Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-12 CPC Packetf THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, February 12, 2001 at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of December 11, 2000 AGENDA Public Hearings 7pm 1 Case No V/01-02 A vanance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 4 2 feet requested), the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 4 2 feet requested) and accessory building size (1,000 square feet maximum, 1,280 feet requested) for the reconstruction of an existing residence at 1032 5th Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Steven and Merry Gunderson, applicants 2 Case No V/01-03 A vanance to the front yard setback on the south and west property lines (15 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the placement of two signs at 233 South Second Street in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Camrose Hill, Cindie Sinclair, applicant 3 Case No ANN/01-01 Request for annexation of approximately 6 0 acres of land located on the northwest comer of McKusick Road and Neal Avenue, Carolyn Quenzer and Steve May, applicants - ,Li 7 30 Other items 1 Receive presentation and discussion of Brown's Creek Watershed Plan 2 Presentation of Draft Greenway Comdor Study for comment 3 Report on 2000 expansion area building penmt activity (Attachment to Case #3) CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Present Chairperson, Jerry Fontaine, Glenna Bealka, Robert Gag, Russ Hultman, Dave Middleton, Karl Ranum, John Rhemberger, Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Others Community Development Director, Steve Russell Absent None CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mr Fontaine at 7 p m APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr Fontaine asked if there was any discussion Heanng none, Mr Fontaine asked for a motion to accept the minutes MOTION A motion was made by Mr Rhemberger to accept the minutes of the meeting Mr Gag seconded the motion to accept the minutes Mr Fontaine asked for any further discussion, hearing none a vote was requested The minutes of the meeting of November 13, 2000 were approved unanimously Case No V/00-82 A vanance to the side yard setback (30 feet required, 15 feet requested) and the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 22 feet requested) at 618 Burlington Street in the RB, Two -Family Residential Distnct for the construction of a three season porch and deck Mr William and Mrs Paula Snyder are the applicants DISCUSSION Mr Snyder was in attendance and addressed the commission Mr Snyder expressed some confusion regarding the recommendations and the conditions of approval Of concern was the denial of the rear yard setback With discussion it was established that Mr Snyder was building the deck to the addition at the rear of the home and also to the side of the main house, which was not beyond the limits of the existing house Mr Russell established that the house was not placed according to code within the setback guidelines, which is often the case with older homes, and therefore non -compliant Mr Snyder then requested that the denial of the rear yard setback request be stricken as it relates to the existing house, as it is all non -conforming on the property The deck is flush with the house and the existing rear addition and it is in line with the total base of the house Mr Snyder questioned the staffs opinion that the deck could be built at 9' x 12' instead of 9' x 15' The addition fits flush with the house on one side and also flush with the addition Mr Snyder did not think that three steps from the deck would affect anything Mr Fontaine asked if there was anyone in attendance who would like to address the Committee requinng the vanance that was being requested Mr & Mrs Orwin o City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2000 Carter requested to address the committee Mrs Carter expressed dismay that Mr Snyders had not informed them of any vanance request Mrs Carter said that other neighbors had informed her that they had been approached to sign that the variance was acceptable to them Mr Snyder explained that the Carter Residence could not be viewed from his residence Mr Carter explained that his property was east of Mr Snyder's property and that there has been run-off of water onto his property as it sits lower than the Snyder's residence Mr Carter explained that the road and curve, that is newer, had help remedy some of the problem of run-off water and that now Mr Carter's run-off is in addition to what comes down the street onto his property Mr Carter wanted to know how any planned building would affect any additional run- off of water onto his property It was discussed at this time if the slope of the roof could be changed to allow run-off in the other direction away from Mr Carter's property Mr Snyder explained that the roofline matches the front and could not be changed It was suggested that there be two downspouts facing toward the south where there was more ground to absorb the run-off water as a possible solution to help the Carter's problem related to their lowered elevation Mr Fontaine asked if there was a motion to grant the vanance with the condition of the two downspouts for run-off water MOTION A motion was made by Mr Gag and seconded by Mr Middleton to accept the vanance request with the Conditions of Approval and an amendment that two south facing down spouts be used to direct the run-off water to the south side of the property away from the Carter's residence Mr Fontaine asked if there was any discussion and hearing none requested a vote The vote to accept the vanance with the conditions and amendment was unanimous Mr Fontaine informed Mr Snyder that there was a 10-day wait to allow for any additional complaints to be filed regarding the vanance by anyone who would object Case No V/00-83 A variance to the front yard setback (15 feet required, 3'6" requested) for a freestanding signboard at 110 East Myrtle Street in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Mr Mark Balay was the applicant DISCUSSION Mr Balay was in attendance at the meeting and addressed the Committee Mr Balay said that he intends three lease units at the home (building) and request that the sign be visible to cars on the street Mr Balay explained the existing topography and the building setback from the front property line necessitates the sign The Committee reviewed the conditions of approval with Mr Balay 2 v City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2000 MOTION Mr Fontaine requested a motion from the floor Mr Rheinberger made a motion to accept the vanance with conditions of approval and Mr Gag seconded the motion, Mr Fontaine asked if there was any further discussion, heanng none, called the request for a vote to the floor The vote to allow the vanance was unanimous Case No V/00-84 A vanance to the rear yard setback (20 feet required, 2 feet requested) for the construction of an addition at 602 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business Distnct Applicant is Jill Greenhalgh for the Washington County Histoncal Society DISCUSSION Mr Balay, architect and Jill Greenhalgh were in attendance at the meeting to address the Committee It was explained that the vanance is requested to house a public restroom and utility room It was established that ongmally it was an outhouse The conditions of approval were addressed with Ms Greenhalgh Mr Fontaine asked if there was anyone in attendance at the meeting who would like to address the Commission Mr Thorson, owner of the bed and breakfast that is directly connected to the Washington County Histoncal Society's property in the back and up a steep hill arose and requested to address the Committee Mr Thorson expressed concerns about a large cave he has and the erosion of topsoil over the cave that had been used to store coal years ago Mr Thorson explained that the only access he has to the two entrances to the cave must be accessed through the WCHS property Mr Thorson was concerned that the addition may cause erosion to his property and cause a collapse of the cave that could possibly damage the new addition The discussion followed concerning 1 Liability of Mr Thorson in event of collapse of cave to the WCHP 2 Liability of the City if it grants a variance to build and if that building would have any effect on a potential collapse of the hill by erosion 3 Would it be "An act of God" in the event of collapse9 It was established that the retaining wall was the property of the WCH and that at the top of the retaining wall was Mr Thorson's property where it ended It was also established that there is a roadway that was plotted and not ever used that exist where part of the addition will go on the property It was also established that the addition is placed two feet from the property line After much discussion, it was determined that it would be "An Act of God" if the cave collapsed And that, Mr Thorson should have a wntten statement from the WCH that he can have access through the WCH property to access the two entrances to his cave It was also established that there could not be a release from any liability attached to this variance that would release Mr Thorson from liability in the event of any collapse From the City's perspective, any collapse of the cave would be "An Act of God" 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2000 MOTION Mr Fontaine requested that a motion be made from the floor Mr Rhemberger motioned that a vanance is granted with the conditions of Approval and Mr Hultman seconded the motion Mr Fontaine asked if there was any further discussion, heanng none the vote was taken Ayes Mr Fontaine, Ms Bealka, Mr Gag, Mr Hultman, Mr Middleton, Mr Ranum, Mr Rhemberger and Mr Wald Nays Mr Zoller The vote was eight to one in favor of granting the vanance *The next three vanances all apply to David Bernard Builders Case No ZAM/00-09 A Zoning Map Amendment rezoning 65,000 square feet of land from Cottage Residential, CR to Townhouse Residential TH located in the Liberty Development east of CR 15 and south of CR 12 David Bernard Builders, applicant Case No PUD/00-85 Final Planned Unit Development for a 51-unit condominium developing on 10 acres of land located in the Liberty Development east of CR 15 and south of CR 12 David Bernard Builders, applicant Case No SUB/00-86 A final plat approval for a 16 lot, 51-condominium unit subdivision located east of CR 15 and south of CR 12 David Bernard Builders, applicant DISCUSSION In attendance to address the three above vanance requests was Mr J Michael Noonan, representative for David Bernard Builders and Developers and Mr Homer Tompkins, property owner Mr Noonan addressed the Committee to explain that the request was to rezone 1 5 acres of land from Cottage Residential to Townhouse Residential Mr Noonan explained that the preliminary plat shows 7-8 parcels (HU's) on the 1 5 acres The approved Townhouse zoning allowed for 40 units while the proposed Townhouse PUD indicates 51 condominium units or 3-4 more housing units then is allowed by the existing zoning The overall unit count for the Liberty Development is less than what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan It was mentioned that the duplex option for corner lots (15) have not been used and the onginal overall preliminary plat was 17 units less than the Comprehensive Plan permitted density Mr Noonan further explained that the proposed zoning changes more clearly separates the townhouse units from the single family units rather than using the backs of the single -garages When questioned about two single floor units, Mr Noonan explained that the two single floor units were actually attached at the ends of the Condominium and had elevated rooflmes but were single floor units One of the units has a loft and the other single floor plan does not have a loft 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 11, 2000 In questioning the development, the issue of the roadway allowing for a 24-foot road to allow the fire trucks to be able to have access was discussed Onginally a 20-foot road was planned but unacceptable This allowance for 24 feet pushed the project forward which violated the restrictions of setback for the condominium a few feet A request to allow for two set points, which violates the setback by a few feet, was made It was considered necessary to allow for the two set points, one a block