval No. 3 be changed so that rather than requiring the Creekside Crossing developer be compensated for road and utility improvements before any building permits are pulled, the applicants show there is an agreement in place with the developer for such compensation. Mr. Russell agreed that would be satisfactory. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/99-4; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-51 as amended; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger,, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-52 as amended; all in favor. Case No. SUB/99-53 This case was continued to the January meeting. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved continuation; all in favor. Case No. V/99-56 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 18'3" requested) for construction of a solarium at 116 School St. E. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ronald and Kristen Lahner, applicant. 3 MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director fu Subject: Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment Rezoning 2.5 Acres of Land Located West of County Road 5 and North of Eagle Ridge Trail from Agricultural Preservation, AP to Single Family Residential, RA Date: December 9, 1999 The request is to rezone two lots of 1.25 acres each from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, Single Family Residential. The designation is consistent with the surrounding Oak Glen and Creekside Crossing land use. Companion applications call for subdividing the 1.25 acre sites into 6 lots (3 lots each). The zoning amendment must be approved by the City Council and Joint City Township Planning Board. Findings: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding neighborhood character. Recommendation: Approval Attachments: Application CPC Action on 12-13-99: +6-0 approval CC Action on 1-4-99: +5-0 approval Case No: O1q�- Date Filed: l �' ad Fee Paid: Receipt No. : PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance 70 Conditional or Special Use Permit '5501200 Design Review 25 Planned Unit Development* $500 Variance 701200 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* 5300 Subdivision* $100+S5 Resubdivision 100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attacheq: 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 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION l�F1<j j1L1 _Tei i5 lei G jL•_ ti.y, `tiUG Address of Project _ ,&L, I`? Ccs. V4� IJ Assessor's Parcel No.'s Ie'j Zoning District Description of Project 11 gL, I. lift( _ a �VY�C{�[3f?�C�c� xHt�T��C•t# a° 1 ite% a_�;:r�+rif3a15 "��e�tlu_:���k'�•' "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewA all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if if is granted and used." Property Owner Mailing Address tv Mailing Address Lz eAL A05 P. City - State - Zip ,S- : I a P }; Com%`F City - State - Zip S -n i, l:U:u,l ( �4 K) Telephone No. i ._, ' L. i Telephone No. f:'J 1 - `43 C - 3 6 Signature I —. 4q.3 — i _3 eY 6-1 Ct,,-, W Signature _ Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Principal Accessory Revised: September 16, 1098 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION x Stories Feet Total building floor Area sq. ft. Existing sq. ft. Proposed sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided V, �' - - Z 1411n /I (� q ------- ;961.V _._pOO 303306 SEWER ESMT Ti'r_ti { '9e i1L3IN I' T30N 3O SEWEt EASEMENT E:LOG9732 129N 19N f A 129N 19N m m A 3 my w R22W RIW MOW i� x • � 'ty"J » -"N J C 25 sr VdnityMap o J V2 Of 6' 20 ' U Z pn© J& � { 7 ~~ sae Z >• , ! yP W > \ b i JyG 3 31) y 8 g. Y >a q T ^T i K EAGLE RIDGE TRAIL A EAGLE F IDGE TRAIL 0 210 ImsaCITY OF STV E WATERR Scale in Feet STILLWATER TOWNSHIP 23 a a JM s s: x a xw m axJ9 +o - nn � s 1 _ II 4. �% � g: �cn ,2 a LLLLQII Z �-4ALNUT NSE n RIDGE ,7 ~CREEK I DRIVE ,nsF Y S� S V5mrd 2 k Tg 3 gP 2 ES ATES E�JATLUw it su ~� f OUTLOT 0 U �' ,� :�1T J yy «I rrpo��JxM +w rfLJd eae hxnw V:ashiyan Catu�n- m lli msay.e sRwBJ Iwg"(ib mym ee I W mmcbk 6r masluigioo Couvry a ml rcspmn y:nccuncks. IDCatlon - Pl—(612) 430,w7C5ou�uy Survs�vh ORcc. 17 Parcel Jam .v,rcia �luweh:Oct�cr31,1999 F I Planning Commission December 13, 1999 Case No. SUS/99-50 A minor subdivision into two lots, Lot A of 12,132 square feet and Lot B of 12,243 square feet, at 617 W. Myrtle St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dan and Tom St. Claire, applicants. Mr. Rheinberger abstained from the discussion and vote on this case. Both applicants were present. They questioned the requirement for a turn -around. Mr. Russell explained that was determined by the city engineer. Mr. Zoller asked about the existing garage. The applicants stated the garage meets setback requirements. An easement for sewer and water is provided, they said. Kathleen Charlsen, 728 W. Olive St., stated she thought there was a moratorium on building in ravines. Mr. Russell stated there is no moratorium. Kitty Johnson and Carlos Johnson, neighboring property owners, asked about the sewer and water easement, whether a lift station would have to be installed, and how that would affect their property. Mr. Zoller noted the requested subdivision meets all requirements. Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval of the request as conditioned; all in favor, with Mr. Rheinberger abstaining. Case No. ZAM/99-4 Case No. SUB/99-51 Case No. SUB/99-52 Zoning map amendment and minor subdivision of 8260 Neal Avenue North and 8220 Neal Avenue North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Don Thron and Mitchell McKenzie, applicants. Mr. Thron was present representing both applicants. He pointed out that the condition of approval regarding park dedication for both subdivision requests should be for two lots, not three as indicated in the staff memo, as there already is an existing lot. Mr. Thron also asked that condition of approval No. 3 be changed so that rather than requiring the Creekside Crossing developer be compensated for road and utility improvements before any building permits are pulled, the applicants show there is an agreement in place with the developer for such compensation. Mr. Russell agreed that would be satisfactory. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/99-4; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-51 as amended; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger,, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-52 as amended; all in favor. Case No. SUB/99-53 This case was continued to the January meeting. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved continuation; all in favor. Case No. V/99-56 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 18'3" requested) for construction of a solarium at 116 School St. E. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ronald and Kristen Lahner, applicant. 3 teE, 1 THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Notice is hereby given that the Joint Stillwater City/Township Planning Board will meet on Thursday, February 17, 2000, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, to consider a request from Dan Thron and Mitchell T McKenzie for a zoning map amendment to rezone Lot 2, Block 3, and Lot 1, Block 3 in the Neal Meadows Addition from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RA, Single Family Residential. Case no. ZAM/99-4. All person wishing to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Steve Russell Community Development Director Publish: February 9, 2000 CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director V Subject: Subdivision of 55,413 Square Foot Site into Three Lots (Case No. SUB/99-52) Date: December 10, 1999 The request is to subdivide a 55,413 square foot lot into three lots of 22,443, 16,035 and 16,935 square feet each. Current zoning is Agricultural Preservation, AP. If the zoning amendment is approved (ZAMJ99-4), the lot would be zoned Single Family Residential, RA, requiring 10,000 square feet per lot. The proposed lot division meets the lots size and dimension requirements of the RA District. This subdivision will be reviewed for comment by the Joint City Township Planning Board. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall pay in lieu park dedication for the two lots and trunk utility fees. 2. Comments from the City Engineer regarding easements, grading and utilities shall be met before final subdivision approval. 3. The owner shall show evidence that Creekside Crossing developer has an agreement to be compensated for road and utility improvements benefitting this subdivision. Recommendation: Approval Attachments: Application and plans. CPC Action on 12-13-99: +6-0 approval. CC Action on 1-4-00: +5-0 approval. Case No: S(A Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt Na PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED: FEE Certificate of Compliance 70 Conditional or Special Use Permit 50/200 Design Review 25 Planned Unit Development* 500 Variance 701200. Comprehensive Plan Amendment* 500 Zoning Amendment* 300 Subdivision* 2�� Z;, 100+$50 Resubdivision$100 Total Fee *An escrow fee is also required to cover 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, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project Sti Dt U � 0i C-6 tt 2, C c* 3 o L- T S t �� a- i6 � ` S - s 1 F �e,,=r r?- C_ 15c— t 6 43S S <= z- 7 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. PropertyOwner IL4%t- !�'t�--�1�z1F Representative _ Mailing Address 8 � PUJ - - Mailing Address City - State - Zip T2LL�w }_ i (� MM sS'0&2: Ci - State -Zip Telephone No. - - � Telephone No. Signature YV-UV' h Signature Lot Size (dimensions) Land Area Height of Buildings: Principal Accessory Revised: September 16, 1098 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION X Stories Feet Total building floor Area sq. ft. Existing sq. ft. Proposed sq. ft. Paved Impervious Area _ sq. ft. Number of off street parking spaces provided. i s FF pER DOC 993258 � SEWER EASEMENT +�00 2 R21W R20W RIM m MW ` l m •!