HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-18 Joint Board Packetiter
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board
Tuesday, April 18, 2000
4:30
City Council Chambers
216 North Fourth Street
Members: Louise Bergeron, Mayor Jay Kimble, Terry Zoller, David W Johnson, Chairperson,
Approval of Minutes: February 17, 2000
Items:
1. Discussion of Phase II development Comprehensive Plan review.
2. Schedule for Phase II development review.
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment limiting the size of garages in the TR, Traditional
Residential and LR, Lakeshore Residential District.
4. Other
-Update Tree Ordinance
-Letter to County regarding use of Brown's Creek Park.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800
Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board
February 17, 2000
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: Town Planner Meg McMonigal, Community Development Director Steve Russell,
Township Attorney Tom Scott and City Attorney David Magnuson
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of agenda: Mr. Johnson noted this is the first meeting of the new year, when election of
officers is held, and requested adding that to the agenda. Ms. McMonigal noted approval of
minutes should be added to the agenda. Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, approved the
agenda as amended.
Election of officers: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, nominated Mr. Johnson as chair;
motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, nominated Mr. Kimble as
vice chair; motion passed unanimously.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval of the minutes of
Sept. 1, 1999; all in favor.
Case No. ZAT/99-1 — Tree ordinance amendment.
Mr. Russell provided a brief overview of the process of amending the ordinance, which was first
initiated in 1998. Stillwater Forester Kathy Widin said the City had received a lot of comments
during the process. She said she thought the amendment as it now stands works well for the City,
is less restrictive than previous proposals, and is limited only to projects that require
development permits.
Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing.
Don McKenzie, 12620 72nd Street, provided a handout of suggested changes. His primary points
of contention were: 3)d the definition of major development as five acres or more, preferring a
change to 25 acres; 3)I, defining significant trees as measuring at least 6" in diameter, preferring
7"; 4)d limiting reduction of the tree canopy to 35 percent, preferring 40 percent; 6)a and 6)b,
both of which referred to 30 percent canopy removal; and 7)a oak wilt, suggesting a dollar limit
be placed on the cost to an individual as oak wilt is a community issue.
Ed Otis, 12070 87th St. Circle suggested defining major development in terms of units, perhaps 5
units, rather than in terms of acres. Regarding 4)b, he said the language suggests that planting
lawns might not be allowed. He also referred to the inconsistency of the 30 percent figure in 6)a
and 6)b. He also suggested changes in the standards regarding oak wilt, suggesting the City is
passing the problem on to residents. He further suggested that the language in the subdivision
regarding vegetation alterations ravines, bluffs and slopes of greater than 24 percent be clarified
— would someone be allowed to mow their lawn?
1
Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board
February 17, 2000
A letter from Leah Peterson, was included in the packet.
Ms. Widin responded to the comments. She noted that the 6" diameter definition of significant
trees is in the City's existing ordinance and was used as the standard for the Legends and Liberty
developments. Regarding the 35 percent threshold for the removal of the tree canopy, she said
the City's current ordinance allows up to 50 percent removal; the task force recommended
setting the threshold at 30 percent, and the City Council changed that to 35 percent. She said the
original draft was more restrictive and included penalties and fees; she said she thought 35
percent represented a reasonable compromise. She agreed that the language in 4)d should be
clarified somewhat. Regarding the comments on oak wilt, Ms. Widin agreed that in some
circumstances the proposed measures could be cost prohibitive; she noted that cost sharing funds
are available from the DNR.
When the discussion was brought back to the Board, Mr. Russell agreed that a number of Mr.
McKenzie's suggested wording changes, dealing with semantics issues, would be appropriate.
The Board then addressed the major issues raised during the public hearing.
• Definition of major development: Mr. Johnson stated he preferred using units rather than
acres as depending on topography or the type of development, it does not take many acres to
have a major environmental impact. Mr. Russell noted that the suggested five acres would
equate to about 10 units, using the lowest development density. Mr. Johnson suggested using
15 units and more as the definition.. Mr. Russell said the City would be comfortable with that
number, the number which triggers when a professional forester must prepare a tree
protection plan. It was the consensus to use the 15 unit definition.