long, that would allow for the increase in road size from 20 to 24 feet for emergency vehicles to have access The request was made to change condition of approval number one and number two to read 25 feet And, change numbers three and number four to allow for density change Mr Fontaine requested that each variance be voted on separately MOTION A motion was made by Mr Gag and seconded by Mr Middleton to allow for a Amendment rezoning 65,000 square feet of land from Cottage Residential, CR to Townhouse Residential, TH located in the Liberty Development east of CR 15 and south of CR 12 A vote was taken and it was in favor unanimously MOTION A motion was made by Mr Gag and seconded by Mr Hultman to accept the final planned Unit Development for a 51 unit condominium developing on 10 acres of land located in the Liberty Development east of CR 15 and south of CR 12 A vote was taken and it was in favor of granting the vanance unanimously MOTION A motion was made by Mr Mr Rhemberger and seconded by Ms Bealka to accept the final plat approval for a 16 lot, 51 condominium unit subdivision located east of CR 15 and south of CR 12 with the provision (amendment) that a 25 foot setback be approved A vote was taken and the vote was unanimous Other Items A memorandum from Cindy Shilts, Acting Building Official, to Steve Russell, Community Development Director was discussed It was commendable that Ms Shilts was reporting any existing problems to Mr Russell It was mentioned that follow-up was important in addressing issues concerning permit violations and the necessity for any vanance to be brought to the attention of Mr Russell and the Planning Commission as this memorandum had established ADJOURNMENT Mr Fontaine asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8 20 p m The motion was made by Mr Rhemberger and seconded by Mr Gag to adjourn the meeting All were in favor Respectfully submitted Diane Martinek Recorder 5 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/01-02 Planning Commission Date February 12, 2001 Project Location 1032 Fifth Avenue South Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Steven and Merry Gunderson Type of Application Variance Project Description A Variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 4 2 feet requested), the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 4 2 feet requested), and accessory building size (1000 square feet maximum, 1280 feet requested) for the reconstruction of an existing residence Discussion The applicant is requesting a Variance to reconstruct a portion of the existing house, and to add an addition on the west side of the house Their plan is to demolish the existing kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, dining room, utility room, yard shed, roof, siding, windows and second entry They intend to pour new footings and install new poured foundation walls Along with this construction, they want to construct a new kitchen, a dinette, bathrooms, a sitting area, three bedrooms, and add a tuck under garage The garage would be facing 5th Avenue They are also requesting approval to increase the height of the existing two-story section of the house another four feet The existing house is 4 2 feet from the side yard property line, the proposed addition follows the line of the existing house The house is located on a substandard lot, 7500 square foot minimum is permitted The applicant's lot is 6770 square feet The house is back in the corner of the lot, the adjoining lots have sheds close to the house The area is crowded The request for a Variance to the maximum square feet permitted for a garage is due to the new foundation for the addition above The tuck under garage is 830 square feet and the new foundation is 1280 square feet The only way to access the extra 280 square feet (16 ft by 24 ft) is through the garage The space is unusable if access is not permitted through the garage Recommendation Approval as conditioned for the east addition Approval as conditioned for the extra 280 square foot accessory area Conditions of Approval 1 All plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official 2 Drainage from the roof shall remain on site 3 The architectural style of the house will be consistent throughout the house 4 All materials and finishes match Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Site Plan/Elevation Plans/Foundation Plan �� LL uPT # Case No Csi-IDate Filed FCK # ----Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Fees _Special/Conditional Use Permit 50/2C ?C Variance J7 /2C _Resubdivision $100 _Subdivision* $100+50/I( Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* _Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance _Design Review $300 $500 $70 $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineenng 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 (r e, photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 31/4736226 273C096) Address of Project /03ot 5 k I/E S Assessor's Parcel No for :� SLo� Zoning District 'S() (GEO Code Description of Project RENOVgrloJ,% DP esl l Wc, &Tea:1-y "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submiffed herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner5T€NItN 4 (lE(ZI!Ly NDeP--5p/L)Representative Mailing Address It l g VE S Mailing Address City - State - Zip 577L1-w,4TFRl mN • 55OQ City - State - Zip Telephone \ o 439 - 0 5 / Moe 503 - 3i/96 Telephone No S:gnatur- Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 51 10, x /3.) yrq Land Area 6770 5 �=T Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory o�- Total Building'floor area a6�a- square feE Existing /390 Proposed Paved Impervious Area No of off-street parking square feet square feet square feet spaces H \MCNAMARA\CHFII A\PI ANAPP PPM 1 .,e 7) •,nnn RE:RENOVATION OF 1032 STH.AVE.S. STILLWATER,MN. 55082 OUR PLANS ARE TO DEMOLISH EXISTING KITCHEN, BATHROOM, BEDROOM, DINING ROOM, UTILITY ROOM, YARD SHED, ROOF, SIDING, WINDOWS, SECOND ENTRY WAY. WE NEED TO RE -CONSTRUCT NEW FOOTINGS, NEW FOUNDATION, ( POURED WALLS NEW KITCHEN, NEW DINETTE, NEW BATHROOMS, NEW SITTING AREA, 3 NEW BEDROOMS, ADD 4 FEET TO HEIGHT OF EXISTING 2 STORY, NEW ROOF, NEW SIDING, NEW WINDOWS, NEW GARAGE, (TUCK UNDER ). REQUEST VARIANCE FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK (NORTHSIDE ) OF 4.2 FEET FOR GARAGE AND LIVING ADDITION AND REAR YARD SETBACK (WESTSIDE) OF 4 2 FEET FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION. VARIANCE TO 1000 SQ.FEET GARAGE LIMITATION. NEW FOUNDATION MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FOR ADDITION/ GARAGE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS 16x24 PORTION OF PREXISTING SPACE UNLESS ACCESS IS ALLOWED THROUGH GARAGE SPACE, MAKING IT PART OF THE GARAGE ACCORDING TO BUILDING CODE. BRINGING THE SQUARE FOOT TO 1288 TOTAL GARAGE/STORAGE SPACE. IF NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS THROUGH GARAGE, SPACE WILL BE UNUSABLE. THANK YOU, STEVEN P. GUNDERSON Wotcs CERTIF "M " Ind measured value "R " Ind record value Bearings are assumed datum Offsets shown to existing structures are measured to outside bldg wall line the ICATE OF SURVEY Notes BARRETT M STACK STILLWATER, MINN 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel No 439-5630 o Ind #13774 iron pipe set • Ind iron found as noted Underground or overhead util on or adjacent the parcel were not located in this survey SURVEY MADEEXCLUSIVELY FOR Merry Jo and Steven Gunderson, 1221 4th Ave So , Stillwater, MN 55082 DESCRIPTION As Supplied by Client Lot Eight (8), Block Fifteen (15), Hersey, Staples and Co's Addition to Stillwater, together with an easement over the West 15 feet of Lot Nine (9), in said Block Fifteen (15), for driveway purposes and an easement over the Easterly 1/2 of said Lot Nine (9) for water line purposes, subject to mineral rights reserved therein by the State of Minnesota Note The 15 foot wide driveway easement referred to above may have been extinguished by quit claim deed recorded as Doc No 580839, office of the Co Recorder of Wash Co , Minn Refer this Doc to an atty for an opinion on its impact on the above described parcel The water line easement, as described above, appears to still be an easement that benefits Lot 8 I understand that the existing water line contained in this easement has failed and that a new service will be installed directly from Fifth Avenue South If this is the case the existing easement over part of Lot 9 can be extinguished, if desired, by the corncerned parties Hersey, Staples & Co's Add is rec as Doc No 416049, Wash Co records I r 7 IS.-- --s89°s6'z/"w M /32 49 -- / oi,t A ' `/' �1 r, idri6.4/ Fivo /"Roo SG'* So oet W oic CO,e4/4-.c /4-'t 7 /•t eg ± .64h4c, . f29/'!6 \ \ z». �UIS/06 & c Ge/•9it \!/NE (rvf) M ` i3a,e A/89esd ri G La 9 G✓LY LluE /z LOr9 ,e /32 \'\ N., "•\ p ; 3 r' %.1 G!/NOE.0 SON Za r (0 770 Fr?` /1/ 406e/ EAv4S O ,Z'! I 7 7 / //// /036 / / Glo (f) 6 N Pry¢ I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or repor e prepared by me or under my direct supervision an I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the I the State of Minnesotta -7)=-4 Date Oct 1 5 , 1999 13774 Reg No Notes Offsets shown to existing MINNESOTAREGISTERED structures are measured to the LAND SURVEYOR outside bldg wall line Tel No 439-5630 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Notes "M " Ind measured value BARRETT M STACK " Ind record value STILLWATER,MINN 55082 Bearings are assumed datum o Ind #13774 iron pipe set • Ind iron found as noted Underground or overhead util on or adjacent the parcel were not located in this survey SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR Merry Jo and Steven Gunderson, 1221 4th Ave So , Stillwater, MN 55082 As Supplied by Client Lot Eight (8), Block Fifteen (15), Hersey, Staples and Co's Addition to Stillwater together with an easement over the West 15 feet of Lot Nine (9), in said Block Fifteen (15), for driveway purposes and an easement over the Easterly 1/2 of said Lot Nine (9) for water line purposes, subject to mineral rights reserved therein by the State of Minnesota DESCRIPTION Note The 15 foot wide driveway easement referred to above may have been extinguished by quit claim deed recorded as Doc No 580839, office of the Co Recorder of Wash Co , Minn Refer this Doc to an atty for an opinion on its impact on the above described parcel The water line easement, as described above, appears to still be an easement that benefits Lot 8 I understand that the existing water line contained in this easement has failed and that a new service will be installed directly from Fifth Avenue South If this is the case the existing easement over part of Lot 9 can be extinguished, if desired, by the corncerned parties Hersey, Staples & Co's Add is rec as Doc No 416049, Wash Co records F/Yo /",Poo 54 ± So e aa± k/ of Cae/v4-ee 42't - LaT 7 c� , ,`i<'c ,e /32 - - fa-4'2/"Ay /7 /.32 49 -- n r �OOJ6 ' `o g eso w ,j 2 _ / 4' ' Iwo OuvsioE \ BLOG wA6C tV \\//✓ /� - (TY — M` /32,e o/Y89"5 a/'E h 3p rr GUNOE,C SOS C� Re/re14- - 1• "6770SyFri' K /t/ 406E. E / v ves LSND ,ENG,Q09G,Y /tl-Y a z't ga� / M ////{' 3/// / //// X/ /036 F5E//ME /i/OdSE • I 46' that Iort was prepared b certify or underrs my direct pn, or and that Iam a duly Registered Land Surveyor supervisionnder the laws of the State of Minnesota ..jele,e40 Date Oct 15, 1999 Reg No 13774 La T 9 AV 2 e E/z Lor9 N t ^. • (1�✓Cs-�b Dom\ UI % `mil( S J � 11 L it FT10 E CT TITL :7. )03 alb. ' Avg- ('�! �L 3-0, 0 5, Ce,A-c-e-e_ 60,6_ ty\c A c S+ 1 Co a e (0013 E l 1 /6>(D;_._ exio cvy,0 30(--iic,_\A on S / E,aocA ►,r\-\0c,c,� 0 3 0 LIELs O.A_ _� c) 9A45-ii erCI- 12`,.s4 LAD pv vyvviv 9-t---)5'1969 l'igfs rfsriourap -79 9-/-5LEQ[-laga V119-15 I pex.151,Q,41313 -?;:i o !ppm ) 4 12 CEDAR SHAKES co co 2 0° .� i3 - r• Miil ` ■ iaratitw- Il■■1 a.iii i l...11i■■rIs II1 ■1 �I■1 ■1■� ■i■1 4 I 1■i.�■�1■■ 1■�+■ibr h■ �4 iri ■ 1 m a r1 [i■ +■ IdII i■■r ■1 ii` ■1 �i ■ ■ i■ ■11 r1I■■ r■■1� rI 1 ■r seam +■ Ili■ 1 li ■ li ■1 oliii l ■■ii■1 asal i ■i . ■ +■i,i ■■ ■■■■■■■ Ir! ■isisionlg■'i■■riii ■�r1�■� i■ � r ■1■lii ■I li1■� ■ib i vi■i■1i�1 ■r�■er s 1 idolr� ri■�rli ��:irIS g irl■ rri �r1 r�■ir 'j FRONT ELEVATION BCALE 1/4 pp 174111.1. i■�1i■■�iriill■■r■■ I I I I■■■' • 114iffie 1■1■ ■i■111� r ■111 •.�n■ r�■4rI■■��■yr1■� li r 1 i■ r 11i■■r tI r i1 ' . i■■1■11 i■■Imli■■t NOB 11�I iil■Illi■ ■� i i■ MUM 11 �.