�: rsaN T32N rn 3 Ja?, rn 4,5 T31N m 4P°Q3j _ _4 vu u� z xi T30N naa QAk 0 b = 1z� 4 N m Iljl vaN a� T2N • a� A iZUW R1W R20W 25 26 OS G] 2 4 165 Stale in Feet Ski +Sae • �.omws�a� at �ml.uA�nn4Yd ecei. as 4� r�p� ...b.s w:.,ngeaGwoelrv�x 7L. W. ,4>I.;q+1®xwe@>br3i4rra 4u�r:4n Pl_ (612) 430/75 a.md �u Nim nw�p�: a�+31. �1 C.Jr Lzr iP \'1 r t1pir � d- or r yatA�WX,r GR_E.CS GE �2assi� Nsvo rv� -, r: a 1• +r +Y c;• r r�i.r � �vvcx3 4.=svf_3r � �'F.mrfrrr^ j'Ap i/ l.p fFKY f aY� .tea. •T"'tr A'i'•iC- W.os.r. L¢w row., Cvrainr • E%s Col. 4 r P amu. G. I • » 9T.cG a 1 �NsGi.,.Fara �q IA I e x + I I __J I j.,\ scree i i Ahem ares. 0 gin li.r o c.% �,�. �dJ•d G '7 or C t!� AG ME•OOCYVS J 1 tsr 4 c• _ 1999 M SURVEYIWG PTO BoxA857 _. I heot.rehy certify that this survey, clan raoo r w r pv me ar unUer my Se Stillwater. MN 55082 �r r ulr� Ry LawS tel: (6511 439-5630 of Barrett M. Slack, LS Minn. LIC. No. 13774 Planning Commission December 13, 1999 Case No. SUB/99-50 A minor subdivision into two lots, Lot A of 12,132 square feet and Lot B of 12,243 square feet, at 617 W. Myrtle St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dan and Tom St. Claire, applicants. Mr. Rheinberger abstained from the discussion and vote on this case. Both applicants were present. They questioned the requirement for a turn -around. Mr. Russell explained that was determined by the city engineer. Mr. Zoller asked about the existing garage. The applicants stated the garage meets setback requirements. An easement for sewer and water is provided, they said. Kathleen Charlsen, 728 W. Olive St., stated she thought there was a moratorium on building in ravines. Mr. Russell stated there is no moratorium. Kitty Johnson and Carlos Johnson, neighboring property owners, asked about the sewer and water easement, whether a lift station would have to be installed, and how that would affect their property. Mr. Zoller noted the requested subdivision meets all requirements. Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval of the request as conditioned; all in favor, with Mr. Rheinberger abstaining. Case No. ZAM/99-4. Case 1'4o. SUB/99-51 Case No, SUB/99-52 Zoning map amendment and minor subdivision of 8260 Neal Avenue North and 8220 Neal Avenue North in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District. Don Thron and Mitchell McKenzie, applicants. Mr. Thron was present representing both applicants. He pointed out that the condition of approval regarding park dedication for both subdivision requests should be for two lots, not three as indicated in the staff memo, as there already is an existing lot. Mr. Thron also asked that condition of approval No. 3 be changed so that rather than requiring the Creekside Crossing developer be compensated for road and utility improvements before any building permits are pulled, the applicants show there is an agreement in place with the developer for such compensation. Mr. Russell agreed that would be satisfactory. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved approval of Case No. ZAM/99-4; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-51 as amended; all in favor. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Hultman, moved approval of SUB/99-52 as amended; all in favor. Case No. SUB/99-53 This case was continued to the January meeting. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved continuation; all in favor. Case No. r/99-56 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 18'3" requested) for construction of a solarium at 116 School St. B. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ronald and Kristen Lahner, applicant. 3 MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Discussion of Phase IV Area Annexation Requests Date: February 9, 2000 The City has received requests for annexation of five areas in the Phase IV annexation area (see attached map). This areas include the Creekside Crossing (1), Bergmann (2), Schmoeke (3), Mary North (4) and McKenzie/Thron areas (5) over the past two years (see attached map). Three of the five areas were approved for annexation by the City; Thron/McKenzie, Bergmann and Creekside Crossing. The Bergmann, Creekside Crossing and Thron/McKenzie annexations areas are next to the existing City and services were constructed with Phase I expansion to provide water and sewer service. The Creekside Crossing/Thron/McKenzie area was ghost platted when it was developed in the township. There has been no utility feasibility study for the Phase IV annexation area (see memo from public works director). Also, the entire area is designated rural residential requiring a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment. The AUAR was also prepared based on the Comprehensive Plan rural residential land use. Additional environmental review may be necessary to review future land use environmental impacts. A street system should be coordinated for the Phase IV expansion area so access to individual sites can be coordinated. A Neal road extension should also be studied between Bothwell and CR 12. Concerns for the safety of the CR 12/Boutwell intersection have been repeatedly expressed by area residents and the City is studying the issue. This situation will get worse as development along Boutwell occurs. The Phase IV expansion area is scheduled for 2015 annexation. Current county and township regulations designate the Phase IV area Transitional Residential, Idu/10 acres (see attached ordinance). A density of 1 du/2.5 acres can be accomplished only if provisions are made for future City annexation and development at urban densities. The Phase II developer has submitted a plan concept for the area and are interested in proceeding with development in 2000. So far, preliminary and final plats have been approved for over 750 single family and attached housing lots in the expansion area and building permits issued for 104 housing units. A good inventory of single family small lots, large lots and attached housing are available in the expansion area for development. Joint Board Page 2 February 9, 2000 City staff recommends that at a minimum a study for the entire Phase IV area be conducted before annexation of the areas north of CR 12. Existing services have been extended and land use has be determined for Phase IV areas south of CR 12. In the Phase IV study, issues regarding the greenway design and location, land use and townhouse sites, utility services, roads, environmental impacts can be considered. With that information, the City could better respond to Phase IV annexation requests. No staff time or money has been budgeted for such a study. Recommendation: Discussion of Phase IV annexations issues and direction. Attachments: -Council staff report 1-14-2000 -Zoning ordinance for transition district -Letter from Bergmann Homes, 1-20-2000 -Letter form Pro -Act Realty, no date February 9, 2000 TO: Steve Russell Community Development Director FROM: Klayton H. Eckles 1L --5e/ City Engineer SUBJECT: Issues Concerning Development in the Phase IV Annexation Area DISCUSSION: Recently the City has received requests for early annexation of properties in the Phase IV area. Some of the landowners of larger parcels have indicated a desire to begin urban development in area that was slated to become part of the City in 2015. Although the Engineering Department is not opposed to this possibility, it does bring some serious issues and demands upon the Engineering Department. Currently, there are no conceptual plans for extending trunk utilities into these undeveloped areas. Also, there are concerns regarding staffing levels required to review, oversee, and manage the current level of development growth as well as possible development in Phase IV. Finally, we do not have a policy for dealing with property owners that wish to come into the City early. The first area of concern is in the area of proper planning for trunk public improvements for the expansion area. When the City completed its Comprehensive Plan Update and Trunk Utility Studies for the area, no specific analysis was done for Phase IV. Since landowners in Phase IV were predominately opposed to annexation and the possibility of urban development, Phase IV was left for future study. Therefore, we have no comprehensive concept for providing trunk sanitary sewer, water, street and storm water management facilities to this area. Specifically, it would be important that sanitary sewer be installed in such way that lift stations are not required and proper depth is provided to all properties in Phase IV. For the watermain, it will be necessary to insure that looping is completed and that initial developments install the necessary pipe and systems to accommodate later developments. Storm water management is another essential area. A comprehensive storm water management plan will be needed for Phase IV including additional trout stream mitigation measures. The City's original Trout Stream Mitigation Plan used the City's Comprehensive Plan to determine densities, so Phase IV did not include urban type density. There is also a need to examine the ultimate street design and circulation patterns. It is anticipated that Boutwell Avenue will February 9, 2000 eventually become a Municipal State Aid street, which requires careful planning. Finally, we have not considered the needs or locations of parks and trailways for neighborhood and citywide benefits. Another area of concern is the demands which additional development, especially unplanned development, will put on City staff and consulting services. Currently, the City is overseeing Liberty 1St, 2nd, 3", and 4th Additions, Legends 1St and 2nd Additions, Stillwater Crossings, Long Lake Villas, and Creekside Crossing. In addition, developers Bradshaw and US Homes are in the initial stages of the development process. Each of these developments requires Engineering staff to complete the following: • Review preliminary plat and impact on existing utility systems • Review wetland, shoreland, woodland, slope area, right-of-way, adjoining private property, grading plans and erosion impacts. • Review final plat, easements, conservation areas, and trailway plans • Confer with state, county and watershed organizations to obtain comments • Review and develop plans and specifications for utilities, streets and storm sewer design • Develop a developer's agreement to manage and regulate development