• Definition of significant trees: Mr. Zoller said he thought the 6" definition should be kept, as
that is the standard across the metropolitan area. Mr. Russell also noted that standard is used
in DNR regulations. It was the consensus to leave the 6" definition.
• 35 percent canopy removal threshold. Ms. Bergeron stated that figure was acceptable to her.
Mr. Zoller noted that is the compromise figure arrived at after numerous
discussions/hearings. The consensus was to leave the figure at 35 percent.
• Oak wilt: Mr. Johnson noted the Township participates in the DNR grant program which
pays up to 50 percent for individual property owners to deal with the disease. He noted that
there is significant developable land in the Township and said the Township will be happy to
assist if possible. Mr. Magnuson said the first step the City should undertake is having Ms.
Widin do a survey of diseased trees. Mr. Zoller noted that the City had a Dutch elm disease
fund to assist property owners in dealing with that disease, and historically has been sensitive
to such issues; he said any problems should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mr.
Kimble suggested adding the word "reasonable" in 7)a.
Clarification of language in 4)d: Ms. Widin suggested language such as "this would not
prohibit lawn installation" or "desirable plant material could include lawns." It was agreed
such language would be appropriate.
Following the board discussion, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Bergeron agreed the City could proceed
with adoption of the ordinance amendment with the changes agreed upon by the Joint Board, as
2
Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board
February 17, 2000
long as no additional substantive changes are made. If any changes, other than semantics are
made, the ordinance would have to be brought back before the Joint Board. Ms. Kimble,
seconded by Ms. Bergeron, moved approval of the ordinance with the changes recommended by
the Joint Board; motion passed unanimously.
Cases ZAM/9904, SUB/99-51 ;and SUB/99-52 MsKenzie, Thron rezoning and subdivisions.
Mr. Russell noted the properties in question were originally ghost platted by the Township. The
request is implementing the Township platting and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
No comments were receiving during the public hearing. Mr. Kimble, seconded by Ms. Bergeron,
moved approval as conditioned; all in favor.
Discussion of Phase IV area annexation requests
Mr. Russell briefly reviewed his memo and the memo from City Engineer Klayton Eckles
outlining the issues — the lack of water/sewer services, the need for feasibility studies,
requirement for Comp Plan amendments, need for planning for the entire Phase IV area, etc. Mr.
Russell said the City has a specific request from Bruggeman Homes for annexation for a 14 -acre
site between Boutwell and County Road 12. Ms. McMonigal asked if the City could undertake a
Phase IV study at this time; City representatives said not at this time with current staff and
funding.
Mr. Johnson said one thing clearly identified in the Orderly Annexation Agreement is allowing
township residents the flexibility to choose when to be annexed and the opportunity for early
annexation if desired. He said he would have trouble stepping back to look at all of Phase IV and
how it would look in 2015 (when annexation is scheduled to occur according to the Agreement).
He said he hoped the City would consider early annexation requests in a timely manner and in
areas when the demand is greatest. Mr. Kimble said the City does not want to commit staff time
to development areas on a wily-mly basis, and he said the City doesn't want to accept all
requests because it can't. Also, Mr. Zoller and Mr. Kimble noted the City does not want to
become involved in an adversarial position with the Township if it does consider early
annexations, as it was with the Bergmann property. Ms. Bergeron suggested the City knows
which requests have merit and makes sense for the City. The City should make that decision and
then present the information to the Township. Ms. McMonigal suggested using criteria such as
contiguity to the City, the ability to easily connect to services, etc. Mr. Scott said the issue of
whether property owners come into the City or not is up to the City and individual property
owners; the Township's concern is with Comprehensive Plan amendments and densities.