■■■r■r a■■■1■ Irr■i'ir■ ■■ri 111.111111111 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■j • 1I■■a■4r1 ■■ Mar ■ti�+■'�� ■1 i■■rr1�1i■■� 11i■■r1■I ■1■ ` rr 1■r■���a 1�■�tt ■1r■�?Imam irk -■ �.■ I ■ ■ ■MWEN- I T en II uIlIUIuIuIuIIIuIIIlIliIIlII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■■rr■■ ■ ■_ 1■'11111111111■ 1■ ■1■r rilii±ii111100 �J� 111,11110 I,r i�1 L'jIIvluIIIII - ■1ii imam ■ ■I+■rls■v■III�UIrt■YI r11■■rII■■r■1i ■■e ri■111■� r1■ itimmili■111■i pi isit�11 ■■tili■■r�i■I .11ii'�' ITi i■111■1 IIi■■III ■IIr ■ II �i■�■ 1 i ■ I.� r 1� 11C ■ m■ ■ ■ I 1 �� ■ ■■011111' II�1L+■r ®® n • Iiili ■mii Ii■■ 11i■■r 1 1■I1■1■111■+1■Ih u■u■■■i1 ■�Ir 1 �II +■ ■ +■r uii li irlr 1 ■1M+� �1il1iii 1Ii ■t 1 ■1 IIIIII■ I ...!�II I 1■1111�!Ii 1 IIII II 1 1■�■ 1 1 u'�i1i 1 ■ m IAN ■1 tow it iimiliniiiiaitli II ar d'A, i'�i ' 1i1■■i■1■1 i 11■11■1i■1�■l.■i IZI.i�1i■1+I:moo, a 11■■1■i�1li ■ Ili ■i r Willfill II 1■I I II 1■ ■1 RIGI-IT ELEVATION -- SCALE 1/4 1-0 ■ ig Mg 11I1 ■ L 1 Lll Iiiii'l[ 1113 11i ell 111 _ND t �■ 1 1 ■ I■1■. 1■ I 7 i 111%01 iMV Az co 0 In i i i - i i i i ARROW BUILDING CENTER 2000 WEST TOWER DRIVE STILLWATER MN 55082 PHONE (65I)439 3518 FAXI (651)439 2120 PRELIMINARY PLANS cus-cnER NA1 EE STEVE GUNDER50N YJB NA E RENOVATION TO RESIDENCE DATE. — ----- - -- -ECaLE - - - - - January 10 2001 A5 SHOWN DRAIN 13Y PI AN eccoarr — L KRUSICK 01-003 GEMPL 1-7 oe- -i'4�tg sizes T 0 01 1■1 1�1■1 ■ mini. . ■1�1 . 1�1.1 . ■1■1 r �� �1�■ rl�r� arrlrm.l �IrrY �r .MO i■� .lifii.�..1■rwli■■0111i■■ %1\:I ■ 1■1 ■ ■1�1■1 ■ ■ 1 1 . ■1l1.11.r.11�1.1 11111�1 1 . Kil r� A 'Yl■ rl ■ ■ . ��r 1 rY ■rrl�rll marl ■ = Z 1 1 1■1 / 1■1■1 1.1014 ■ ■I �11 ■ ■��1 1 ■ � j�1.1 N ■1�1 1 Oda to ■ I1$■`i■ II�i�■ Ilril■ 111 h i■l `ii■�..1■rlli■ i�rlli.�ii■.■ i■ii■.�1i ±i■1���i� 1.1 ■ 1 111�■ ■1�1.1 1�■ �1■1 1i■1■111�.�■1�1.1 .1�1 11■ ■ ■r i ■rr1..Y�■r�1r.Y11■1101111 ■arliri ■ rl ■`l■ 11111Ali■ s1■ il��ll1IIl�i�i111N1?l1 1.11. 1M1■ 11r■ ■ ■1 . ■1�1 ■�liiiir111�til■r��■�l.�rrl■Z hli■....li■.. h1i..I1111 1■111rl1l1.1111■011.11111■1l1.1 roach JSlIl■rr1SI.IONdIISr ■li ■.��IS■..rhli■..rhl 1.11■Ur1�1.11.�r 1.11.rl1�1.1 ■jl■iIl�jl■r I�1i.1 r�l■1�� irlli■.. .. RIGHT ELEVATION — eaor 2 O 4 SCALE 1/4 r-0 L 4, �.J 1 1 1 9 !JIJ 5 i 5 co 0 — co m O Qn — 0 TOTAL HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE LEFT ELEVATION ' "r-r_o - FpTc.,`t\)—'� r-C SCALE 1/4 1-0 111111111111111111111111111 Dl&►;d;< dEn .11 3/4 TtG OXBOARD 18 FLOOR TRUSSES 5/8 GYP BD 3/4 T<G OXBOARD 20 FLOOR TRUSSES dim .46 V M am 5/8 F C SHEETROCK 2X4 STUDS 16 0 C 3 1/2 F G INSULATION 4 MIL POLY V B 4 CONC SLAB ROOF VENTS ASPHALT SHINGLES 15° ASPHALT FELT V2 OXBOARD W/ CLIPS ROOF TRUSSES 24 0 C TYPE A° ENERGY HEELS AIR CHUTES F G INSULATION 4 MIL POLY VB 5/8 SHEETROCK 2X6 &UBFASCIA ALUM FASCIA 4 VENTED SOFFIT CEDAR SHAKES 1/16 OSB SHEATHING 2X6 STUDS 16 0 C 5 I/2 F G INSULATION 4 MIL POLY V B V2 SHEETROCK 2X6 TRTED SILL SILL SEAL I/2 AB 6 OC ae.ce JH 9E " giT=" 8 POURED CONC 20 X 8 FTG 6 DRAIN TILE 2 QP TOP PLATE BOTTOM OP BOTTOM PLATE ega TYPICAL WALL SECTION SCALE, 1/4 1-0 TOP.QF TOP PLATE BOTJSM OF BOTTOM PLATE TOP OF FND TOP OF FIG ARROW BUILDING CENTER 2000 WEST TOWER DRIVE STILLWATER MN 55082 PHONE, (65I)439-3518 FAX (651)439-2120 PRELIMINARY PLANS CUSTOMER NAME, STEVE GUNDERSON 7OB NAME, RENOVATION TO RESIDENCE DATE January 10 2001 SCALE AS SHOWN DRAWN BY L KRUSICK PLAN, 01-003 ACCOUNT SDTIPL O M —cn 0 62 O" 16 O" 46 O" r (EXISTING) EXISTING SLAB 16 0" (EXISTING) J 8 POURED CONC 9 HIGH 20 X 8 CONC FTG STORAGE (4" CONC SLAB) 6X6 10/10 MESH 2 X 4 INTERIOR PARTITION WALL W/ R 11 INSULATION ON THE INSIDE PERIMETER OF GONG WALL (NEW ADDITION) cr K 2 X 6 BRG WALL ON 16 X 8 DEEP CONT CONC FTG TRTD SILL PLATE 2 CAR GARAGE (4" CONC SLAB) 6X6 10/10 MESH 830 SO FT (GARAGE) UP 11-R 29 lie I 12 0 d1 N 2X6STUD W,ALL ON CONC FROST WALL MIN 42 BELOW GRADE SCREEN PORCH ABOVE 9X8 0 H DOOR cZ O to XIS 0 4" Qr 0 NO 0 N NEW ADDITION) T IL 29 6" 46 O" WOOD PORCH ABOVE o u ° y _J 0 m 62 O' (NEW ADDITION) FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE. V4' r-0 ARROW BUILDING CENTER 2000 WEST TOWER DRIVE STILLWATER MN 55082 PHONE, (651)439 3518 FAX, (651)439 2120 TOMERPRE IMINARY PLANS STEVE GUNDERSON RENOVATION TO RESIDENCE DAB(— rre�F January 23 2001 AS SHOWN ORAWN BY L KRUSICK ACCOUNT SB99PL S ,AeavQA- PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/01-03 Planning Commission Date February 12, 2001 Project Location 233 South Second Street Comprehensive Plan District Central Business Distnct Zoning District CBD Applicants Name Cindie Sinclair, representing Camrose Hill Flower Studio and Farm Type of Application Vanance Project Description A Variance to the front yard setback on the south and west property lines (15 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the placement of two signs Discussion The applicant is requesting a Vanance approval to install two signs at the above business The business is on the comer of Olive Street and Second Street The sign ordinance allows for a sign to be on each side of a building for businesses that abut two or more public streets There is a security wooden fence surrounding the outside area, which is used for outside sales of lawn and garden ornaments If the signs were installed within the approved setbacks, they would be on the other side of the fence and not visible to the public The applicant appeared before the Hentage Preservation Commission and received design approval for the signage The Commission encouraged the applicant to seek a variance approval from the Planning Commission, sighting the unique and difficult location of the business, and the difficult entrance to the business, (in the basement) Recommendation Approval as conditioned Conditions of Approval 1 No additional signage 2 Signs shall not be lit internally Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighbonng violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties in the same distnct and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authonzing of the vanance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter from Applicant/Elevation Drawing/Photos HPC Action December 4, 2000 — Design approval - +5-1 12/05/2000 11 16 4308810 CITY OF STILLWATEP PAGE 01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55062 Ali rD s`e 11 1 Hof -e r /14 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED especial/Conditional Use Permit ✓Variance _Resubdivision ,Subdivision* __-Comprehensive Plan Amendment* .Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development' _Certificate of Compliance .__Design Review *An escrow fee Is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attactied) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supping material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (I e , phdos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications !� PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Protect a 3 3 S Zoning District C. g Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No Assessor's Parcel No ,1 gR cork) Description of Project J - 6cA. R �J i(Gtiro ffr I =ees $so/2oo W012D0 moo $i0cw5ofot D0 00 00 0 5 "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submlYed herewith In all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with file permit If It is granted and used " Property Owner J L) l irn L V u i r Mailing Address D,3 SJivvt S4- City - State - Zip St r l l 13 o; t2 r ,ink' i% 5.56?)- Telephone No (a5' I t el 3 3 Signature Representative C' Si n n ie I r= Mailing Address 6 34 a )-q City - State - Telephone No 30 ct 3i 93 9 ',AD Signature 0.��tatu2- SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dime s, ns) 40 x SI Land Area 6610 Height of Buildings Stones or Feet (3f� Principal 3 d-9/ t Accessory Total Building floor area 't -3-i- D square feet Existing square fert Proposed square fert Paved Impervious Area .— squfe►t No of off-street parking spaces ' 11131 Yrbpb breCd mrpda rdr alcear din!ma rda h/ i lln *Dip stedd b ere� d b o nepveRY b ag'�sdCan bred PaM.. Dada A4410 daamr I� VYbd .bwVBXO 1Ltl alrl'j/lbbl 03 31 3510E48 CAFAROSE HILL PAGE 01 CANMROSE HILL = 4s flower studio and farm v‘il a Wiz, fr hip(/Ink Co,mmu ety Development Department tsty of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Mt. 55682 Att. Variance Comxuttee 1 would like to apply for a.S s/Image Variance for the property at 233 & rd St, Stillwater 1 applied for a sign perm already, but was told the approval hawed upon the added apprwul of jar committee. 1 have already provided the City with photos of the two sigeus that we would hke to pat one our lamer., one being on olive St and the other on Second Street. We fed that we have a special eseedfor these signs because offer hocatrvn is hidden on this block and we are au the basement We have gotten feedback from our regular customer who used to frequent our shop on Main Suet They have told us what a diJlcah dyne they have had ►s locating as. We look forward to meeting you on February 1 e and hope that we can get the signage that we need Sincerely, /) ) an to Sinclair Owner l,51ii-o 963' faA 051/ 311-0G48 Soo 92 ) 210 "orih M urn Sullwatcr, MN 55082 CAMROSI1 hILL Rowel studio and farm Flowers & Gifts for Garden 8e Ilome I lower s & Gifts in? Garden & Home A A= 28X40" 8= 28"X40" C= 6"X36" 711111uiii meth1r minim lilnI{ nr rrrr 1 II imatian 161LIt inIQ 14(111E::mf Elwell tN Gips far Garden, 3t !(one r�;r :J rn'c ia�y�oo 4 That extenor-viewed directory -type signage is exhibited on the East and West Elevations of the project The Conditions of Approval mentioned before the additional items 1 All signs must meet the requirements of the sign ordinance for the Central Business Distnct 2 All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Dept 3 Any changes to the approved sign package shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC 4 All new signage shall be reviewed by the Hentage Preservation Commission The motion was seconded by Ms Diem Mr Lieberman asked for any additional comments It was noted that application 00-39 does not meet requirement A vote was taken to approve the motion to accept DR/00-33 as conditioned above The vote was approved unanimously Case No DR/00-34 Design review of extenor signage for Camrose Hill located at 233 South Second Street The applicant is Cindie Sinclair The request is for a design approval for signage and the number of signs It is noted that some of the proposed signs would require a Variance to the sign ordinance before the signs could be installed as requested DISCUSSION A discussion followed that recognized the hardship of tenant Cindie Sinclair's situation for signage that could be in violation if placed, as it could come under the designation of "billboard" rather than business At question is an ordinance setback of fifteen feet from property lines The business Camrose Hill is located behind trellis fencing The possibility of a directional or welcome sign, that could be floral, as long as the business name is not on it, was discussed Mr Lieberman noted that two business signs and a third sign that is a directional sign could be allowed Mr Lieberman questioned any lighting on the signs, as there should be no shining from the light to the street Mr Johnson said that any lighting should shine on the sign only from over the top and is softer than a 150-watt reflexive light and is of low voltage The problem as stated by Ms Sinclair was that the number 233 was not on the building for locating by patrons to her business The question of "unique space", from the building to the fencing, as being an extension of her business was questioned MOTION Mr Lieberman made A motion that there are two motions in addition to the conditions 1 First motion is that the HPC approves two signs One on the corner of Olive and Second Street and one on Olive And that one sign may have a fight that shines from the top of the sign down onto the sign and be of low wattage 2 Second motion is given because of the unique and difficult location and difficult entrance that a recommendation goes to the planning commission to grant a vanance 3 Mr Eastwood seconded the motion Mr Lieberman asked if there was any added discussion It was noted that Ms Fitzgerald would work with Ms Sinclair regarding any necessary vanance A vote was called to the floor Ayes Mr Lieberman, Ms Diem, Mr Johnson, Mr Tomten, and Mr Eastwood Nays Mr Miller The vote so passed Case No DR/00-35 Design review of extenor signage for Stillwater Car Wash located at 1732 Market Drive The applicant is Jeff Hause The