issues • Determine and collect development fees and impact charges • Oversee and enforce local, county and state development regulations • Inspect and oversee installation of public improvements • Review site and building plans In addition to Engineering requirements there are also staffing requirements on the part of planning, administration, finance and attorney's office. The final concern staff has regarding development of Phase IV is the City's policy, or lack thereof, regarding control and rate of development. The Orderly Annexation Agreement only set forth the possibility of early annexation. The City of Stillwater has not developed a policy for allowing or considering these early annexations. To date the City has only accepted only one development (Creekside Crossing) as an early orderly annexation north of County Road 12. This was because trunk utilities had to be installed through this property and the City and the Developer benefited by the early annexation. The Orderly Annexation Agreement leaves it completely at the City's discretion. Without a policy or a set of guidelines, it is quite difficult for staff to react to all of the various possible development scenarios. The current request from Kevin VonRiedel has merit in that it includes an area greater than just one parcel. However, given all of the existing development and demands on City staff and the potential for additional Phase I, II and impending III developments I would recommend that development in Phase IV be curtailed until earlier development phases have been completed, there is more staff time, planning studies for Phase IV have been completed and the City has a policy or guideline in place for reviewing Phase IV early annexations. 2 MEMO To: Mayor and City Council From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director• Subject: Annexation Request for 14 Acres of Land Located between Boutwell Road and County Road 12 Date: January 14, 2000 The City received an annexation request for three parcels of land comprising 14 acres as shown on the enclosed map. The land is located in the Phase IV (2015) annexation area. The area is designated Rural Residential, 1 DU/2.5 acres in the Comp Plan. Because its in the Phase IV annexation area, utility services, road access and its urban land use have not been planned for the site. It is recommended that the City Council deny the request at this time because it is premature and not consistent with the Comp Plan phasing or direct staff to study the request and come back with a description of the necessary planning, traffic, environmental and utility studies necessary to fully consider the request for the site and Phase IV annexation area. As the Council is aware, subdivision for 750 lots has been was approved over the past two years Of that number, building permits for 100 housing units have been issued to date. There is currently a large supply of a range of housing types and costs available in the City. Developers of the Phase II (1999) annexation area have submitted concept plans and are beginning to work with staff on subdivision and planned unit development review. The Phase II area will have 200-300 lots phased over several years adding to the housing supply. If the Council directs staff to study the request further, the request could be referred to the Joint Township/City Planing Board for comment as has been done with other annexation requests. Recommendation: Direction on annexation request Attachments: Letters and area map. 3 �—e f c F---1 i rte' i 77K-7 7 SWT3 IN T32N 13IN 731N YW ARE IMM T30N k. T30.N T_9N T29N P_&N T29N R22W R'IW R20W Vicinity Map 0 564 Scale in Feet Tnis Crenmq is re r.su,[ of a mm�,aEan O nprcevcpon of IanO racortla as Eley W pear in ve�wus W asnine[Cn Couny omces Tn. aa..no sna:le ea u.ea rorraa,np. —Possorly Wesnmg[on Courrty is not reapo-e,e r—v a®ccure��ea Source 'NaMnplon county Surveyors 0 ft. Pnan. 151]11-8]5 Parc.., Cate.—, N -p 0.cxnEer31 1— Jan, 24. 2000 4; OHM' MCCOMPS FRANK ROCS, No, 6866 P. 2/2 Chanter Two — Zonins Regulations •: Part 2 — Density and Loa AcQuirements Effective 10120M Density is the number of dwelling units permitted per acre of land. A quarter -quarter section is defined as a tract of land legally described as a full quarter -quarter or a 40 acre parcel not reduced by more than 10% due to road right-of-way dedication, a, SECTION 1. DENSITY 1.1 Density in Districts. (1) In the A -P District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section. (21 In the A-1 District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section. (3) In the A-2 District, the density of residential dwelling units shall' not exceed two (2) dwelling units per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section. (4) In the A4 District, the density of residential dwellings shall not exceed four (4) dwelling units per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section. (5) In the "RR" Rural Residential District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section. (6) In the "SFE" Single Family Estate District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section. (7) In the "RS" Residential Suburban District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed four (4) dwelling units per 40 acres or quarter -quarter section where public sewer is not available. The density of residential uses may be greater than one dwelling unit per acre when public sewer serves the development, per Section 2.3 of this Part. (8) In the "TZ'.' Transition Zone District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. The density of residential dwelling units may be increased to four (4) dwelling units per ten (10) acres if a master subdivision plan is submitted and approved showing how each lot could be re -subdivided into lots meeting the minimum lot standards for residential suburban when public sewer becomes available. (9) In the "C" Conservancy District, the density of residential dwelling units shall not exceed two (2) dwelling units per forty (40) acres or quarter -quarter section. 2 Washington County Development Code RUGGEMO H69' E Building Quality Since 1959 January 20, 2000 The Honorable Jay L. Kimble, Mayor Mr. Gene Bealka Mr. Richard Cummings Mr. Eric Thole Mr. Terrence Zoller Dear Mayor and Council: I was in attendance at your City Council meeting Tuesday, January 18, 2000 in which you discussed the application for annexation of three parcels of land totaling 18 acres. As you know, the application was referred to the Joint Planning Board for review and discussion. Although I was at the meeting, I did not have the opportunity to speak to the Council about our position / request. This letter is written to assert our position on the annexation request and follow up on comments made at the public presentation. We have assembled three parcels of land totaling 18 acres (not 14 acres as related by staff) and are working to add a fourth parcel to the application. There is a value in assembling multi -parcel applications for discussion in the "fourth phase annexation" area. As was rightly pointed out by the City Attorney, any landowner can currently subdivide their property into 2.5 acre lots. The danger in this pattern of development is the difficulty in establishing an urban pattern of development and services. An opportunity to develop a multi -parcel area contiguous to the City should be viewed as a positive step in establishing not only a preferred urban development pattern in an annexation area, but also the cost benefit of providing more affordable urban services. As you know, the annexation agreement between the City and the Township allows for the "early" annexation of property if certain criteria are met. Having satisfied those criteria, the City may allow early annexation to proceed. The provision for early annexation speaks to a quality of flexibility in the annexation agreement. Just as a comprehensive plan is a tool for guiding future development, allowing flexibility for change, so too, the annexation agreement in its' early annexation provision implies a need for flexibility based in part by the changing needs or desires of the land owners in the annexation area. The circumstances for all three of the affected landowners have changed since the annexation agreement was initiated. Additionally, all three landowners assert that they were not asked which phase of annexation they would prefer to be associated with. Given a choice, their preference would have been for earlier annexation. During the presentations and discussions that followed, assertions were made that if this area were to be considered for annexation then all of the fourth phase annexation area would have to be studied for planning and utility service design. While we agree that good planning and engineering practices include looking at implications beyond the border of the proposed development, we don't believe that this proposal would warrant a study of the entire fourth phase annexation area. 3564 Rollingview Drive - White Bear Lake - Minnesota 55110 • 651-770-2981 , Fax 651-770-9273 MBL# 4062 • Page 2 January 20, 2000 The enclosed map shows the areas around and adjacent to the annexation request area (lower left-hand comer of the map with a dark outline and "X" inside). A reasonable study area, based on trunk sewer location, would be the triangular shaped area formed by Boutwell Avenue, CSAH 12 and the trunk sewer line (shown by the heavy dashed Line) to the east of the Minor subdivision. Understanding staff concern for time demands, we would offer to undertake the study, with staff input and review, for the area affected by our proposal. Thank you for your attention and consideration of our request. We look forward to working with you in the upcoming months. Should you have any questions as a result of this letter or our request, please do not hesitate to call. Sinc re v., { Ke n E. vonRiedel, RLA Director of Land Development Cc: Steve Russell, Klayton Eckles, City of Stillwater Stillwater Township Town Board DEC -14-99 04:43 PM 651 439 9043 P.02 1 • Mc �.. 1!rrlrr r/ »co 011ie.