Kevin vonRiedel of Bruggeman Homes briefly reviewed a preliminary concept plan for the 14
acres between Boutwell and County Road 12, including a possible street alignment and locations
for connection with services. The property is by the City surrounded by three sides. Three
property owners are interested in selling, he said in requesting that consideration be given to
early annexation. The proposal is for a development of about 30 single-family lots. Bruggeman
Homes also has offered to assist the City with the necessary feasibility studies/planning.
3
Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board
February 17, 2000
Mr. Otis suggested the previous problem with early annexation was due to use. He said he didn't
think this proposal would be objectionable.
Mr. Zoller said the City thinks it is best plan to plan for the entire area, not just 14 acres. Mr.
Russell said the first step is getting the plan and then implementing the plan through annexation.
Ms. Bergeron agreed that is does make sense to look at the larger area. Mr. Johnson concluded
that he agrees with the City's position to take a broader look at the area and allow the Township
the opportunity to participate in the discussion, but he also said the City should respect the
Orderly Annexation Agreement that states property owners are not restricted to a specific
timeframe, that "reasonable consideration will be given" to early annexation requests. Mr.
Johnson said he would be comfortable with an approach that looks beyond the 14 -acre parcel to
some other logical, larger area. Mr. Johnson said he and Ms. Bergeron would bring the issue
back to the Town Board and would have a more solidified position after that discussion.
Phase 11 expansion area development update
Three representatives from U.S. Homes/Orrin Thompson were on hand to communicate the fact
that the developers are moving ahead with plans. A preliminary concept was shown. The
development of some 350 housing units, will include townhomes on the Rivard property, a
change from original plans that had the townhomes on a portion of the Abramowitz property.
The development also will include the City's Brown's Creek Nature Reserve. The developer's
representatives said topography and soil testing currently is being done. The hope is to have
plans submitted to allow for construction to begin sometime this summer.
Mr. Scott questioned whether the change in location of the townhomes would require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment as it does represent a change in the guide map. Mr. Scott said
given the developers timeframe, that may be an issue as to when the Township gets involved.
Mr. Kimble suggested directing legal staff to look into that issue.
Ed Otis expressed a concern about the location of the townhomes, asking if County Road 15
would become "townhome row" in the future. Mr. Kimble addressed Mr. Otis's comments.
Update on City search for public works/fire station site
Mr. Russell said the City currently is looking at a site on Boutwell Road just east of County
Road 15, near land the Township owns for a possible future park location. Mr. Johnson advised
that if the City does pursue the acquisition and development for the public works/fire station, it
does so before the adjacent neighborhood is established. He said he would relay the information
to the Town Board for their input.
Update on village commercial development at CR 15/12
A copy of the request for proposals was included in the agenda packet. Paula Kroening of
Newman Realty told the Board the RFPs are due March 15. Mr. Russell suggested that Peter
Calthorpe, who recently conducted the Smart Growth studies for the Metropolitan Council,
would be an excellent resource person for the design of that development. He suggested the
4
Stillwater City/Township Joint Planning Board
February 17, 2000
possibility of working with the Kroenings to get some grant money to allow for Calthorpe's
consultation.
Update on Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area
Mr. Russell said the City had received a greenways grant, as well as a $50,000 grant from the
Margaret Rivers Fund and donations from the two local Rotary Clubs for land acquisition and
park improvements. 27 acres of the area is owned by U.S. Homes and that company is aware of
the City's intent in purchasing the property. Mr. Magnuson asked whether the Township would
have any objections to the City's annexing the area, now that it owns all the property. Mr.
Johnson suggested sending a letter to the Town Board, and neither Township representative
thought there would be any problem.
Mr. Russell said the City is sending a letter to Washington County asking that the County either
donate or allow the use for park purposes of a 4.6 acre parcel of county -owned property in the
Brown's Creek area Mr. Russell asked that the Joint Board consider sending a similar letter.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the Joint Board request that the County donate the parcel for park
use, rather than just allow its use. Ms. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, made that in the form
of a motion. Mr. Johnson will forward a letter indicating the Joint Board's position for Mr.