applicant is proposing to install 24" red channel neon letters above the car wash doors on the rear side of the building abutting County Road 5 The letters on the front of the building are red also Mr Hause was not present at the meeting The conditions of approval are 1 No additional signage 2 All changes to the approved sign plan be reviewed and approved by the HPC 3 All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department MOTION A motion was made by Mr Tomten to accept the proposal as conditioned and seconded by Mr Eastwood Mr Lieberman asked if there was any further comment, heanng none a vote was taken All were in favor of accepting the motion Case No DR/00-36 Design review of extenor signage for Hause construction located at 1937 Greeley Street South Jeff Hause is the applicant The applicant is requesting a design review of a 24" by 78" internally lit sign at the above address It will have black letters and a black logo on a white background The sign meets the requirements of the sign ordinance for the Business Park Distnct Conditions of Approval 1 No additional signage 2 All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department MOTION A motion was made by Mr Eastwood to accept the signage as conditioned and seconded by Mr Miller Heanng no further discussion, Mr Lieberman called the vote to the floor The vote to approve was unanimous Case No DR/00-37 Design review of extenor signage for Balay Architecture at 110 Myrtle St The applicant is Mark Balay The request is for a design approval of a freestanding multi -tenant sign The wooden columns that the sign is attached to will be %'6 3/a" high, the sign will be 19 25 square feet The allowable square footage for the CBD zoning distnct is 30 square feet Colors of the posts and sign will be matching the building, light tan with burgundy and green trim At this point the sign will not be lit The conditions of approval 4 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO ANN/01-01 Planning Commission Date February 12, 2001 Project Location 8528 Neal Ave North Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Residential Zoning District RA Applicants Name Carolyn Quenzer Type of Application Request for Annexation Project Description The City has received a request for early annexation in Phase IV expansion area land The 6 acre site is currently located on the northwest corner of McKusick Road and Neal Avenue The Palmer property Phase III area is located just northwest of the site Discussion Since Comprehensive Plan Adoption 1,146, lots have been approved for development As of January 2001, 318 housing units have been issued permits The orderly annexation agreement limits development to 120 units per year in the expansion area With the available vacant lots (over 800) and the 120 limit on building permit issuance, staff recommends against early annexation of Phase IV area at this time The City Engineer has concerns for the efficiency and cost of sanitary sewer service extension to the site at this time and suggests that annexation of this parcel be considered when Phase III expansion occurs approximately in 2004 Recommendation This item will be decided by the City Council Staff Recommendation Denial Attachments Application, Council Staff report, 2-22-01 Engmeenng Memo THIS PETITION IS MADE THIS 14"1 DAY OF DECEMBER 2000 BY CAROLYN E QUENZER. 1 PROPERTY CAROLYN E QUENZER IS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8528 Neal Ave North PID 1903020140004 LEGAL TO GOVERN (LENGTHY LEGAL) ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THERIN ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER AT WASHINGTON COUNTY 2 ADJACENCY THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER IS NOW WITHIN THE TOWN OF STILLWATER AND IS ADJACENT TO AND, SHARES A BORDER WITH THE CITY OF STILLWATER (THE "CITY") ALL IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 3 ORDERLY ANNEXATION THAT SECTION 4 09 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND THE TOWN OF STILLWATER FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT, ORDERLY ANNEXATION AND THE EXERCISE OF JOINT POWERS FOR PLANNING AND LAND USE CONTROL, DATED AUGUST 16, 1996 (THE "ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEEMENT") ALLOWS OWNERS OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CITY THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF THEIR PROPERTY TO THE CITY 4 REQUEST THE OWNER THEREFORE HEREBY PETITIONS THE CITY FOR ANNEXATION OF HIS PROPERTY TO THE CITY PURSANT TO SECTION 4 09 OF THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT DATED 1 2- k `\ - o v (-)6b(.0-Z D e U' CAROLYN E QUENZER • • • • • PPfi$9 r O Location Map 11. 1 STILLWATER TOWNSHIP z z 0 0 IC; 431/ Z.'/r- 85)8 NO AveNo . ,.., - 1— Doer« • • F re 13 3 1— 0 • • • C17Y OF STILLWATER 4 , 0 • • R2IW R20W R19W R22W R21W R29W Manity Map T 0 317 Scale in Feet 1.e0.4%b5__al avry411a. mG�40smv�Mbd wads P * Sig is N�pm Ca,rya•ma �ri0 YaNbirE b Moro Wim�af/ WhromOa,lybb tago....wryYms ne.NY11=7550.a•.... omm f�..Oo bdG mwSO).a..im MEMO To Mayor and City Council From Steve Russell, Community Development Director V Subject Expansion Area Building Permit Activity for 2000 Date February 2, 2001 The table below lists the permit allocation (based on the Orderly Annexation Agreement) and housing unit building permit activity for the 1996 to 2000 penod As you can see for 1996-1997 penod site development and subdivision was stanng up but actual building permit activity did not begin until 1998 The Orderly Annexation Agreement allows building permits to accumulate and for building permit activity to be more or less than the allocation on a yearly basis but not exceed the 120 permits per year overall The following developments have been approved to date Legends 152 lots Liberty 353 lots Long Lake Villas 13 lots 86 units Stillwater Crossing 142 Lots Settlers Glen 220 lots 160 units Creekside Crossing 20 lots Total 1,146 lots /units So far approved projects as listed above contain 1,146 housing units Of that number, building permits for 720 housing units could be issued by the end of 2001 As of December 2000, 316 building permits have been issued If the pace of development remains the same, and it will probably increase with US Homes Settlers Glen coming in ine, we will catch up to our allocation in two to three years This may be a reason not to take on additional development m the expansion area at this time There is a good supply, over 700 lots, of single family and townhouse lots currently available for development If building permits requests out pace available permits, an allocation system may have to be established Recommendation None - FYI L MEMO To Joint Board From Steve Russell, Community Development Director fit/ Subject Expansion Area Building Permit Update for 2000 Date January 9, 2001 For calendar year 2000 building permits for 201 housing units were issued The table below shows total expansion area building permit activity for the 1996-2000 penod The orderly annexation agreement allows building permits for 120 housing units per year Year Permits Issues Permits Allowed 1996 0 housing units 120 housing units 1997 0 housing units 120 housing units 1998 13 housing units 120 housing umts 1999 104 housing units 120 housing units 2000 201 housing units 120 housing units Total 318 housing units 600 housing units With the approval of the Settlers Glen Project (380 housing units) permit activity may increase in 2001-2002 Recommendation Receipt of annual building permit report Attachments Orderly Annexation Section 4 01 and List of 2000 permits SECTION FOUR TIMING OF ANNEXATION OF PHASES 4 01 Under no circumstances will the growth m the Orderly Annexation Area exceed a cumulative total of 120 dwelling units per calendar year measured from the year 1996 as year one This limitation shall apply to the issuance of building permits The City shall provide a wntten report to the Joint Board on July 15 and January 15 of each year commencing m 1997 identifying the number and location of building permits for new residential dwelling units issued during the previous six months 4 02 Phase I property will be annexed to the City after the execution of this Agreement The Municipal Board shall order annexation of the Phase I property within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Joint Resolution 4 03 Phase II property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 1999 4 04 Phase III property may be annexed by the City filmg a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 2002 4 05 Phase IV property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 2015 4 06 The City may annex Phase II property pnor to January 1, 1999 provided that the accelerated growth does not exceed the one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation 4 07 The City may annex Phase III property prior to January 1, 2002 provided that a) the accelerated growth does not exceed the one hundred and twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation, and b) that seventy-five percent (75 %) of the net developable area of Phase I property annexed to the City has been platted and developed into occupied residential dwellings 4 08 The City is free to deny an annexation or extend the timing of a phase at any time at its sole discretion This Agreement does not confer any nghts upon any individual property owner to require the City to annex his or her property 4 09 As an exception to the Phasing Schedule, the City may annex property not described in Phases I, II or III by Resolution if the property is adjacent to the City, is petitioned for by one hundred percent (100%) of the property owners within the area to be annexed and if the resulting annexation will not create a level of growth that exceeds the one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation 35667 OIF 05/23/96 -4- MEMO To _ AginfiTTaau' - and Water Departments From teve Russell, Comm . ty Development Director Subject Pha = Annexation ' equest Date January 22, 2001 The following Phase IV area annexation requested has been received for City consideration The irregular 6 0 acre shaped site is located at the comer of Neal Avenue and McKusick Road The site is designated Rural Residential in the Comprehensive Plan Please revie« to see if the site could be serviced with existing City utilities and what utilities would need to be extended to the site Please respond by February 1, 2001 cuft_A-rsoocul -Pi&)(2- sEL)c-rL iiineik_p4)5LE- Li, Li_ 66- 6-tcx-6k)Deo i 0 -ri-t) /114-g4 fo P)-Ns5 ( A tibliAlo l7- 1-1.6o1„0 61E— I DEP e- To 15 ' A-c 1 s l�L-Y,j 65- /J6-6-ao 4 (*(m sNri,nsir /tJt7 CASTLN la ) h% \J f'o1`1 '1-\t5 PA9_6g1.. 