�� .load #64 Alc , �uszck .... it tits )160lj 1 Ul bj •iv. it �,• ` >t `� M-� .r L7 x /Seel is a•. • _ l u � 111+ Nr WS .r• IV[A v .is.e � ��E• t r�,! S. far4 `.i,' ter" ` i/:f lfll I+a"' [ Iti►l � � 11)J j 1S0( + IC Ipb 1� i • Y :01 + Or.?101 Esil 100 le wp�L �? Colo [ + V t /•o� �•�C+ Ilso E 1+y4 � �• • 1i?C .. tL•1' J.� }y! 5060 + �' 11W 1 e . *. w, 7110 ! 7 f Wo ~ , �� • ee lil0 rl'i f �1�G9 ti r Wil~ !ow �► C10 ! 1 KI i,; , 1 a�x� ��oo � L� ��"�� .°:.► lel~ I! �' i � �� + t i►so � +i�14�{!! ,E'i�ia' + eta � � ;�.- .,.� fir / _ • ,; � f MeI Oct , ct"641 117 , � Is.! 1 �i� aloe 1 n� y l�cC�nba Fr�rE�. Raoa A�:oca 1te:, Inc. Esta N -e Avg. He CITY i TRNSH;P �IrO.nf, r�:, �<<;, 1'r.0��ftts •_•_b STILLP TrR tXHZBIT PRO=A- C T REA Tl -;7 7," G?7,v 1967 S. Greeley Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-7800 (800) 542-5076 (651) 439-9043 fax Joint Powers Members Mayor Jay Kimble Council Member Terry Zoller Town Board Member David Johnson Town Board Member Louise Bergeron Dear Joint Powers Members, I would like to take this opportunity to present you with some facts to gain your support in the Bruggeman Construction Company's development of the Low, Miller and LaVenture properties. First let me say that after 25 years in the Real Estate and Development business, I have always found the Decision Makers to make their decisions on factual evidence. I hope that you will continue to Follow That Standard when reviewing the Bruggeman Construction's request for developing the Three aforementioned properties. By copy of this memo, I would like to site some facts: A. None of the Three participants to this request can recall of ever being specifically asked about their long range plans for their property. B. They all feel by virtue of their request that now is the time to develop their individual parcels of land in combination with the other two contiguous property owners. (Total of 18 acres) C. They feel that the Bruggeman Construction Company having been in the Construction Business for 40 years is as good a judge as you can get for the Marketability of homes built on our land to large City lot standards. An Independent Realtor Ready And Willing To Serve. Gary Vizenor Broker In reviewing the Cities Comprehensive Plan, it would appear that the preliminary studies provided to the Metropolitan Council in conjunction with their ability to service the Annexation Area was that the Cities capabilities including the Annexation Area were adequate until the year 2020. I am attaching excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan where those capabilities were identified. It seems to me that the only unanswered question to be addressed is the Cities staffing problems which obviously could be handled by hiring the necessary Engineers, Surveyors and Staff people on a Consulting Basis as opposed to adding staff. In review and on behalf of the Three Property Owners they feel that the Comprehensive Plan required them to each Own All Of Their Property to qualify for requesting early annexation, that the property be contiguous to current Water and Sewer Services (it is by virtue the LaVenture parcel) and Thirdly who better to judge the need than Bruggeman Construction who has been building Single Family and Multiple Family projects for over 40 years. Once again we respectfully ask for your favorable findings in respect to this annexation. AA.V rror Ute_ metropolitan area A library card that is honored at most public libraries in the state Meeting, conference and study rooms _Lily Lake Ice Arena The Lily Lake ice arena facility was constructed in 1971 and is located at 1205 South Greeley Street. Since that time, there have been various improvements and maintenance work done on the arena but no major additions of any sort. The building is 125 feet wide and 239.5 feet long and the size of the ice is 200 x 85 feet. The arena has seating capacity of 787. In 1992, the arena's staff size was two, full-time and twelve, part-time employees. The primary service area of the Lily Lake ice arena is the City of Stillwater. It also services all of Washington County including Mahtomedi, Tartan Park and the township areas. Primary users of the facility include the St. Croix Valley Hockey Association, Tartan Park and Mahtomedi Youth Hockey, Stillwater Senior High Hockey Team four "old timer" hockey leagues and the public. During the dates from November 15 through March 15, there is anywhere between 12 to 2,000 skaters a weekend who use the ice arena. Parks Department The parks building is located at 1372 South Greeley Street. The parks department has five, full-time staff members. During the summer months two to four part-time employees are hired. There is many uses of the parks building. It is used as an office, garage, storage facility, meeting place and where maintenance work is done. The parks department is responsible for maintaining a total of 154 acres of city parks and 10-4 open spaces areas, among many other things. They also maintain Four to five miles of city -owned sidewalks Provide weed control on streets and boulevards Trees and shrubs put in by the downtown council Tree trimming Maintain library and city hall grounds Shrubs around parking lots All city steps URTPA Water and Sewer Service As a part of planning for growth of the city, a comprehensive sewer plan amendment has been prepared. The comprehensive sewer plan is a requirement of the Metropolitan Council to ensure that sewer service capacity and trunk line locations are adequate to accommodate planned growth. Based on proposed land use, there is adequate capacity to accommodate growth through 2020 and beyond. The existing trunk sewer line is located at Neal Avenue south of McKusick Road and CR 12. A second line is located just west of DR 5 at Curve Crest Blvd. From there, lines would be extended to development areas to the north and south as shown on the trunk sewer line map. From Neal Avenue the south sewer line would run along a low wetland areas west of Neal Avenue to Boutwell and from Boutwell to CR 12 in part on a city owned property. Easements would be obtained from private property owners in the township for a portion of the line. No services or service cc -+ would be charged to township residents not receiving services in these areas for extension of the sewer or waste lines. From CR 12 south the trunk sewer line would be located along Long Lake or in street right-of-ways. The lake location of the line could accommodate a recreational trail along Long Lake. This trail would also be used to provide access to maintain the sewer line. If a lake location is chosen, special construction methods would have to be used to minimize the impact of the installation on the wooded and sloped lake shoreline area. Sewer and water service to the proposed research and development business park south of North 62nd Street and residential areas east of Long Lake would be provided by water and sewer lines located west of CR 5. The costs for sewer and water line extensions will be paid by the developer and users of the service through rate assessment charges and connection fees. The city would pay for "oversizing" of the sewer system to accommodate possible future development. Water services can be extended from several city locations to accommodate growth in the area. A new water tower and wells preliminarily located just south of Boutwell and east of CR 15(because of elevation consideration) will be needed before development north of McKusick Road can be accommodated (see water line map). The cost of the tower and well is paid by the city through its rate structure. Policies and Programs Policy 1: Review city-wide needs for city facility maintenance and new construction improvement and program those improvements in a capital improvements program. Policy 2: Coordinate public facility improvements with preparation of neighborhood plans, i.e., special streetscapes, neighborhood parks, sidewalk or trail improvements. Policy 3: Extend city water and sewer services to all areas of the city (with the exception of the residential area north of TH 96). Policy 4: Do not provide water and sewer services to non - urbanized areas. Policy 5: Coordinate the provision of urban services: water, sewer, storm sewer policy, police and fire protection with adjacent local governments to provide more efficient services and save costs. Policy 6: Plan for the phased expansion of public services and facilities consistent with the growth and expansion of the URTPA. 10-5 Policy 7: Work with school district to plan for future school facilities while maximizing the use of existing facilities. Policy 8: Coordinate orderly annexation and extension of municipal urban services with comprehensive plan proposed land use. Policy 9: Extend city utility services in the URTPA in ways that do not efirjinate long-term options for future use. Program (1) Develop citystonn water management. Program (2) Develop ravine management plan and balance the need for the ravines between natural resource protection, public utility and open space/recreation opportunity. Program (3) Implement pavement and sidewalk management programs for the existing city. Program (4) Implement a conservation and emergency management plan for City of Stillwater MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Phase II Expansion Area Development Date: February 10, 2000 Representatives from US Homes will be present at the meeting to present an update on Phase II development. This is a follow up to last falls meeting with the developer. MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Public Works Facility Date: February 9, 2000 The City continues to look for a public works facility site in the expansion area. city staff is currently discussing purchase of a site south of Boutwell just east of CR 15 (see attached map). Staff will keep the Joint Board appraised of site development progress. If the Township representatives on the Joint Board have concerns for the site, it would be helpful to express any issues or concerns at this time so they can be addressed as early as possible. MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: CR 15/12 Village Commercial Date: February 9, 2000 The developers of the Liberty development are requesting proposals for the development of the 6.2 acre Village Commercial corner. A copy of the RFP is included for your information. City staff will continue to communicate plan development with the township planner. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STILLWATER VILLAGE CENTER PROJECT NEWMAN REALTY LTD. PARTNERSHIP 12480 72nd Street North STILLWATER, MN 55082 CONTACT: Ms. Paula Kroening December 15, 1999 STILLWATER VILLAGE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. Introduction Newman Realty Ltd. Partnership (the "Owner") is interested in receiving development proposals for the development of real property owned by the Owner at the intersection of County Road 12 and County Road 15 (Manning Avenue) in Stillwater, Minnesota. This Request for Proposals ("RFP") outlines the history of the property in its annexation to the City of Stillwater, issues regarding right-of-way for future widening of County Road 15, access to the subject property, current zoning and development criteria, technical specifications of the development parcel, sets forth the proposal process, and establishes criteria to be used in evaluating each proposal. Interested developers or co -developers are requested to submit information solicited herein or inquiries to: Ms. Paula Kroening General Partner NEWMAN REALTY LTD. PARTNERSHIP 12480 72nd Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: (651) 430-3396 The deadlinCfor receipt 6" response to this Request for Proposals is 5:00pm on Tuesday, February 15, 2000. There willAn Fn ormational meeting held on �dnesday, January 5, 2000 at0:00am in the Council Chambers (special meeting room) t it Hall loca at 216 North 4`h Street. City Hall is located on 4`h Street between Myrtle and Mulberry Streets in Stillwater. In attendance to respond to questions will be: the property owners (Newman Realty) Mr. Steve Russell, Stillwater City Planner Mr. Clayton Eckels, Stillwater City Engineer, and Mr. Mark Putman, President of Development Directions and principal designer for Liberty on the Lake Mr. Homer Thompkin, President, Contractor Property Developers Company - Developer of Liberty on the Lake Ms. Mary Bujold, Director of Research, Maxfield Research Inc. (the market study) II. Project History The City of Stillwater and the Town of Stillwater agreed to a joint resolution providing for a framework and orderly annexation of a part of the Town of Stillwater. The agreement (ratified on August 16, 1996) identified four phases of annexation and provided approximate timing of these phases being annexed into the City. The subject parcel is located within the Phase I annexation area which is roughly bordered by County Road 15 on the west, the former City of Stillwater boundary to the east, Highway 36 on the south and County Road 12 on the north. Additional areas located within the Phase I area are zoned residential and institutional. (See Exhibit A) III. Project Purpose The purpose of the Stillwater Village Center project is to ensure the orderly future development of real property and provide for local neighborhood retail and commercial services in a manner that is sensitive to the overall needs of the City, the stipulations of the orderly annexation agreement, reflects the highest and best use of the parcel, and encourages growth in the City's tax base and employment. Newman Realty is the seller in this transaction. This RFP is an offer for sale, with minimum requirements established for an acceptable rosy Arouse, specific to the subjec7tpf6pe y described in this RFP. The Ow-n-er-r-e-s-e-r-v—eslhe nght to award the sale and development of the parcel according to the evaluation criteria req1-1ested in this RFP. The developer, or co -developer, chosen should be prepared to have th:!ir proposal incorporated, along with all other written correspondence concerning this FFP, into any future Development Contracts. The Owner of this property has worked closely with the City of Stillwater during the entire annexation process. The O -ner has been instrumental in working with the City in the development of zoning regulations, right-of-way setbacks for the future widening of key roadways and issues related to wetlands and requirements for open space. IV. General Area Characteristics A. The City of Stillwater: The City of Stillwater, Minnesota is located at the easternmost boundary of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, in Washington County. Stillwater borders the St. Croix River which separates Minnesota from Wisconsin. Stillwater is considered to be the birthplace of Minnesota. Stillwater's central business district is located on Main Street near the St. Croix River. Its Downtown is currently a sizeable tourist attraction and during the summer months, its streets are crowded with sightseers, boaters and other visitors. Its Downtown has most recently become centered on antiques in addition to restaurants, lodging facilities and general business services. Downtown Stillwater serves a regional market, the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and portions of western Wisconsin (St. Croix County, Pierce County). According to the Metropolitan Council, 1997 population and household estimates for the City of Stillwater (including the township area annexed to the City) were 16,069 people and 5,881 households. By 2005, the City is projected to have more than 17,500 people and 6,700 households. In addition to population and households in Stillwater, the City serves a largely rural surrounding area of Washington County that includes Grant Township, May Township, Baytown Township, and the remainder of Stillwater Township, not included in the annexation agreement, in addition to several smaller cities along the St. Croix border. In Wisconsin, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights serve a considerable portion of St. Croix and Pierce Counties. Many persons who work in Minnesota live just across the River in Wisconsin. Major employers in the area include Independent School District #834 (Stillwater) (865 employees), Washington County (Stillwater) (815 employees), MN Corrections Facility (Oak Park Heights) (470 employees) and Andersen Windows (Bayport) (3,700 employees), among others. B. Site Characteristics 1. Location -(See Exhibit B) The subject property is approxi ely 6 acres d is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of County Roads 12 a in Stillwater, Minnesota. The subject site is adjacent to a new elementary school, Rutherford Elementary, which opened Fall 1998. The school's capacity is approximately 850 students. The school also includes a pre- school learning center. Currently, the school houses about 600 students. The entrance to the School, Rutherford Circle, will contain a gatehouse and New England -style clock tower. Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC), located in the Twin Cities, is developing the residential subdivision, Liberty, directly south of the site. CPDC is slated to incorporate over $1.0 million in amenities related to the Liberty Development. The residential subdivision has a combination of single-family and multifamily (townhome) units and is positioned to be upscale with community amenities. A portion of the single- family lots in the subdivision are located adjacent to Long Lake. Single-family home prices range from approximately $350,000 to $800,000. A Village Green area has been identified near the center of the commercial development. CP will fund the evelopment of the Village Green. The potential developer of the commercial portion will be expected to add to it. The subject site is easily accessible from Highway 36 on Manning Avenue (Co. Rd. 15) and from 75th Street (Co. Rd. 12). Traffic controls at this time, include only a four-way stop. Future plans however, include the widening of Manning Avenue and a signalization of the Highway 36/County Road 12 intersection. Westwood Engineering, a local firm, is currently designing the intersection for the County. Construction of the intersection is slated to occur sometime in the near future. Traffic counts along these highways have been steadily increasing due to continued residential and employment growth in the area. 2. Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses The predominant use of the parcel is intended to be commercial. In fact, within the orderly annexation agreement, this parcel is intended to serve as the commercial hub of the westerly portion of Stillwater and the surrounding neighborhoods. The subject property is the only area that was zoned for commercial use among the entire area annexed into the City of Stillwater. The Annexation Board identified this area as the "commercial village" and intended that the area would serve as the retail and services center for the annexation area. "Liberty," an upscale housing development is located south of the subject site. Liberty will include both upper -end single-family and townhomes. Q as proposed 40 units of "lifestyle" townhomes on a site located just toe northf the subject site. , 3. Traffic Counts Historical and projected traffic counts were produced by Washington County and are provided in this RFP (Exhibit C). Average daily traffic volumes are shown for County Road 15 between Highways 36 and 96. Also shown are figures for County Road 12 between County Roads 5 and 17. Projected traffic counts shown assume traffic volumes double in 20 years. Projected traffic counts for 1958 show the :ollowing on County Roads 12 and 15 adjacent to the development site: -- on County Road 15 (Manning Avenue): North of County Road 12: 14,600 vehicles Der day South of County Road 12: 11.100 vehicles ner day -- on County Road 12 (75th Street): West of County Road 15: 5 -700 -vehicles per day East of County Road 15: 5.300 vehicles per day Calculations made by Washington County project 2018 traffic volumes at between 22,200 and 29,200 vehicles per day on County Road 15. Additional information is provided regarding intersection improvement alternatives comparison completed by Washington County. Additional questions regarding traffic volumes may be directed to the Washington County Public Works — Highway Division at (651) 430-4300. Upgrading of the intersection of County Roads 15 and 12 is planned to begin sometime in the near future. 