Russell to send to County Commissioner Wally Abrahamson.
Re ort on building permits issued in the annexation area
The report was included in the agenda packet for the Board's information.
Other items:
Mr. Johnson informed the Board that Ms. McMonigal's firms in involved with the developers of
the Phase 2 properties. Due to a concern about a potential conflict of interest, Ms. McMonigal
has spoken with another planner, Dean Johnson who works with several communities in
Washington County, to serve as her replacement at this time. Mr. Johnson said the Town Board
has concurred with Ms. McMonigal's recommendation and the Joint Board did likewise.
Mr. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to adjourn at 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
MEMO
To: Joint Board
From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Subject: Preapplication Review of Phase II Development
Date: March 31, 2000
P=ose of PreUplication Review
The purpose of this preapplication review is to review the proposed development land use with
the Comprehensive Plan land use map and to determine the appropriate joint planning project
review elements and process.
From this meeting, the Joint Board will determine the step necessary to review the development
proposal. The purpose of this meeting is not to review the specifics of this request, i.e.,.
circulation, parks dedication, wetland preservation, etc., that will come later.
BackgLound
The orderly annexation agreement between the Township and the City of Stillwater describe the
procedural step necessary for orderly annexation, rezoning and project review. The orderly
annexation agreement recognized four annexation phases. Each phase is identified with an
earliest annexation date. For the Phase II area, annexation could have occurred as early as
January 1999. Annexation of phased areas is a City of Stillwater decision so long as phase dates
and building permits issuance rates are not exceeded. As of 2000, a maximum of 620 building
permits could be issued; less the 150 have that have been issued to date.
The orderly annexation agreement requires the Joint Board to approved all rezoning for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. All amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must
also be approved by the Joint Board. Actual project subdivision or project review requires
review and comment by the Joint Board but not approval.
Phase II Land Ilse
The Phase II development proposal before the Joint Board is comprised of 154 gross acres and
133 net developable acres (minus sloped area and wetlands). The Comprehensive Plan proposed
land use map designated 26 acres single family large lot, 2/du/ac, 19 acres townhouse residential
6 du/ac and 109 acres single family small lot (see attached proposed land use map).
A density analysis of the Comprehensive Plan land use map indicates a total of 509 residential
units, 52 large lot, 363 small lot and 94 townhouse units could be constructed on the site based
on the Comprehensive Plan land use map subtracting wetlands and sloped area (Map 1).
Phase H Proposed Develo ment
Map 2 shows the Phase II proposed development. The development include 380 residential
units, 160 townhouse units and 220 small lot single family residences. The proposed
Joint Board
Page 2
March 31, 2000
development locates the residential unit types differently than the Comprehensive Plan land use
map. Two changes are proposed. The townhouse residential area is moved from a McKusick
Road location to the corner of Boutwell and County Road 15. The number of proposed
townhouse units is 160 vs. 94 allowed by the land use map. The proposed development shows
208 small lot single family residences and 12 large lot single family residences. The land use
map accommodates 363 small lot and 52 large lot single family residences.
A second change, Map 2, the concept plan shows a park use area for the 27 acre, Brown's Creek
Nature Preserve. The land use plan designates the nature preserve single family small lot
accommodating approximately 100 residences.
A review of the unit count for the Comprehensive Plan land use vs. the proposed development is
listed below:
Land Use Mao
Units Acre
Development
Units Acre
Single Family, Large Lot
52
26
12
Single Family, Small Lot
363
91
20 82
Townhouse
94
16
160 26
Park
0
0
0 25
Total
509
133
380 133
Land Use Decision
The issue before the Joint Board at this time is "is the difference in land use between the
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed development significant enough to require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment."