6;DJ M /{Ln TAav) Y6, SiYL Sam rfiC TAEC AO- -9i 6f4 \Jw,, J ( Tw1Y9 , MEMO To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Subject Presentation on Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct Second Generation Plan Date February 9, 2001 Brown's Creek Watershed District has recently prepared a Watershed Distnct Master Plan At meeting time, distnct board members staff or consultants will present a summary of the plan and participate in a discussion of the plan Chairman Fontaine, who was on the AUAR Technical Coordinating Committee, may recall previous discussion of Brown's Creek Watershed issues and the mitigation project to direct additional expansion area run off away from Brown's Creek A key to the watershed plan and new regulations is storm water infiltration providing for run off to seep into the ground and add to ground water The concept is a relatively new concept for managing large drainage areas but a sound environmental concept As you may recall, the Creekside Crossing, Bradshaw and Settlers Glen projects, to various extents, incorporated infiltration basins in their stormwater plans Copies of the Second Generation Plan are available for review from the Planning Department Attachments Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct letter of January 2, 2001 and Implementation Section of Plan February 6, 2001 Mr Steve Russell City of Stillwater City Hall 216 N 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Russell EMMONS & OLIVIER RESOURCES The Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct (BCWD) is on the agenda for the February 12, 2001 City of Stillwater Planning Commission meeting Enclosed please find a letter from Craig Leiser, President of the BCWD, and a copy of the Implementation Section of the Plan This information is being submitted to you so that it can be included in the Planning Commission Board packet The BCWD is hoping to make this presentation to as many of the local decision makers and City staff as possible As the letter from Craig Leiser states, we would like to recommend that the City Council members and any staff members involved in land -use planning, engineering or water resources management be invited to attend this presentation/discussion Would you please send me an agenda for the Planning Commission meeting after it is finalized 6c4i Making A Difference Through Integrated Resource Management EOR, INC 0 3825 Lake Elmo Avenue North 0 Lake Elmo, MN 0 55042 0 Tel (651) 770-8448 0 Fax (651) 770-2552 BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 1825 Curve Crest Boulevard, Stillwater, MN 55082 Tel 651-430-6826 Fax 651-430-6819 January 2 2001 City of Bayport Baytown Township City of Grant City of Hugo May Township City of Oak Park Heights City of Stillwater Stillwater Township Re Presentation on the BCWD Second Generation Plan to City Planning Commissions The Brown s Creek Watershed District (BCWD), in compliance with Minnesota Statutes has developed a Second Generation Watershed Management Plan and is in the process of responding to comments received dunng the first phase of the review process Through an inter -agency meeting held dunng this review process the Distnct identified the need to better communicate key issues to the communities and to get feedback on the Plan As a result the Distnct has scheduled presentations at Planning Commission meetings for each of the communities The objective of this meeting will be to identify the key issues addressed in the Plan that affect each particular community One of the BCWD's pnmary goals is to develop cooperative relationships with the local units of government so that the management of water resources can be accomplished in a collaborative manner Given the allotted amount of time for the BCWD presentation/discussion we would like to discuss each issue and get feedback that could be incorporated in the next draft of the Plan If there is not enough time to reach a specific outcome at the Planning Commission meeting, a separate meeting can be scheduled by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to further discuss the issues and reach outcomes KA agenda for the presentation as well as a table identifying the meeting dates for each community is provided as an attachment We would like to recommend that any staff members involved in land -use planning, engineenng or water resources management be invited to attend this presentation/discussion In addition, we recommend that each community identify those issues out of the Plan that are of particular interest to them prior to the meeting Three copies of the first draft of the Second Generation Plan were mailed to each community on October 13, 2000 one to the mayor, one to the city clerk and one to the city engineer Managers Craig Leiser President • Karen Kilberg Vice -President • Dan Potter, Secretary • E J Gordon Treasurer • Don Peterson If you have any questions regarding the upcoming presentation to your community or the contents of this letter please feel free to contact Camilla Correll, District Engineer Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc at (651) 770-8448 S�nyerely,, Craig Leiser, President Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct Agenda Meeting to Present the BCWD Second Generation Watershed Management Plan 1 Overview of the BCWD Watershed Management Plan (15 minutes) 2 Discuss Key Issues for your Community (10 minutes) 3 Identify Potential Outcomes (if there is time) 4 Discuss the Need for an Additional Meeting/Workshop (5 minutes) Schedule for Meetings Community Date City of Grant January 15, 2000 7 00 p m City of Hugo January 24 2000 7 00 p m May TWP January 25 2000 7 00 p m Heights February 8, 2000 7 00 p m City Stillwater February 12, 2000 7 00 p m of 2 March 1, 2000 7 00 p m i City of Bayport March 12, 2000 7 00 p m Baytown TWP No meeting scheduled City of Lake Elmo No meeting scheduled DRAFT 10/12/00 IV. Implementation & Capital Improvement Program The Implementation Program and the Capital Improvement Program identifies high pnonty improvement projects to address the issues presented in Section I, Identification of Watershed Problems and Issues of this plan and to reach the management goals identified in Section III, Management Goals & Strategies of this plan At a minimum, the Implementation Program and the Capital Improvement Program is subject to an annual review At that time, each proposed project will be reconsidered and additional projects may be added by amendment according to the direction of the BCWD Board of Managers The Board can implement projects not included in the Implementation Program or the Capital Improvements Program, provided the projects are consistent with the intent of this management plan per authonty granted by Minnesota Statutes 103D Currently, there are no new capital improvement projects being proposed in this Watershed Management Plan Amendments to capital improvement projects identified in the First Watershed Management Plan (1990) are incorporated in this Plan by reference These amendments are included in Appendix B As mentioned previously, the emphasis of this plan is to provide Technical Support of the BCWD Rules As a result, the projects identified in this Implementation Plan are feasibility analyses and studies It is likely that a number of capital improvement projects will be identified in the future as these feasibility analyses and studies are completed The Implementation Plan is presented in a tabular format (see Table IV-1) which is organized by the issues identified in Section I, Identification of Watershed Problems and Issues 1 Technical Review of the Rules ■ Volume Control • Buffers ■ Water Quality Standards • Wetland Bounce • Flood Protection 2 Education, Outreach & Stewardship 3 Monitonng Plan & Data Acquisition 4 Project Monitonng and Maintenance 5 Groundwater Resources Strategies identified in Section III of the plan were pnontized and re-evaluated in light of the Water Governance Study Only those strategies that the current Board of Managers and the Citizen's Advisory Committee identified as high pnonty for the Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct over the next five years were included in this Implementation Plan Strategies identified in the implementation plan are intended to serve as a road map for planning purposes The implementation table identifies projected implementation dates, Brown s Creek Watershed District 105 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 estimated project costs and proposed collaborators Information presented in the implementation table does not commit the BCWD Board of Managers to completing projects as they are laid out in the table The Board of Managers has the flexibility to re- evaluate pnonttes and strategies on an annual basis as they budget funds for the following years IV-1. Implementation Program The BCWD proposes the following program to address the watershed management issues facing the distnct In all cases, the implementation of these strategies will be coordinated with the County, cities, townships and state agencies to the maximum extent possible Section IV -la provides a general descnption of the program and projects the BCWD proposes, highlighting the major components of the project Projects identified in this Implementation Plan have been previously identified in Section III of the plan in the bold type Section IV -lb contains the Table (IV-1) developed in conjunction with the Implementation Plan Table IV-1 identifies the associated costs for each project over a five-year penod, proposed collaborators, and the pnonty of the project IV -la Project Description Technical Review of the Rules Volume Control a Rule Review Process • Change and/or refine the rules based upon the results of the studies, projects and initiatives or based upon State Statutory requirements • Distnbute for comment • Review by the Technical Advisory Committee • Public heanng(s) • Amend and adopt the final rule b Perform a Study to Determine the Need, Feasibility, Cost and Impact of Adopting Volume Control Standards above the Current 1 5-Year Rainfall Event • Use the Hydrologic/Hydraulic I Model of BCWD to determine the impact of adopting the 5-, 10-, and 25-year rainfall events • Perform a feasibility analysis and determine the impact to developers by performing a development review applying the 5-, 10-, and 25-year rainfall events • Work with the Department of Natural Resources to identify the needs of the trout in Brown's Creek Brown s Creek Watershed District 106 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 c Conduct an Inventory of Local City and County Standards/Ordinances (this would apply to all of the rules review areas but is identified under volume control) ■ Distnbute Rules to those communities that fall within the Distnct Boundanes requesting that they identify those areas in the Rules that are in conflict with their standards/ordinances • Work with communities to identify standards/ordinances that conflict with the Rules • Work with communities to develop standards/ordinances that are compatible with the watershed rules • Assist the LGU's in developing appropnate standards and ordinances where they currently do not exist d Imperviousness and the Benefits of Volume Control ■ Develop an education plan for Cities, Local Units of Government, developers and residents of the Watershed to raise awareness about imperviousness and the benefits of volume control e Demonstration Sites • Identify suitable site for the volume control demonstration Best Management Practice (BMP) • Design Best Management Practice (BMP) • Develop plans and specifications • Construction Observation f Guidance Manual • Compile existing matenals regarding the design and construction of Best Management Practices (BMP's) This would include compiling existing guidance manuals and collaborating with other distncts and/or agencies that have developed these types of planning tools • Develop useful guidance matenals (i e guidance manual, fact sheets) that the District can distnbute to contractors, developers, Local Units of Government to promote the design and construction of successful BMP's Technical Review of the Rules Buffers a Rule Review Process • Change and/or refine the rules based upon the results of the studies, projects and initiatives or based upon State Statutory requirements • Distnbute for comment ■ Review by the Technical Advisory Committee • Public heanng(s) • Amend and adopt the final rule Brown s Creek Watershed District 107 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 b Adopt Language that Clanfies the Methodology for Determining Buffer Requirements ■ Change wording in the Rules • Distribute for comment • Review by the Technical Advisory • Public hearing • Amend and adopt the final rule c Identify a Percentage of the Buffer that can be allocated to Stormwater Ponding • Develop a rationale for identifying the percentage of buffer that can be allocated to stormwater ponding • Modify/clanfy the rules to reflect the total portion of a buffer that can be used for the construction of stormwater ponds d Provide Regulatory Flexibility (identify what regulatory flexibility is going to address i e buffer averaging etc ) • Change wording in the Rules • Distribute for comment • Review by the Technical Advisory ■ Public heanng ■ Amend and adopt the final rule e Develop Guidelines for Increasing Buffer Quality ■ Establish vegetative specifications in the npanan comdor and set provisions for buffer establishment and maintenance to promote desirable plant communities Develop a plant list for establishing buffers in the BCWD f Monumentation g ■ Change wording in the Rules • Distribute for comment • Review by the Technical Advisory ■ Public hearing • Amend and adopt the final rule Evaluate Current Buffer Widths • Monitor and inspect buffers to evaluate their effectiveness in providing pretreatment of stormwater, desirable plant communities and diverse wildlife habitat • Use the water quality data for Brown's Creek and those lakes that are being monitored in the District to evaluate the impact that buffers have in maintaining water quality of the system Brown s Creek Watershed District 108 1V Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 