4. Utilities The parcel is not currently served by municipal utilities however, utility connections are located at the traffic circle entrance to Rutherford Road. Both municipal water and sanitary sewer are available nearby. This parcel is not currently served by municipal utilities but can be accessed from the traffic circle. Development of the commercial parcel will require connection to municipal water and sewer and carryover of utilities across parkland or through Manning Avenue entrance with townhouse connection. This can be done in conjunction with connections being completed by Contractors Property Developers Company (the developer of Liberty on the Lake). Technical information regarding utilities and the timing for installation can be obtained from the City of Stillwater's Department of Public Works. 5. Environmental An open space analysis was conducted by Ms. Kathryn Malody, a botanical consultant, in July and August 1995. Sites were surveyed for plant community type and condition and were ranked according to quality, potential and natural history. No other environmental assessment for the commercial portion of the property has been completed to date. A small portion of the subject property is covered by wetlands. This wetland area may be mitigated. Additional open space/parkland (7 percent) will be designated on this property. The City intends that the parkland will be used by the community and will link together the residential (Liberty) and commercial areas of the PUD. 6. Property Title The Owner currently has clear title to the property and would convey interest to the property as fee simple. 7. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines Exhibit "D" at the back of the RFP was taken from the orderly annexation agreement and outlines the City's and Town's goal for the use of the property, architectural style, materials, building design, orientation, setbacks, lot coverage, landscaping, screening, signage, etc. A portion of the site is intended to be set-aside for parkland/open space. The enclosed preliminary concept sketch is not intended to be prescriptive, but to provide guidance in the development of the site in a manner that will result in a high quality product and a positive image at this intersection. (See Exhibit E). Architectural style of the development should reflect a New England -style settlement, reminiscent of the early days of the Rutherford Neighborhood (the area in which the subject site is located). 8. Market Study A market study was commissioned by the Owners of the property and completed by Maxfield Research Inc. in September 1996. The market study provides demographic and market data that may be relevant to prospective developers when developing their concepts. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the market study, please contact Ms. Paula Kroening, General Partner. V. Site Description The subject property is approximately 6.2 acres in size and is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of County Roads 12 and 15 in Stillwater, Minnesota. The site is primarily flat with excellent visibility and is below grade from the roadway. The site contains approximately 0.8 acres of wetlands. The wetlands area may be mitigated. The City has also requested that 7 percent of the site area be set-aside for parkland/open space. The City has adopted a zoning ordinance that includes a separate zoning classification described as "Village Commercial." The site is considered to be within a PUD that includes both residential and commercial uses. Additional information on this zoning classification can be obtained from Mr. Steve Russell, Planning Director at the City of Stillwater. The subject site and a "research and development district" are the only two properties designated for commercial use among all of the property identified in the annexation agreement. Access to the parcel from County Road 12 (75th Street) is currently designated to be via the traffic circle at Rutherford Road, approximately 1,050 feet from the intersection. Access to the commercial parcel will be from the traffic circle via an access road. Access will also be available from County Road 15, approximately 1,050 feet south of the intersection. Vl. Developer Submission Requirements We want interested developers to submit the following information, which will be held in confidence. A. Identification of the development team and a description of the qualifications of key personnel. The development team or personnel may include, but is not limited to, investor/owners, construction contractor, project engineer, architect, proposed primary source of project finance, including the name or contact persons at a bank to be used by the developer. B. A description of the previous related experience of the key personnel identified above. C. A description of the general development scheme, including land area required, and any other pertinent information describing the proposed development concept. Proposal submitters should be sensitive to the design considerations for the project. D. A statement regarding the financial capability of the developer, including anticipated resources for any proposed development. Confidential financial statements may be required at a later date to demonstrate strength and ability to undertake and complete a project in a timely manner. E. The scope and size of the project, including: 1. architectural style 2. Type of construction 3. An estimate of the construction costs per square foot. 4. A preliminary site plan, including parking improvements, points of ingress and egress, and building square footage. F. The purchase price of the property ' $8.25 per square fo t of net area (6.2 acres). This purchase price reflects existin ite preparation which includes utilities to the site (sewer/water) and the engineering o d grading on the site. The property owners will negotiate a purchase agreement for the property with the selected developer at the completion of the proposal selection process. The selected developer should be ready to enter into an agreement for the development of the subject property. G. A detailed cost breakdown containing the following components: 1. Site improvements 2. Land acquisition 3. General construction 4. Leasehold improvements 5. General development costs H. The developer's target dates or number of days required for the completion of the identified project. I. Any other information relevant to an objective analysis of the project to demonstrate the developer's ability to construct, market and own the proposed project. J. indication within the development proposal how the developer intends to pro "village" concept through the design, types of potential uses, hies, site plan, etc. of the subject property. K. At least five professional references. References should demonstrate the submitter's experience with similar projects. L. The submitter should demonstrate their ability to provide architectural and engineering services, either on their own or jointly with another qualified firm. The submitter should provide the required information on no more than (25) twenty-five 8.5" X 11" pages. The Property Owner reserves the right to: 1) amend, modify, or waive any of the provisions of this RFP; 2) request additional information and/or references from the submitter if deemed necessary for the evaluation of the submission; 3) reject any or all proposals; 4) negotiate with proposal submitters to ensure that the `vision" for the property is maintained; 5) conduct interviews with proposal submitters as part of the selection process; 6) draft a formal development agreement with the selected developer. Exhibit A 9. i BLUHM RD Mc Musick !d,.N Mth S, IPhase I Annexation . ... ....... 75th -St a75 ..... 64 'w P,�.. St zl� I-V 11j% 6M StN 36 4M St NI IN I GW F, I etl-i s9-4 -�Iw IM- @) 1999 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights reserved. Site Location - Exhibit B 36 i—m CCPYPIGHT Q I9R4159.7 E, -M 6r, '[Subject Property IROMeft'd Elementary I 72nd St EM @) 1999 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights reserved. Country Village Architectural and Site Design Guidelines F-�YL;4 b 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 a 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. Pedestrian Access: The country village shall be linked to surrounding residential areas, the elementary school and trails along County Road 12 and 15 by sidewalks and pathways. MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director f Subject: Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area Update Date: February 10, 2000 A use plan for the park and natural area and a management plan for the natural area has been prepared. The Rotary Clubs and Margaret Rivers Fund has granted the City over $100,000 for improvement of the park. Condemnation of the Larson and Huntsman properties is completed. Construction of the park and management of the natural area should begin this year. MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject: Expansion Area Building Permit Update for 1999 Date: February 10, 2000 As of December 31, 1999, 104 building permits were issued in the expansion area, 52 -Legends, 47 Liberty and 5 for Creekside Crossing. The orderly annexation agreement allows 125 permits per year. Subdivision and PUD approvals for 750 lots, large lot, small lot single family (522) and attached residential (228) have been approved as of December 31, 1999. Phase II annexation area could have been annexed January 1, 1999. This report is called for in the orderly annexation agreement. Attachment: Building permit record Liberty and Legends. W W W W W' N N N N N O O W" C� rQ N N N A W N N -i N�� O CD 00 -� --� -� — s -� dC±,IDLC V O— W N v O cn A W N 0 0 0 6)� 4 1 A W IA , i 1 .� . �1 i W W N �iNIN,O NIN N i 1 .y ± CD O N O'O N �l W �'� A N'-�•'N N N N N.) C.0 1 N �• �j iCD D O N OD 00 CD A co co CO CO CO CD O Co Co co Q0 W W Co CO:CO W Co cn CO CD Cfl N. Co -4 C3) �I O Cn 00 CO �J O v Co Co Co O O O CO O O O Cb CO W v W. CD O O co CD Co Co Co CO (.0 co O (.0 Co O COI (0.