A "strict" interpretation of the land use map would indicate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
is necessary on two counts, the park use and relocated townhouse units. However, the number of
units proposed is within the land use map density A "loose" interpretation could accommodate
the change within the perimeters of the Comprehensive Plan as consistent with the overall
density and area land use.
At this point, it is necessary to make an interpretation so the process can be followed in a
complete and orderly fashion.
Recommendation: Decision on need for Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Attachment: Land Use Maps and Developer's concept plan.
Phase II1
2002'' r
� •4 w `� �' - 4 s 1
Phase * �p
2015
i{{
� a
Phase H
1999
f 1 i
rt a
owe - h se
4Se
r
MEMO
To: Joint Board
From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Subject: Review Process for Phase II Development
Date: March 31, 2000
In order to organize the various reviews of Phase II development, the following review schedule
is suggested for consideration. As always, the schedule can change if conditions change.
The various elements of project review are: possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning,
subdivision, possible planned unit development review.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment may or may not be required dependent on Joint Board
determination and planned unit development may or may not be proposed. The Joint Board has
input on all aspects of development but approval authority over any Comprehensive Plan
amendments or rezonings (for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan).
It is recommended that Planning Commission and Joint Board meetings be combined to the
extent possible.
Project Review Schedule:
April 18 Joint Board determination of necessary project review elements and schedule.
May 8 - City Planning Commission initial review of project.
June 12 - City Planning Commission review necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments,
rezoning and subdivision review (public hearings).
July 6 - Joint Board holds necessary public hearing(s) and reviews project
July 18 City Council holds public hearings for project approval. (Comprehensive Plan,
rezoning, preliminary plat, concept PUD?)
The Stillwater Township Planning Commission could attend the Stillwater City Planning
Commission meetings to be informed and participate in project review in areas of interest and
responsibility as described in the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
This schedule is presented for comment and approval. With an early schedule it can better
accommodate coordinated review.
(A memo from the Township Planner regarding their report in the review process is attached and
should be considered in setting the schedule).
dsdP, j? 20G0 iV '6PITNI !Ul':C0M, FRAINI, .R 10,0
Engineering a Planning Surveying
W
�c8embs �� Rers
Associates, Mr..
March 31, 2000
Mr. Steve Russell
City of Stillwater
216 North 0 Street
Stillwater, MN 55082-4807
SUBJECT: Township Review of Orrin Thompson Development
Dear Steve,
This letter is to officially inform you that Dean Johnson, Principal of Resource Strategies
Corporation, will conduct the Township planning review of the Orrin Thompson development of the
Abramowitz and Rivard properties. Dean is a consulting planner with extensive township and city
planning experience.
Dean will step in to conduct the review because my firm, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, is
working with Orrin Thompson Homes to complete the civil engineering on this development. I
therefore have a conflict of interest and cpnnot review the project.
1 will continue to coordinate the process between the City and Township to assure the flow of
information among the various groups without providing any review or comments on the
development project.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification on this issue.
Ve
ry eTruly Yours,
Meg J. L. onigal, AICP
Township Planner
CC: Joint Board
Stillwater Town Board
Tom Scott, Town Attorney
Pat Bantli, Town Clerk
Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corporation
1505023rdArenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447
phone 763/476-6010 - fax 763/476-8532
e-mail. mfra@mtraxom
tura r ii, ZUUU IU: JUkIV1 NiGOUJ` ES FRANK ROOS ilio, 1687 P. 2/3
Stillwater Township
Process for Reviewing Orrin Thompson Development on
Abramowitz and Rivard Properties
A. Meetings between City and Developer — Town
representatives may, but will not necessarily attend.
B. Wordprep sessions of City Planning Commission — City will
notify Meg in advance and provide any materials to be sent
out.
C. Prior to first session, Meg will provide a written explanation to
Town representatives of the Township's role in the process,
specifying the review or approval authority of Joint Board,
D. Meg will coordinate notification and materials for work
sessions to Town Planning Commission, Planner Dean
Johnson and Town Board.