h Encourage Local Units of Government (LGU's) to Consider Using Density Compensation • Meet with the City and Township officials in the District to discuss the importance of buffers and to review their shoreland ordinance with respect to the rules • Work with the Cities and Townships to assess the impact of adopting a density compensation strategy • Work with the Cities and Townships to adopt language in their ordinances that would allow for density compensation i Develop Inventory Maps Identifying Wetland Type and Classification • Develop a map identifying water bodies and their corresponding buffer boundaries for distribution to the cities, Local Units of Government, developers and residents of the watershed J Buffer Education • Develop an education plan to educate the cities, Local Units of Government, developers and residents of the Watershed about the importance of buffers k Demonstration Sites • Identify suitable site for the volume control demonstration Best Management Practice (BMP) • Design Best Management Practice (BMP) • Develop plans and specifications • Construction Observation Technical Review of the Rules Water Quality Standards a Rule Review Process • Change and/or refine the rules based upon the results of the studies, projects and initiatives or based upon State Statutory requirements • Distribute for comment • Review by the Technical Advisory Committee • Public heanng(s) • Amend and adopt the final rule b Demonstration Sites • Coordinate innovative water quality BMPs with the volume control demonstration site identified previously Brown s Creek Watershed District 109 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 Technical Review of the Rules Wetland Bounce a Update the Current Wetland Classification System o Change wording in the Rules o Distnbute for comment 13 Review by the Technical Advisory Committee o Public heanng(s) o Amend and adopt the final rule b Importance of Wetland Bounce o Develop an education plan to educate the cities, Local Units of Government, developers and residents of the Watershed about the importance of buffers Technical Review of the Rules Flood Protection a Rule Review Process o Change and/or refine the rules based upon the results of the studies, projects and initiatives or based upon State Statutory requirements o Distnbute for comment o Review by the Technical Advisory Committee o Public heanng(s) o Amend and adopt the final rule b Incorporate a Landlocked Basin Regulation o Change wording in the Rules o Distribute for comment o Review by the Technical Advisory Committee o Public heanng(s) o Amend and adopt the final rule c Develop Flood Plain Map for Use by Local Communities o Determine flood plains for water bodies in the Distnct using existing resources (i e FEMA studies) and coordinate with Washington County on flood plain mapping efforts o Provide each community in the Distnct with the 1982 FEMA study o Using the Hydrologic & Hydraulic Study I and current topographic information for the Distnct update the results of the 1982 FEMA study o Determine which entity is responsible for implementing a flood plain zoning ordinance for each structure o Work with communities to develop solutions for flood prone structures subject to damage Brown s Creek Watershed District 110 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 Education, Outreach & Stewardship a Watershed Newsletter • Develop 1 Issue per year to raise awareness of watershed distnct activities and requirements (this newsletter will meet requirements of BWSR rule 8410 0100, subpart 4) b Annual Watershed Event • Provide the residents of the Distnct with the opportunity to learn about projects taking place in the watershed and updates to the rules while providing a forum for discussion of watershed issues c Technical Fact Sheets • One -topic fact sheets that are developed and distnbuted to help decision makers and developers understand the requirements and rationale of District Rules and monitonng program d Presentations at Regularly Held Township City and County Board Meetings • Face-to-face meetings to provide the opportunity to maintain relationships and up -date units of government on Distnct activities and requirements • Potential for NEMO Programming (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials) e Annual Watershed Tour • Annual Watershed Tour is an opportunity to learn about watershed issues and Distnct activities f School Program with 5th and 6th Graders • Coordinate with the Warner Nature Center to develop an education program that covers watershed concepts in nine classroom and field sessions g Floodplain Elevations • Inform Local Units of Government (LGU's) of new floodplain elevations and the impact these floodplain elevations have on their zoning authonty Monitoring Plan & Data Acquisition a Develop an Integrated Water Quality Monitonng Program • Develop a comprehensive summary of monitonng efforts in the Watershed Distnct • Use these resources to develop a monitonng plan for the Watershed Distnct that incorporates the volunteer monitonng program Brown s Creek Watershed District 111 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 b Coordinate, Collect and Compile Data o Determine which water quality parameters the Distnct should be monitonng o Data Collection (includes the current operational costs for the Distnct plus the operational costs associated with the three new automated monitonng stations) • Equipment Maintenance o Data analysis o Annual report c Acquire Automated Monitonng Equipment • Provide additional funding for the acquisition and installation of three new automated monitonng stations in the Distnct (approximately $8,000 per monitonng station) d Provide Funding for Volunteer Monitonng Groups o Continue to work with agencies in their efforts to promote volunteer monitoring programs within the Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct e Acquire Two -Foot Contour Data o Work with Washington County to obtain the two -foot topographic data for the Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct f Acquire Land -Cover Mapping Data o Work with the Department of Natural Resources to obtain the land -cover data for the Brown's Creek Watershed District g Identify and Inventory Intercommunity Drainage Issues o Perform a study to identify the drainage issues in the area and identify possible solutions o Work with the communities to solve their drainage issues h Data Maintenance o Obtain GIS updates from Washington County, aenal photography, topographic maps and land use information as it becomes available Brown s Creek Watershed District 112 IV lmplementatton & Capetal Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 Project Monitoring & Maintenance a Integrate Project Monitoring with Overall District Monitonng ■ Develop a methodology for data collection and analysis that will ensure consistency for comparison purposes b Operation & Maintenance Plan ■ Data Collection ■ Data Analysis ■ Report Generation ■ Analysis of short- and long-term performance and the need for maintenance and/or retrofitting ■ Development of a maintenance plan Groundwater Resources a Hydrologic & Hydraulic Study II • Incorporate new land use and land cover information for both existing and future land use conditions • Confirm watershed and subwatershed boundaries with two -foot contour information ■ Incorporate final design of Trout Habitat Preservation Project (THPP) • Incorporate final design for Kismet Basin Project • Incorporate final design for Brown's Creek Channel Realignment Project ■ Incorporate final design for Long Lake Diversion • Incorporate new developments in the Watershed ■ Calibrate the model with new water quality and water quantity data b Groundwater Resource Assessment (will be performed in coordination with Washington County, participating watershed districts and agencies) • Determine baseflow to trout stream • Evaluate function of landlocked basins in the groundwater system ■ Quantify municipal water withdrawals c Link Surface Water and Groundwater Components (will be performed in conjunction with Washington County, participating watershed distncts and agencies) • Identify groundwater recharge and discharge areas d Evaluate Future Management Scenanos • Use model results to evaluate future hydrologic impacts to key water resources in the Watershed Brown s Creek Watershed District 113 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 e Address TMDL Basin Standards • TMDL Study • Public Review Process f Groundwater Monitonng Plan (will be performed in conjunction with Washington County, participating watershed distncts and agencies) • Identification of existing monitonng stations • Develop a network of new monitoring stations g Implement Groundwater Monitonng Program (will be performed in conjunction with Washington County, participating watershed districts and agencies) • Collect data from a monitoring well and surface water network • Data analysis • Compile and present data in an annual report to discuss data, trends and recommendations IV -lb Implementation Table The strategies identified in the Implementation Table were previously identified in Section III, Management Goals & Strategies and are those being carried forward for implementation The implementation table identifies projected implementation timelines, estimated project costs and proposed collaborators Strategies identified in the implementation plan and tables are intended to serve as a road map for planning purposes and do not commit the BCWD Board of Managers to completing projects exactly as they are laid out in the table Estimated project costs do not include outside funding (e g grants, collaboration projects, etc) The District will however actively seek outside funding to supplement their budget in implementing these strategies to lower their levy or to implement additional strategies identified in Section III Brown s Creek Watershed District 114 IV Implementation & Capztal Improvements Program Table IV-1. Capital Improvements and Implementation Plan Techmcal Support of the Rules Volume Control Projected Completion Date 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Estimated Project Cost Proposed Collaborators a Rule Review Process 5000 $20 000 $10 000 $10 000 SWCD LGU s b Perform a Study to Determine the Need Feasibility Cost and Impact of Adopting Volume Control Standards above the 1 5 Year Rainfall Event $30 000 $30 000 SWCD LGU s c Conduct an Inventory of Local City and County Standards/Ordinances $5 000 $5 000 SWCD d Imperviousness and the Benefits of Volume Control See Education Outreach & Stewardship SWCD DNR e Demonstration Sites $20 000 $20 000 $20 000 $60 000 SWCD LGU s f Guidance Manual V $15 000 Control Control $5 000 $5 000 Control VaQQ BWSR Met Council MPCA c Develop Flood Plain Map for Use by Local Communities $40 000 $30 000 $70 000 SWCD LGU s Subtotal $138 000 $61000 $31 000 $1 000 $16 000 $247 000 DRAFT 10/12/00 IV-2 Funding of District Activities The Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct intends to fund most of its administrative and plan activities through district -wide ad valorem levy The levy authonty for watershed programs is under Minnesota Statutes 103B and 103D Table IV-2 identifies the estimated annual tax per residence in the Distnct based upon incremental project costs The Distnct reserves the nght to consider other financing mechanisms such as subwatershed taxing in special cases or circumstances Some activities could be coordinated and funded on a more regional scale with entities such as the Northern Watershed Unit, Washington County or other agencies For example groundwater activities may be coordinated and funded to some degree through the County The Distnct may also pursue additional financial resources such as grants, donations, in - kind services and/or participation by other governmental units or agencies The Brown's Creek Watershed Distnct has had success in obtaining outside grant dollars in recent years which has greatly reduced the Distnct's financial burden It is important to note that the costs tabulated in Table IV-1 do not accurately reflect or estimate the amount of funding obtained from these sources Table IV-2 Approximate Annual Tax Levy Per Residence [$](a) Project Cost [$] Value of Residence [$] 75,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 50,000 $4 31 $6 65 $11 39 $16 14 $20 89 100,000 $8 63 $13 30 $22 79 $32 28 $41 77 200,000 $17 26 $26 60 $45 58 $64 56 $83 54 500,000 $43 15 $66 50 $113 94 $161 40 $208 85 (a) Based upon the 2000 Net Tax Capacity figures provided by Washington County IV-3. Regulatory Controls and Enforcement The Brown's Creek Watershed District has existing Rules and Regulations in place that were adopted on October 29, 1999 and were in effect on January 1, 2000 The Distnct's approach to stormwater management is clearly reflected in the Rules a copy of which is provided in Appendix C The Distnct plans on continuing its commitment to stormwater management as reflected in the Rules The Distnct also understands that sections of the Rules may be subject to change as they withstand the test of time A rule review process has been identified in the implementation section of this plan and is preliminarily scheduled to occur in the years 2003 and 2006 The goal for the implementation of the program identified in this plan is to work through the cities' existing programs and to encourage the cities to adopt new controls as necessary to adopt the WMP's standards If local city controls are at least as protective Brown s Creek Watershed District 116 Iv Implementatson & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 as the BCWD's Rules and the city has an approved Local Water Plan consistent with the Distnct's Plan, then the cities may take the lead on the review and approval of development plans Townships are encouraged to work through the Distnct and Washington County to develop a regulatory framework for enforcing the standards set forth in the Rules and WMP For enforcement of the BCWD standards (until local plans and local controls are in place) the Distnct adopted Resolution 99-10 This document outlines the permit review process for the BCWD In addition, the Distnct will develop a guidance document to outline its review process and enforcement procedures for the Rules for developers and the cities A review of the BCWD programs and implementation of standards will be camed out annually by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) The CAC will make recommendations to the BCWD Board of Managers on the adequacy of the present regulatory controls and implementation thereof If during the penodic review (at least once every two years), the Board concurs that programmatic changes are necessary, the Board can amend the WMP to reflect the needed changes and/or adopt new rules that require the cities to amend their ordinances to effect the needed changes If implementation of standards consistent with the WMP is a problem, the BCWD will take administrative or legal action to ensure that the standards are being followed IV-4. Impacts on Local Units of Government Minnesota Rules 8410 0110 requires that the Watershed Management Plan assess the impact of local controls and programs required by the Plan The assessment is to include an analysis of the financial impact of implementation of the proposed regulatory controls and programs identified under part 8410 0100 of the rules At a minimum, it is to consist of an estimate of the costs associated with the Plan's implementation and anticipated sources of revenue The regulatory controls and programs proposed in this Plan will not have a financial or other impact on local governments within the meaning of the indicated rule The local planning requirement of Minnesota Statutes §103B 235 will involve each local government in creating and implementing a water resource plan The cost of this activity is mandated by the statute and is not a consequence of the Watershed Management Plan The Watershed Management Plan includes a number of strategies and programs that the Distnct may pursue in fulfilling its water resource mission Many of these will involve local government participation Examples include • Inventory of local stormwater control standards • Buffer monumentation • Review of local land use ordinances for water resource impacts • Development of a landlocked basin regulation and a flood contingency plan Brown s Creek Watershed District 117 IV Implementation & Capztal Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 al Education and outreach programs n Monitonng and data acquisition programs ▪ Identification of intercommunity drainage issues None of the programs identified in the Plan, however, compels local government involvement In pursuing a specific activity under the Plan, the Distnct will seek the voluntary cooperation of affected local governments If an affected local government does not wish to participate, the Distnct either will undertake the activity without the involvement of that body or will forego the activity This Plan requires, as a cntenon of local plan approval, that the official controls of the local government, as adopted and enforced, be at least as protective of water resources as the Distnct's rules Local governments will incur costs in implementing official controls for water resource protection However, the District permits a local government to meet the cntenon of sufficiently protective controls simply by authonzing the Distnct's continued application of its rules and permit requirements within the boundaries of the local government unit While the Distnct will cooperate with local governments that wish to assume sole responsibility for water resource permitting and enforcement, it also will retain and continue to exercise permitting authonty where a local government so chooses Accordingly, under this Plan, local governments are not compelled to expand their regulatory programs and therefore will incur no costs related to those programs unless they so choose The status of local governmental official controls is as follows Brown s Creek Watershed District 118 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program DRAFT 10/12/00 Table IV-3 Status of Local Ordinances COmmurty Erosion Control Ordinances Stormwater Management Ordinances Wetland Ordinances Shoreland Ordinances Grant NA NA NA NA Hugo 4 Source Comprehensive Land -Use Regulations 4 Source Comprehensive Land -Use Regulations 4 Source Comprehensive Land -Use Regulations 4 Source Comprehensive Land -Use Regulations Lake Elmo Source Municipal Code 02/18/97 Source Municipal Code 02/18/97 Source Municipal Code 02/18/97 Source Municipal Code 02/18/97 May TWP None Source Chapter 9 of Subdivision Code Source Adopted Wetland Conservation Source Managed by Washington County y Oak Park Heights ,J Source City Ordinances 4 Source City Ordinances 4 Source City Ordinances 4 Source City Ordinances Stillwater ,J Source City Code 4 Source City Code 4 Source City Code 4 Source City Code Stillwater TWP NA NA NA NA NA = Not Applicable In developing this Plan, the Distnct is required by Minnesota Rules 8410 0070 to solicit and consider the water management goals and policies of local governments within the Distnct, the Metropolitan Council Washington County, the Washington Soil and Water Conservation Distnct, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Pollution Control Agency and the Departments of Natural Resources, Agnculture and Health, and to explain and justify any inconsistencies between those goals and policies and the goals and policies of the Distnct as stated in the Plan Under 8410 0110, the Distnct also is to solicit from Washington County and the local governments any concerns as to their administrative and financial capabilities to adopt and enforce the controls and programs required by the Plan Figure 1 in the Plan and the text accompanying it descnbe the process that has been used in developing the Plan This process has included the substantial involvement of Washington County, the Washington Soil and Water Conservation Distnct, the Metropolitan Council, the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Department of Natural Resources Additionally, on June 15, 2000, the issue identification and resource inventory portions of the draft Plan were distnbuted to the cities and towns within the Brown s Creek Watershed District 119 /V Implementation & Capital Improvements Program • DRAFT 10/12/00 District for review and comment Stillwater Township provided comments to the Distnct In distnbuting this draft, the Distnct specifically is asking each indicated governmental unit to respond to the District with respect to any of its water management goals or policies relevant to and not reflected in, or contradicted by, the Plan Similarly, it is asking the County and the affected cities and towns to submit comments regarding their capabilities to implement the controls and programs required herein As noted above, it is the Distnct's assessment that the Plan will not impose burdens on the administrative or financial capabilities of local governments If any affected governmental unit believes otherwise, it is asked to specifically advise the Distnct of its views Any comments received will be reviewed and considered in finalizing the Plan Brown s Creek Watershed District 120 IV Implementation & Capital Improvements Program 41 MEMO To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director `" Subject Expansion Area Greenway Comdor Design Recommendation Date February 9, 2001 The attached landscape manual has been developed by Kathy Widen, City Forester, and Sue Fitzgerald, Landscape Architect, for the design of the Greenway Comdor encircling the City expansion area (CR 15 and TH 96) The manual reviews the entire comdor and suggests landscape themes including tree and plant matenals for each of the areas The manual would be used and implemented as projects proceed in the study area Recommendation Approval Attachment Stillwater Greenway Comdor Landscape Recommendations Stillwater Greenway Corridor Landscaping Recommendations Guidelines for Greenway Landscaping Coordination with Existing Terrain Features Use of Naturalistic Plantings and Native Plants Enhancement of Wildlife Habitat Blending Into Residential Landscaping Provision of Screening Where Appropriate Incorporation of Rest Stops & Parking Coordination with Existing Terrain Features Effort should be made to coordinate the plantings with the existing terrain features, such as slopes, low areas and wetlands Plants will be chosen which will grow in the existing terrain and will be planted so as to enhance vistas seen from both the roadway and the trail Use of Naturalistic Plantings and Native Plants It is desired that the plantings have a natural look which blends into the surrounding landscape features so as to enhance the aesthetics of the trail Planting trees and shrubs in groups, rather than in rows, will help achieve this effect Trees and shrubs may also be planted at a closer spacing than for formal landscaping The use of native plants will provide a more natural look and will also ensure that the landscaping requires little maintenance after it is established Enhancement of Wildlife Habitat Planting native plants along the greenway corridor will enhance wildlife habitat by providing food, cover and nesting sites for mammals and birds Predation of plants by deer, rabbits and voles can be a problem, so some plant species will be chosen which are not as palatable to these animals Habitat will be enhanced mainly for songbirds and ground nesting birds such as pheasants Blending Into Residential Landscaping Where the greenway is near residential areas, the plantings will be changed slightly to blend more with the residential landscaping Use of improved cultivars of native trees and shrubs, as well as hardy perennials and ornamental grasses will be appropriate for these areas Provision of Screening Where Appropriate In some locations, particularly in areas where there are residential developments, some type of screening may be desired to create more privacy for both trail users and development residents In these areas, raised berms as well as use of evergreens for year-round screening may be indicated 1 Incorporation of Rest Stops & Parking Areas Use of the trail will be enhanced by placement of several rest stops and parking areas within the greenway corridor These areas will facilitate picnicking, trail access and loading and unloading of bicycles Landscape Recommendations for Specific Site Categories "Old Field" - these are areas which were previously cropped or grazed but which now are no longer used for agriculture Some areas contain native wildflowers and grasses but most of the dominant plants consist of introduced, non-native species Some old field areas contain fast-growing, pioneer tree species These treed areas could be interplanted with other native species such as oak to increase species diversity and longevity The open areas would lend themselves very well to planting of prairie wildflowers and grasses Some of the open areas could be used for rest stops and parking areas for trail access Trees could be planted to provide shade for picnickers and vehicles Residential Areas - some areas along the trail have already been developed as residential areas with single-family homes More development is likely along the greenway corridor In these areas, improved cultivars of trees and shrubs could be used These cultivars usually have better form, flowering and fruit production than the native plant species Perennials and ornamental grasses could also be used Attached are plans and plant lists for landscape designs for Suburban Garden, Native Shade Garden, Evergreen Shaded Garden, Wet Meadow Garden, Prairie Garden, and Lakeshore Upland Garden These designs utilize native plants and are planned for aesthetics, low maintenance, erosion control and enhancement of wildlife habitat Natural Areas with Trees - in some areas there are already trees within the greenway corridor Many of these trees have been planted, but some are natural stands Even when trees have been planted, they have not been regularly maintained as landscape trees and are growing more like a native woodland It is recommended, where trees exist within the corridor, that the minimum amount of trees be removed for trail construction Trees and shrubs could be planted in and near the treed areas to increase diversity of native plant material Shrubs which provide berries, seeds and nuts would increase populations of songbirds, ground nesting birds, and small mammals Wetlands - there are several areas within the greenway corridor which contain wetlands Trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses which tolerate saturated soils could be planted near the wetlands to increase the diversity of species and improve habitat quality Additional Landscape Elements features such as fencing, boulders, and stone walls add rural character to the corridor and provide a tie-in to both the historic and the future land uses These elements could be preserved where they occur within the corridor, or they could be constructed at appropriate locations 2 COUNTY ROAD t A OLD FIELDS Old fields are areas which were previously cropped or grazed but which are now no longer used for agriculture Some areas contain native wildflowers and grasses but most of the dominant plants consist of introduced, non-native spices Some old field areas contain fast-growing, pioneer tree species These treed areas could be inter -planted with other native species such as oak to increase species diversity and longevity The open areas would lend themselves very well to planting of prairie wildflowers and grasses Some of the open areas could be used for rest stops and parking areas for trail access Trees could be planted to provide shade for picnickers and vehicles A OLD FIELDS Plant Recommendations for Soil Types The soils in the greenway corridor vary from silt loam to sandy loam and from clay to coarse, gravelly areas For this reason, plant material selections will include plants which can tolerate a wide range of growing conditions The most specific plant recommendations will be those for wetland areas "Mesic" sites with good drainage and moderate moisture Prairie Wildflowers and Grasses Common Name Scientific Name Wildflowers Yarrow Achzllea species Leadplant Amorpha canescens Butterfly weed Asclepzas tuberosa (var clay) heath aster Aster ericoides New England aster Aster novae-angliae silky aster Aster sericeus sky blue aster Aster azureus stiff tickseed Coreopszs palmata purple coneflower Echinacea purpurea Rattlesnake master Eryngium yucczfolzum prairie smoke Geum trzflorum showy sunflower Helianthus laetzflorus blazing star Lzatrzs aspera dotted blazing star Lzalrzs puctata Lobelia Lobelia spicata Bergamot Monarda fzstulosa large -flowered beardtongue Penstemon grandiflorus purple praine clover Petalostemum purpureum prairie phlox Phlox pzlosa yellow coneflower Ratibida pinnata black-eyed Susan Rudbeckza hirta Compass plant Silphium lacznzatum 3 stiff goldenrod Soltdago rigida blue vervain Verbena hastata praine violet Viola pedatifida golden Alexander Zizia aurea Grasses prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans big bluestem Andropogon gerardi little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Trees Common Name Scientific Name red oak Quercus rubra No pin oak Quercus ellipsoidalis white oak Quercus alba bur oak Quercus macrocai pa bicolor oak Quercus bicolor red maple Acer rubrum sugar maple (only for well -drained soils with good organic matter content - dark loam) Acer saccharum Hackberry Cella occidentalts Basswood Tilia americana white ash Fraxinus americana black ash Fraxinus nigra paper birch (north facing slopes well- drained soils with good organic matter content) Betula papyrifera river birch Betula nigra Kentucky coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus Ironwood (only for well -drained soils with good organic matter content - dark loam) Ostrya virginiana 4 white pine Pinus strobus red pine Pinus restnosa white spruce Ptcea glauca densata Shrubs Common Name Scientific Name Chokecherry Prunus vtrgrntana Am Hazelnut Corylus americana Highbush cranberry Viburnum trtlobum Juneberry Amelanchier laevis gray dogwood Cornus racemosa red -osier dogwood Cornus stolontfera pagoda dogwood (shady sites) Cornus alternrfolta 'Regent' serviceberry Amelanchier alntfolta Allegheny serviceberry Amelanchier laevts black chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa Vines Common Name Scientific Name river bank grape Vats riparia Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 COUNTY ROAD 1 PERENNIAL PLANTING L FLOWERING TREES HOUSE B RESIDENTIAL AREAS Some areas along the trail have already been developed as residential areas with single -Family homes More development is likely along the greenway corridor In these areas, improved cultivars of trees and shrubs could be used These cultivars usually have better form, flowering and fruit production than the native plant species Perennials and ornamental grasses could also be used B Plants for Sites Near Residential Areas erns and Ornamental Grasses Common Name Scientific Name Perennials Yarrow 'Coronation Gold or 'Cloth of Gold Achillea filzpendulzna Purple coneflower Echinacea purpurea Rudbeckia 'Goldsturm' Rudbeckia fulgida var sullivantii Rudbeckia'Herbstsonne' Rudbeckia lady's mantle Alchemzlla false spirea Astilbe false indigo Baptista australis Thread -leaf Coreopsis 'Moonbeam' or 'Golden Showers' Coreopsis verticzllata fern -leaf bleeding heart Dicentra eximza Cranesbill or hardy geranium Geranium coral bells Heuchera Lupine Lupznus perennis Blazing star Liatris Phlox Phlox paniculata Sibenan iris Iris Golden groundsel Ligularia Hollyhock mallow Malva alcea var fastigiata bee balm Monarda Balloon flower Platycodon grandiflorus Lungwort Pulmonaria Sage Salvia x superba Goldenrod 'Fireworks' or 'Golden Fleece' Solidago Speedwell 'Sunny Border Blue' Veronica 6 or Goodness Grows Fcrns lady fern AthyriumIdtx :lemma Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthtopterts Cinnamon fern Osmunda cznnamomea Interrupted fern Osmunda claytontana Maidenhair fern Adzantum pedatum Ornamental Grasses feather reed grass Calamagrostis blue fescue Fesluca glauca blue oat grass Helictotrtchon sempet wrens Maiden grass Miscanthus stnensts Common Name Scientific Name red oak Quercus rubra white oak Quercus alba bur oak Quercus macrocarpa Bicolor oak Quercus bicolor red maple (cultivars 'Northwoods', 'Autumn Blaze', 'North Fire', 'Autumn Spire (for narrower spaces) Acer rubrum sugar maple (only for well- drained soils with good organic matter content - dark loam) (cultivar 'Green Mountain ) Acer saccharum Hackberry Cella occidentalts river birch Betula ntgra Basswood (cultivar Redmond) Ttlta amerzcana Weeping willow ('Prairie Cascade') Saltx x 'Pratrte Cascade' Showy mountain ash Sorbus decora 7 Thornless cockspur hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli Flowenng crabapple (cultivars 'Prairiefire', 'Thunderchild', Donald Wyman', 'Indian Magic', 'Indian Summer', 'Red Jewel', 'Snowdrift' , 'Spring Snow' (fruitless) Malus species white pine Pinus strobus red pine Pznus resinosa white spruce Picea glauca densata Arborvitae (cultivar, 'Techny') Thula occzdentalts ~ ^ Common Name Scientific Name Highbush cranberry Viburnum trilobum Juneberry Amelanchier laevis gray dogwood Cornus racemosa red -osier dogwood Cornus stolonzfera 'Isanti' red -twigged dogwood Cornus sericea Pagoda dogwood (shady sites) Cornus alternifolia 'Regent' serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Allegheny serviceberry Amelanchier laevzs dwarf bush honeysuckle Dzervzlla lonzcera Fragrant sumac 'Gro-Low Rhus aromatica hardy roses (cultivars Carefree Delight' ,'Belle Poitevine', 'Country Dancer', 'Hansa' 'Meideland Red) Rosa species Azalea (Northern Lights series) - require acid soil amendments Rhododendron hybrids 8 Vines Common Name Scientific Name Clematis Clematis panrculata Trumpet creeper Campszs radreans Honeysuckle 'Dropmore Scarlet Lonicera x brownu Bittersweet Celastrus scandens 9 EXISTING TREES NEW TREES C NATURAL AREAS WITH TREES In some areas there are already trees lanted,within but some are natural enway stands dor Many of these trees havep Even when trees have been planted, they have not been regularlye a ue maintained as landscape trees and are growing more woodland It is recommendedithin the corridor, that the minimum amount of trees be removed for trail clonstruct on that the minimum amount Trees and shrubs could be planted m and near C NATURAL AREAS WITH TREES red oak Quercus rubra No pin oak Quercus ell tpsoidal is white oak Quercus alba bur oak Quercus macrocarpa Bicolor oak Quercus bicolor red maple Acer rubrum sugar maple (only for well -drained soils with good organic matter content - dark loam) Acer saccharum Hackberry Celtis occidentalrs Basswood Tilia americana white ash Fraxinus americana black ash Fraxinus nigra paper birch (north -facing slopes, well- drained soils with good organic matter content) Betula papyrifera river birch Betula nrgra Kentucky coffeetree Gymnocladus diotcus Ironwood (only for well -drained soils with good organic matter content - dark loam) Ostrya virgtntana white pine Pinus strobus red pine Pinus resrnosa white spruce Picea glauca densata 10 COUNTY ROAD I BLVD PLANTINGS BENCH D WETLANDS Trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses that tolerate saturated soils should be planted near the wetlands to increase the diversity of species and improve habitat quality D WETLAND AREAS (saturated soil conditions) Prairie Wildflowers and Grasses Common Name Scientific Name Wildflowers blue flag ins Iris verszcolor Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis Swamp milkweed Asclepias zncarnata Turk's cap lily Lilium michiganese Turtlehead Chelone glabra Monkeyflower Mimulus ringens Boneset Eupatorium perfolzatum bottle gentian Gentzana andrewsn Prairie blazing star Liatris pycnostachya Marsh betony Pedicularis lanceolata Mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum Riddell's goldenrod Solidago riddellu Culver's root Veronicastrum vzrginicum Grasses Praine cordgrass Spartzna pectinata Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans big bluestem Andropogon gerardi blue joint grass Calamagrostis canadensis Rattlesnake grass Glyceria canadensis dark green bulrush Scirpus atrovirens wool grass Scirpus cyperinus bottlebrush sedge Carex comosa pointed broom sedge Carex scoparia 11 Trees Common Name Scientific Name tamarack Larix lamina sand bar willow Sala exigua balsam fir (more upland where soil remains moist but is well drained) Abtes balsamea No pin oak (more upland where soil remains moist but is well -drained) Quercus ellipsoidalis bicolor oak (more upland where soil remains moist but is well - drained) Quercus bicolor river birch (more upland where soil remains moist but is well - drained) Betula nigra Shrubs Common Name Scientific Name winterberry (good wildlife shrub, plant away from trail, berries are showy but poisonous) Ilex verticillata pussywillow Salix discolor red osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera silky dogwood Cornus amomum speckled alder Alnus rugosa 12