(0 CO Co (01(o Co Co Cfl CO Co CD w 00 W7 W 00 m 00 OD Q_ iiCL.co CDtltl W W W W W W W Cn W W A' W W A Ol, W W cn O i cn O A A m cn W cn W A co W cn co co co cn W A. Cn A co A W W O CA C, N A' Cn W M W M O CD -I cocn-! N cnN A O — W: 1 CO co, W" co A I co W N O N CJ) co O cn W co O N O co Ln 11 00 A -4 I A M CO -� 1 M W W CT W, A V Cal O 1 O cn cn, mD r22rZ''-uDZiZZr ZZr2mDD o' CD- o' O zT m m Cr CD l o °- CDl m m Cr zs m m di m m Q-. °- o' CT CT CT Cr° o CD ° CD '=!- (�D CSD f�D G g° m g g O m O Mm m° m m lCD CD ( CC < `< .G m < cn M: 19 m CD (° (Q >, CD O - p) CD ° ��o CD W W W ° o -off° I W W ° Dm CCD CCD CD CD D"oDD - cn cn CD m m!C)n� CDC7 m o° -I W —I—I�� m °� �-II< m (7n0G7'�< W < m m W m m < m �W n CD CD CL T' CD 0 0 CD T T. O O O CD CD I CD CD CD i c o I I E I I 9 A N O O W W 07 W; U7 -� CA f -> -400 CO O O A N Co ; O I- N. N CnI cn CJ7 E 1 103 ' A a) A N O A A N 01 A o) M -I CA W N O I � VO; A 0) ` CA A M N N W -4 Cal ,..C.J W. CJ W W W .- O O W '� Q O Q 0 Q Q 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 O O O O O O O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 0 0 O' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WI W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 '. 0 0 0 O• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N N. N N. N N N N N N N N N O O O O O; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' O 1 1 1 N N N O O O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 W N W W N' N W W N W N N N N 1 1 1 W I W N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 N N N; W N N W N N N N N N N Z T ' 1 A A -� A N s N s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 0 0 0 6 OIo o O O o O O o 0 A A N 1 1 1 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N -�I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 o C), C) o 0 0 o O o O O o O 0 0 0 0 C). C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 N N 3 N 1' 0 (] 1 N i W 0 0 0 1 Q y 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' ij CO i j' 1 1: 1 1. - 1 1 O N -f CA CA to -I N �I CD; A O W. W A � O CO -1 I N O"" 00 I CD j C3) A I CO N Ul CO -4 N; jj ? 1• cn Dlr Cn E:1 C) Cn D n D D D I D D D D D ' m 3 W m o S m 3 ='3 3 0 3 0 � m 7 7: m v m 3 3 O o W m m O 3� '; O o W Q 3 o 3 o C7 m o m o y CD CD CD C"D 7 0 OL m 7 7 C,D = m m W CD W Cn go w en W 0 W W W n v v go N CD go go go W N W m W W W W o° o 0- a° n;° ° Q° n> > o n a o 0 0�� n o Q.o_ ° Q° a c no c =Qc C�QC)C�=,C�=C�C)c =o c c c nCL 2=n=n=, W O d EC) °_ N N o W O ca m 3 Co co y ° m y W al =3 0 3 o co W o W Q� cQ O° 3 W O W °. �. G7 ❑ to m 3 Q ti v, cn 3 cn 3 CD cn v, v, 3 O° O Q 3 CD cn N cn s?. W Cn W W• m m S= S E S n C� n fn y W S CD Cn W W W W m N Cn = m -' m Cn CO CD I = == � = i i 3 3 3 3 B 3 03 cn iCD y I i cn � cn (n I ; i I r -i --I -i -I r -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -i -I r -I -i --I --I • --I r p i = O! cc CD' r 0 O � I it VIII _- t a i l C— r cr `IG m (D r CD D O O O (n CD 6 Cv 0 F7 w If O O cn CD cr m n n CD n rn 0 0 -o 0 a to 7 O cQ v O < D 0 I I CA O 0 CD C) 7 ca cn ul -a v 0 CD CD a- 0 CD .;,? A? 1,. -P,. 1, -r,.W W w W W 00 �I O cn P. W N s O CO w -.I O C31 N s N N O Qi PQ O -1 CA W 00 N N -� CC -n O-4 CD_ Q C) D C C —CD W 2: O O CO CO (O (O CO 1 CO CO COI CO CO 9 w W W W cn W cn N N O W� N, ! - W cn W W O cn cn j! I O O CO -I+ CO O O S A Cn r[q r mMM r--crq 0CD q cr->,crcr 0' 0' CD CD C CD CD CD m CD CD = CD CD o Bio o CD o o o o 7, CD 01 CD OL � I I W W -�: W N a) p. CA W . -� N CJ7 CJ1 O . N m -� 0) -I -4 � s N w w w W Cil co W� s O O 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 co O 11 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 0 O; 6 6 6 6 6 Ol W W W W W. W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N N N N N N 0 0 0 O{ 1 1 1 1 1 i N N N N; O O O O O: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N W N W W 1 1 1 1 I w it A 1 � j 1 1 1 1 N N NI 11 1 O O O O O O o 1 1 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W N (A s CO — — �1 N CP (M 4 N CO W co cn O O -4 3 3 OCD N 0 D 0 0 0� CCD 0 m 0 CL 0 CL 0b O' 3 CD O �. O OO O O 0 0 CD CL a -GD v v * -<Qa C? °c 0o-CL0 0 n 0 M n i o v Cn o a (Q w cn 0 O 0 O 0 CC] � O 3 ai G) C) CD W n 3 ((n cn O O O n n 2 3 3 CC) 0 CCS o co 0 o N y O CD 1 i 1 I j r W A'W W W N 101 W -� O N CD N W N v N N "Ito O Cn A W N N N N O 1--- CO M �I W 1 Cn -' s Z, W N O co Cp --4 D) cn A W N -� - CO CO CO �1 CD CA Cn U7 Ut lh, W -! N N - N - - - N N N Ul N � W � ` - - � � � � � N - - w CD W co CD D — — — , W W N CD --4 -4 -� -4-4 UO � 7 W W W ! 67 -! CnCJ7 s W O �! W co O ID "S O O W CO Cfl CD co CO O co CO co O CO CO co co CO Cfl co CO co co co CO Cfl coCO I CD O O CD ' Q y W co, to O CD co CD co co co CD co CO co CO CO Cb co co CD CO to W Co. CD co CO -- O co CL: O- (n ! aI N W W W W W W W — _a s 3 - — N -' W 1 W -� N W N N N N 1 W -� 1 N N N N N N N W N �! CT7 N W N O CA W C17 N m? W U7 W O 1 W� N" 1� O CA 0 0 0 m M CA O c Ul m Cn O O Ul O U7 U7 U7 U7 0 0 0 0 0 01 W 01 0 , cn r cn r r r Cn — cn r cn (n r r r ci) C/)' r- � � D f Q CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 (� CD tD fD C'D CD O O CD CD CD CD CD CD x Cp CD CO (a cn cQ n v N as cL7 cQ cQ ! CD m m m m n n o O. y 5 c 0 0 w oo oo o m CD m �!m m 0 C2. cn a a a V) G cA a y N (n N c -< ��� N N a a a Cin Ccn a fn N cn Cn Cn (Q Cn N N c O CC] CO N aoD000000> DWDDDDv -a-a-0 :>IDaoWooDDoo°''C� Q O d d d CD C0D Q 0 0 0 0� n CO7 n p 0 O Q Q Q CD CD Q 0 0� 0 CD m m m CD CD CD CD i PN _00 n N CD Cb W C71 Un CO co N CA W, 0, - N N! N W O C) cilli 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;0 O o 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N. N N N N N N N N N O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1 1 1 1 (] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 I co Cel OJ W W 1 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W. W C.J W W W 6 W W W "666c66 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -' -� W W W O4�'- N W O O Ul O CA C) 4�, O N N W W — — W ->• — W co cn W N O m M O C -n N 00 (D W U7 O N �1 Cn CO 00 Cfl 00 CO M �1 O� Cn Ds v m iv v zv O m: n� iv w v n� cn Cn 5. i c)' = m v N w v v v 0 m w O 7 ::3 7 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 7 W Cn Cn a- I O 7 0 0 7 0l O O aaaaaaa:aaaaaa-, 0 0�aaaaaaaa�aa 222222 2222222 2222222222232`2 O O O O O O a 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 —.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 O O 00lCDCD!m000 CDCD00000m000mo0 Cn fn Cn to to Cn 3,010 to I Cn Cn Cn Cn �. * N Cn O 0 Cn Cn N Cn Cn 0 Cn CD CLCD CD CD N CD Cn Cn CDCD d Cn CQ CQ X ;7 x x x x X 0 x m o o I f ' g 1 1 1 I I i I 1'1 1 r- 0 0 m -- r CD CD :3 CL N W E --w CD - E � � k ID "S C) r m 0 CL CA o O M CD 2 C.TI CJI Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn � W W W co W O m? W N O O w V O Ul W N -� O CO Cb V O) Cn I� i N ._1 i CD Co Co CO. CO co :yl V V V V i i C:) i N N N N N i i i 0`0 N s �� N N C) D C`Jl N N` Co W 6) 0) N N C\O C` cn cn n d C`O 1 N CO \ O Co to O (O .CO co CO co Cfl CO CO O CO co CD N O Co CO CO O Cfl Co Co Co Co CO Co CO Cfl Co co: Co Co Co CO 0 O ,CO co C.0 cn 1 f i rt' W W i W ii i W' W' i it i i' W� W N W W O' O W N O W O i O W W O O', O -� W N O O OD V CA O Cn Co CO N: W: W i CO, Co V W 3 CO co N N N O Cn O CO ? CO O W N O CA i. W co O) =- O O O Cn C7 r' c- C7 (A C7 � c- r- C7 Cn C7 C7 q : r D m m 0 c c c 0 CD Q m rn m cD m m cD m,m'm v" v cCD n v n3 n n CO v m Tal al v cc a 0 sQ cCD = n om CD c n n D 0 c m 0 0 0-= 1� °'0 CD CD n o C- o �I �I Q 0 0 �, 0'0 01Q o'zr c n n �. C7 0 v. T. C7 C7 C7 C7' to 3 -0 03 <n cn -- n m= o D o 00 0 o D M. o 0 C co co C) 0- cam. CL SCD CD c.am,. .cam-• ; a m � CL a CD CD i i i i i i N V cn W W V ? i 00 V M Cb Co O N i CA O Cn m W W W N N N i N W N N N N N N. W CJI W W W W W W W W W W W W W W co:W W W W W is i i i i i i i i i ... i i i .� i i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .' 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 6':6 O. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O O O' O 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W; W W W W co 01 0 O, O 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O! O O O O O O O co, W W O0j W N co W W N N W W; co W NA W W W W T i l �. 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 O O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO Co V W V i M y i i i V 00 M M N M — W ;1 O, co Cn CO N CO m CO C)) Cn co O i N O m o W;m �:w �i7 M;w 0 v v-IDim 0 w SIN M `7.717 ! _ 0 77 77 7:7 nn.Cpnn!nn!nn'nlnnin.nnn M 7'7!7.7'7 7 7 7 0 Cn Cn 0 220 =21222!22'22.22.22 0 0 0 v 0,0 3'3 �, 0 0'0;0,010 oio 010 0.010. 313131313 313 3 3'3 CD 3 B' m m C� CD CD n Cn . CD pl CAI CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD 0 0 0 fn ( Cn N N Cn N N N cn co (fl 0 CL; y cl s , c J k e j� i i — i TT C_ r CD <D m Q. N O -+1 cn -v r e • / � � 'ice'' ��r�"� t" ���i • `, Y�. t\,►� •'1�'•' Imo,: Wit• .• •r •: • •• owl ow r � 7 _ ►vs• e . • r �I � ea � 1 f I/'v �� •. mailr N' :•.iG\ a• '�!r' r. .• a e• •' NEW. Sm A e ✓,1\ i ♦ .; � IIr \I� a ee r' '��� .' � � /, 1 .� 1� ►���� ►i '��i t {/�J�w� /rIr` 1 r' II. ♦ I i , v ! ! rv�1 ►�' � ►i t�� r •\ •r �.CI►idi V' • n : � 1 ./ + ..,ice ! • ' ,r: j, _ /,� / ,rV� �.'� � �•��� r `/r,3 ,•. 14. 1... .i �' �:�: I ,J,e`•� I .�r • •• •► • i G •-a�� I �t moi." _ I _ . �� ate. nw.:< nk• ,,�...:• �. I �'\ '.V't 1 � �p�c1 a =,�a. r``4�����/'��+ �+a• rl,. `'(; •tI�' �� �R „uiin '� � d :.�1� PV . � " In � .. � : � ' �i�` ►M•�,�/1t-�Vr'1� ��►�1 \ ;. 1 fill ►� -v�i �,�;� :4 ''� ✓r y_ :�''�.l .�\t����� ,�s`',t,� ��� :!�itr ,! �` aii ?� ,���"__ //1pI �� t tib' ��J %1 `��" 1 .I •i�l+ _'�`�, ►�+ • � ,lv r. • ''Ir ��1!.�• `�'I � '!. �, �� ,. /' ` . ^� ,. a �. • z sy��►`Q 3ran+�. ®.\�e�� ��� 7 � a � •7 \�� 1�r ■ gip,►:� . � � � /� i!;;: '1 � s ". _ �� f�� � tu'-�.�..,}., • I `a�.. �jgj ' y `E`� {1ep ° .n, • �jt � .��.r. 4. ,� �� I '�\r-�� 'eCi♦1., 4 � �. � �� s. , �i►�,��. �i�� IMP �►�•� ,�c :r,:� ta� � �;�V►1 _ ,� "=r,. .,, .•/♦ .� � �. �. �••:er' •✓ ►, ruhrt'�`t:�!•V� •rd !'/y ry'•� qt?',,.. • ,'lC'f/ / --.rl• r�� ♦' \. .►. �����■ ' 1. Itr' �► ►: it ! mit, �'�j �� �r '� t /-d�.�: �p�� ��% ,i�}; 1. l��r (i`�j� � \ •.i/�r+'��j�•_a i RL. .+"'� , �� ���• �. \.� .Sty✓.•.•�,. _ ♦�� �r V �i. 1 � O �' .�.q � eM.� li n . r . g`/ I '4i .,p �.'/ •'pvy"1 : , �!��\ ',♦ _,�r,�• (� t (t.' , .� ,a:. • Gt / \ ``v" '{ ! /� � Vit•, .LT w. v V/ Sr �// `ti d� ''. rL�l ✓, � / ' w .