E. Work sessions held at City Planning Commission.
F. Public Hearing held 'at City Planning Commission.
Notification and materials mads available to Township in
advance. Meg will coordinate notification.
G. Township Planning Commission meets to make
recommendations to Town Board. A public hearing will not
be held.
H. Town Board meets to make recommendation to Joint Board
members.
Joint Board meets to vote on appropriate items.
Prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates March 31, 2000
111 mTrc
To: Mayor and City Council 1 `'"
From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Limiting the Size of Garage in the Lakeshore, LR,
and Traditional Residential, TR, Districts
Date: March 16, 2000
When the Lakeshore Residential Traditional Residential District zoning regulations were
adopted, they did not have a maximum garage size. The Single Family Residential regulations,
RA, limit garage size to 1,000 square feet.
The proposed ordinance amendment would apply the 1,000 square foot standard to the TR and
LR Zoning Districts.
Proposed Amendment:
New Chapter 31, Zoning, Subdivision 11.1 Lakeshore Residential (4) 9.
9. Maximum Garage Area 1,000 square feet
New Chapter 31, Subdivision 11.2 Traditional Residential (4) 9.
9. Maximum Garage Area 1,000 square feet
The Planning Commission heard this item at their meeting of March 13, 2000 and recommended
it for approval.
Recommendation: Approval (first reading).
11 � r /4 et � / ek �
CG+, J --Cel --
ORDINANCE NO. 3- L t W o o
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 i5 c-Fitical teenh S—1 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 ftrture 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 winterr.
(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 constriction, 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,
-r -.,-.
subdivision and any other development of more than f7;ciel5 uni#s or Iarer.
I
(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- subdi;:isien ���' e cry 'nea'
r .i-� zap..._._.
mustti rlandscape.t
er land
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 3035% 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:
M
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
1 st 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 31st 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.
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 such manmade 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 ninoff entering local watercourses.
Subd. 2. General provisions.
(1) Applicability. The conservation regulations apply to every zoning district within the city
really-gre e"- `' :- _-`la 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 (2401o) 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
1
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 beset 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 buildin setback shall be permitted
unless the trees are dead or diseased. A certificate of compliance must be obtained
prior to the removal of (Iny trees.
3.. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is
completed in order to retard surface rarnoff 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
necessaryfor the maintenance or construction ofpublic utilities.
K
5
r
anter,
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
February 16, 2000
Commissioner Wally Abrahamson
Washington County Government Center
PO Box 6
Stillwater MN 55082
Dear Commissioner Abrahamson:
The City of Stillwater is currently acquiring lands within the designated Brotivn's Creek Park area and
have prepared an overall master plan for the Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area (see attached maps).
Recently, the City completed purchase of the last privately owned parcels of land in the area; the
Huntsmann and Larson properties. With that acquisition, the City owns all the land in the park area with
the exception of a 4.6 acre parcel owned by Washington County. I believe the County -owned site was
purchased as a wetland mitigation site for impacts of McKusick Road construction on McKusick Lake.
A drainage area wetland currently occupies much of the County site.
Park uses as shown on the master plan would be recreation trails with a possible frisbee golf course.
Sections of trail would cross the County property.
The City of Stillwater is requesting permission from the County to use portions of the County parcel for
trails or other park related activities or perhaps it may be easier for all concerned: if ownership of the
County property was transferred to the City for park purposes. The park and adjacent natural area would
be available for use by City and county area residents.
Contact Nile Kriesel or Steve Russell regarding your response to this request. Thank you.
Sin3ible
Sincerely,
a '�.IC�•C
%-
Dave Jo son
Mayor Chair Joint Board
cc: Jim Schug, County Administrator
Nile Kriesel, City Coordinator
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800
R:IW nOW R19W
TOT.; ARE
T3,
n2W R:IW R -10W
Vicinity Map
OJAI or.,
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
X4
'T
CD
NEAL
T
X4
'T
NEAL