+ � , ' � � "••P. , , , icy � e ".P 'C� �„,;; � .1 ,/�. -ifcG1' � � �+� t. allIlk�. •wV � � +► � � � ”' � ` - �.. / ^j' �� _ ���� : ria, :�� �'. "��� r/�'�- •' �' ; ` ty'A➢• �;_} ,%�� led "r -.pr, _ � ,,� tri■ � � art •.•rr�i � IFAI i `` � I � . .-- � ,/ � � s� Vii' • 2:.:: � r, ;�, `;'1' :'� .. �' ■ -•�... ,� ,��►�! ♦r`i, '� � '�' • V► i / { :s, i t -.. � :..: � _ .' f_�' .1;' .i� ::: ..: +�i'-a .,�' , 0� `.' ..,y'a�' 4.:... + .t4�' • 1"i -: � ���` i�, , : x _ �'� a �"• � ' O / � � • � r1' V � I. _ ..1114!.• it .. �M �, � t �• , - /:. " ,r.'��. :� �I fie• •t : ,. � ,�•�,� •V �" Vis; � , . ��.. _ � �� !� :� - �� �,, -' i �� r �t •. �`,' • �Ga r t.' `'� -,r. •i�4i, '' � � ,/.V .r/ � r%•'� ��� _ ti = � ► !��`.` � i, � n!" -;ani � �fG7 /! � .':,�' _ ,.. , ,;x �i d '*-. � , C•. ), r�.. ..t.,drr 4 �� ..;g•' /` . � gyp;,•'V , 'fir ' fi -fir � � 4 Wit: „' `'� '!" �'' r�'�• ,y � s.Y � ; (,. � � , .S � �, .� � lr �1 �! ► / at; s - �s / �• " �� ;sir, � ` � ' ,; �`.� L�j �r' . �.•'+: \� ' �.��� * r:. ,/' 3 `v: ,t\ �`zre``A'-` ';,�5,� r �a;'b0'o'� '� _ 'r 1 ♦ .,,,,..�► ysn• <;♦1 � � :,:1 +.+� ��N§�. ;;5,` �! rM•, I 1• � zvs= _ I".. � Z - °�, � �;. �'- ..�Q 1,.1 % f:. •, .: ' ,��1. �,.•.'r!�r- � .i ".'a •. �l, (lei'►. � .► • !r�'�'i•' • � r t, � 'tf - \ ►i r 1 � � -.i9 ''�.. .,� .. ;y ,/ �;,`�; . d � �. _ '� � �, ,,r , i �.R',,. ,i,� S air � rrrrv`9 / :ni.-, V -+�j' r/ t -!t ,y �,,.(y�' ,r•^i ��i ' •�` i. a .t, .ap •-� %�i,�\ - �iv�\ l � 1 � hi'' - 1 1 �� i� - �j �� V8f � ' y Vt ��►'.'.1 r� . V ;f}!'' .�/Sy . _ +d+_' C .' � rl�• i y ►i .rti1 a1��� \, �!•' ►�•�I � `r ; •.�\��'. .�� �' �I � �,�+. ` i.� •� Imo\ I,C _I, '�, ,� ,'ri` d�r ::•� .,r.`t •>f, � •t`p"e ._aarpr, ,I'�� rte''.' `' �a •� 1 ;1� i ,/� . V "' .fir R. � rTrt a' ,r, t i � - V?. 1►, .r.. S`,.,"S�/� ,�,�, ��;�� ,i+ Vj t ;/rye c���• �� �. -0 J3; ��� .•j►i: jy, . '!���. �ii<r:Y<\ •.5*` A#�arati•F �� .F<%'!%� y'•�iy• •:r.!'� '"i �� y� 1 �''- • 'a r ,: %, •� /_' 4 7 C• - - \t!. s tt Jnr l.�. ,t. • S•y�i '!/ �r..� !/'� , '� �..; ''� ■• � ��"r `' ►i far/. -- ,r�i I�Aa•: �V r ! �. ., �{ It fir. • 1.�.• ,� y ''rd , • 1� ,� `i i/e.:�I„!.VJ �r , r t ,. i A'�l p�y �1 ..,: � a ;r G � / ! ��� �1 Iitrc.,C `•!i ewl ici .tom\ " ,ry • � I/�✓� f: /-r,`; • � t�111 ► 1' 1r !.�, '+yp �;!rf,, '�( A1� ' • ren !.�'��i \ / � •V !� � !,'' - ^ // �� "� r•;`��r. ,i'y;i� '■' � � ./r r t��y ,•,: �� /wr � �! �� ,i�3 �r ���SY� e!V� . � I� '-d, '� t, f f iib• •�I .!i►• _ !.�•% ! •6'.. y .fair ,.•;"� _�.. at. �./ !• �V ,;'St''� ivy\ �o:a�e���> ��,'�J►�i��,'`� V � th�� --��- ..; 1 1 � ,tJ:g 'r •,�� ,�r•wV ,n'' �� �J`S,. / I TT �as.. w ,� i r i .•..._ p �r � /' �/ ���t.. �t/yam, '•1��+•`it fiM'/�iaY;.. � '. , �t�ii�• �"�yi l.Y.:►�� a �' •r'+ ` r_•�'1�'�I �.,�/i•• .•,r .• �. .r �1 , rI� 1 � jP`t:,Li.� �,I�. � ,1 ,ro h '•�i`.t`;: ►:!!SJ' � �1:' ,ria♦'►� s ,�• ■�a /'�, (' r�i ,1o. �. ra� ►i �.►i ,`r �\ j [% :f. / O� r �i rf^'a� � -~ =� `./ i . �I �` rY �� � i..�1 •%,/ �C °g .tii, ;K.-. �I '�% ,/{`���\ �,�1t'- �1 Gln ^. ...i iep"'� •!q '1' � r\ln• � � �i •,'i�• �.. � � ,'!'v'o ,/�',.�a'� i � wr•F+ ,_ r'; � t.. �i".,/ti! .�+ ry fi _r�® ,/ �1 • t► ;!��t r%�} V `, f1 tiT� f , � �.:. � rN J +•g:.1 � ,r it ,ivy♦ a1 •_�,''- i l ,�V 4i�. 'n " ; t`: •e1.� _'1• -.,^^-•^. •'fir' , , �� i'�/ F •ti. � : Gr'/. � .y _ l !� � �; , r, c.' " ,i,::yr i ��'; •:�► \ �``.. '� 'u , � r1tl� .'s!3 sJ'' �$l ivVt ,/1�� =�.3v0 <Apra !11 � .` ,i :i���' ,w�1 ,rV ' �r♦ . 1, Il/q�� r u'" 1 •`r� ..� �' � ,r�t`i )1. \� ����� � iall'� • � \�/ ,%/'+��'11� .'/.. �?.� .+ 3t >f� '4 {,"i }r ,i1 ,�'•i'!�r•9� � '�11 `�1 • j ` '1►i •t• t, �j i �t111■i FT _ �' ' .� <\trP�1 ISO ■� ,� �� y .,. 7 t pA. • • ./ \.� i/.` r ■ iw . ,VI +moo,►, t ,• � �r + - �! � � a: • / . s ,i �p 1 . a,,h', � , �F�'7.i , . : •sVr' /r`1 i��it�a � 1 • �` G- - �i - r �- ,\r � �� •,.�'; .= � ,�fit �' k .. .� �. - �. '�'' ,r 3-; -,, ''V � s.l 1 �,►/:;.. -t r �' • . � ail �.�� . �� { ' � .M, N''t�t +♦ � 1 air � �w%•� ,a�(,�\� +ayy�.•. � �j�II ,'`,`�.``• �/:_� rr• 4s I �•.•• , � • �' � 6r•Q�1 V� ..l f �� i��i3JrI•■•It'� +••• r -�� � �� �� , 1 1 Ac •�'• / �,� •�1 �j !•41 r� ,rVrq '`,}.- ��� �+JI�.� � ►i :• rt '?;P� ; ,. �7, .. r`�I n,:•;, F -a � t. �``°�. „/i �. . ,� ':� - J�' 7?^r�"`sr� �yl`:i'•�•••...e! ,•,;'a� Vii'•• ` YY■cor■rrtc.'. (' ♦ t�: ". y : • `�'•� • ' �r.r �.', � �\ ou••rr000■�crs 'a �� a� �,+j� /...,� r � � i o•aoorrarruou®•w, .,iv `�'k"{;� � e c'd..• 4� ^',� c ��', ;�� •n�►��4! �:t�'_ is'' fi/1 ! � � .. Fi o ■rroerorrar000roo �� •�, j • � n ,.> � � � y 'j' i. p �� '►r a.:>,! 1 � \•�ooera■srrooeru■00000i■o■v.'"�t.; , _ :' � � � . .. � �/ , r 1' ri tt ,� � , E�aoaero■oeoorooarrorao■000u• .e .. � _ �'__ �' ,a +� C\ ►, r � coo■ orrooaeor000■rorosoerra, r �t ► �°, s� �•� �: �� �,�� �,ll ►� mo■e�rorroarrrrrureororrore;,,,,,ZtUP, ,. /. a. r■ase•orrerrie oor■o■■r■r■rerocc wax, �X - -6• s _ I. 1 `'y►v,.. arr■■u■rueroaierorrou000reeeo■: trrooeoos.•■■■m■■o■■■■■:.o■oerrorr;. � a, ♦ � Fr- a ,/ �$ '' •�! i/U•'� � �"°f'' 'der• i i traoroor,rr•uureroroor•■canrr.'r,of��' '� '�11 , � ♦,el►, Imtr■o•ra■m0000sroroe■oa■eo•.:a■yuu. ,, �\_ .�•' • � • � a }� � 0 0 oo■oorosrrerrsor ■ \�y, �,,� k r r ' '.�°°�O�io••raoo■uesuu•ua■eeiui�o•ie�•n �; v � if rt: '::\ ,.�i ,, � / ��+Qgy . ' rarrmeorr■■oeuoroeee----- ror■■eu,. , Sb� !� - 1 i� Gr '` meso■m.•oseseaorsaoo■000eesoerrrresa. a, ,, �.< : p � �,��r •v �+` ®res■■ou■■oeooeror■roa■eoo■use■r•ooro, ��i�+' .� � uu000�•■oraoraro■ororrr■roosuouooarc � r, ' � 1 Y;. „ 1 � ! •!t'� •. �� , c /' i't, �. 'it'1 % \ � ueaerorno■oouoreoeo•ooaeorrooa•orern r. • �; � \ •.� ' ►.a'o' mob,., . •� ♦ \ y[: Am rroioioougoaror■ar00000riiro asrsereoee•eer•.r,� • � ., "` �i /� �4 ,�� > �, ' � o or aeoor•roo a •oroyyl1rr•raoas■r rn:m♦ ,;;� �� ,,lv`rt •! ,^, +�•�` / � ,r: u ioe•aetenroe000rirSursierorreroo�i ra••r� a ' !/ tet; v �.• ;� � ,.,-:r:, i rroorer0000roorsso■ns■errr00000era�osooma 1 h /4- � ars ? W 1 �'• •• � ,� -� 03 roormuroesrros0000rooroaooroeoeroaoo�•.:�,/ �: <+�, .' '/ri ` t ► i' -- '�! r + ramr000rouro■or000srroororrr■ooa__•: � !� y • ® _ •` • �^ ,� /' �� � ' ,' s �. !•o■ orc�rere0000000000aroeoorouuoorrorm.a.� �`'1� �`"`� �� t r;� � ' � ' 3 , �.■as�ar■•rassrouuooroorrorarora000■oc:,••n� '•� � � ��, � .'� _oororULlooerore■0000ror•o•s■noas000er0000+ra:'. • e, , • �.' 70rurrrt'O n 1+•P�t e•9rr'. rf • ♦ • t 1r0�•gr'Ir•+•7m4�YGa,lr. . `': / ~' `' �' �!: • •• '. a•'rOrrrOr! +A , le Ort'. •r0l' 9l vigil let : O IJi 1•t J ' ! 'li'. 1 •r � rr■rOur•O,JrrVVabrarr..66rOr•rArmrawirOral a:.��:.ti;a ` a • b�•', ,:.a. "�.' :. ;. ,� ��. !� errararorserrerra■erorono■•ooerosor000 000v.v:�a.•° v .. "��" c. - )j'/ ';1 •r00■rO011r00■rOor•Or■ser■rorra■rooerooioot:be m:•w:' �'� '` '::•t' : v�$s�5 : •!iir� /� �,� �� ♦rreoorur00000uoouru000000■o■•ro•ouoda♦ru..:�'� 1 �% �Y !�' �----r"-`1., • 'p ;';•,♦ • ®! ,,;< i•' ` _ r1 rrooeruuaorarrrroroerurreeerusooruarr•o�r■s ► V y�yl - ar?!G S�:>11iCr' Q ►• ! tr a + "tjp Unano■ouroraoeoreu■r0000ro■oaeoeeerrr•s■ewaoaro>�Mall erruoos■acvr•.� *i►� ...,. r;looroos aoo•uae000■or■r■•o■■■000moo■oum000r■ae�,. o a � �z �@ ' ,�, .� � ij � �,.e i .a. ,'a:+aoeaearorraoeooerruo uu•omr■osoruararr orr:•o.•. , .fir, ►. 1 / \`eR /!� yrr +=� �. ,r!+� :�• �,, •m raneooaou----- uorRRUS eoouAo•rooruogoou c,an. , �� ` ►' ,� ,,., ,� _`, , f �. , .� I, ,/' `� .�.,• .,,i r, �i/ :.rr:aroroaoreoorouoeruooeaosoaoeorora•sero■ooeo. c•, n. ��,,; l • e... ,p `'.f.�. •. � � • r ♦ .... S.[a.••:•you.•oeorersooe0000rroorraorrsrroro•oroo•:ot - �,� r � I■ + +' r (�r ,!♦Ja.. • `\,i:' /•.� � wv-r .•�■roa. ■urns■■■oueroroeoreaorrrao■■■carat. ' �'r m'�" v,.L � �+�! C . ♦ t. T ''�•••..•+ry.\:+r..r,aae$aso�ar0000000ro■■eruroosa■rer■ooeosoo..•.. vm -. • r .,.• �aJi°j+'� 'i � ��':��• r°•'r• <: ��►,w / y!\'► • �•+lv.•uu uo a�ooeorrou•oor0000•oo•ao•eror'/r1v a �• �rf„.-( .`�j , � ,y'a�,iV'a\ ,� /,� + '� t ♦area■orrrir■r•oorruuo■•osrr000raroo�aoroocr,• mv.�ao i .• e �� y�e� !� , rr �s ry i-raeaorraruoovoo■oourueerurrsrsoeroosrsroos5aaao•:.' :: „vl,,, ,�, s♦ !. �'�� �� I +:.0000rr0000m.usooar0000•oo•roeroor•r000000uoe.. a..► WK r S J..a1,�arooraou000000•rurouoaoerrarrsooro•roro•■r•a uen`a ' /�►aeu000aa00000arr•0000000e••o•oroo•or0000•a•e.. tin as vi■roe■oor000--------err®o■rorean�rroe■oerooaoap•r�.vmao, ,.•.■...... - AM 1 1 i Ii 1. .,lam I � , 1� \ il j it-/ ' I I � t I F,v 77� --- �4 S '4 INGTOM C 4. NTr RI i,(WKUSIC� R6 ........... r — 1�__ 4 Iv- W -PL -G 7 61q WS Y. ff/ Q7 k 40.00 -- Rnq "in, LJUNT /7 7, V <: C) 4Mt- 1 5" N A 442, 7t^-�' Q -J T U N. C? ,1! I? \ } t 1 _ . - . ;� " ,'�' / / j �� �/ / `�:� ''�\ //I! 111r loo, Q"\ F-1 (0411 1 Y k 7 v Ail �e, Ile --soo- r _01 sag 19'21'E 4\7.40� '77 J. L N it } NN Lj!jj V) 90 ACRESY­.', NN11 > / r ``~' �\ �c� _ �.'` ._,,, �\ �`` `., Y�i 1 / �- �! \ \ l r' 1 _,'`4 tai ^ i -�T+ L t= loll Ile` oaa -N IN 1. _71 ro ru ko� I I l 1 \ 1 ` J / / I 1 , \`- -- -.� w `\ \ J '\)EI V\ 4 Zo --j N.06\ j M -Z-, W • W 'o 9% 'N. N 5' 4001-1 WOVr�N "E`fEN (U -Z N tq+ r > -,a > > 669.00 N 1`"I 1_� , , 1 . n, '.1-11 \_/ v \ ( , - fl / - z l l', - 989715'2 � 11 � I � I j . ` � \ `� � ``' \ \ •. o � I 1 ' , ate""' , / / / / -- �� \ I � � V, T e7C C5 #\HM WAN ME n3KE N8 9'51e\.- 1�5 // x� 320.If A 4* r M I Air_z �M­ f N,Density Calculations r . ... ... �GV > Large Lot Small Lot Attached A, lLand Use Single Family Single Family Single Family 4 Units/Ac 6 Units/Ac Allowable Density 2 Units/Ac 10A j .7�, Acreage Calculation _7 J/ V Gross Am 26.01 108.91 19.36 Less Weliands .00) (18.00) (3.55) X (o Less Steep Slopes (0.00) I 0-1 (0.00) (0.00) Not Area 26.01 90.91 15.81 No. of Units 52 363 94 r Total of Units 509 j� T 1338.30 IN� ` t o \1 t i \ S�qJ, -4 P 1 j !42 Irk I j I iEl -s e3r 71 ------ T1 NORTH ET 8 Q T, 0,,,�-4ciaOW-7�i CO. .-RD. No 14 J I o 60-100 200 400 'j 'oo, T - Ole 190_�+ p1siftions I rry certify that ared b, Scale As Shown Client prolm ShootTills Si" Wdon NaDate By Remarks Z1 i 1. t .up•rviesx, and that No, Date By Remarks I am a d1 Registered Proh3simal en0VW Designed v;e Engineering Planning Surveying under the the State of M'Mn Draw AMS Thompson Land Development Abramowitz & Rivard Parcels Land Use Allowable Density M f Date 3/17/00 'M'FRA Date Cheam- GS ^M 61214;W -W10 - lax 61214M-8= MMMM'M M111walor Township, MN A=ddM E-A#vk cadd0riftcom Re*fttion WTAW Approvedk— MFRA FILE NO.: