The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-10-08 CPC PacketJ jl!!!� 5 LjjLltwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, October 8, 2007, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 APPROVAL OF September 10, 2007 MINUTES 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 301 Case No 07-46 A request for a variance for the location of a pool in the side yard located at 512 6tn Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson Inc , representing Jennifer MacDonald 4 OTHER BUSINESS 401 Discussion of the new proposed St Croix Preparatory Academy location NOTE Reminder of meeting with City Council on November 8, 2007 The November Planning Commission meeting will be on Wednesday November 14, 2007 due to Veterans Day CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 • WEBSITE www cl stiliwatermn us City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 10, 2007 Present Dave Middleton Chairperson Suzanne Block Gregg Carlsen Mike Dahlquist Dan Kalmon Taylor Luke Wally Milbrandt David Peroceschi and Charles Wolden Staff present Planner Mike Pogge Mr Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Milbrandt seconded by Mr Wolden moved approval of the minutes of Aug 13 2007 Motion passed unanimously Case No 07-44 A special use permit request for a skin care and massage studio in the residence at 110 Mulberry St E in the RB Two Family Residential District Sandra Merhar applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and conditions for granting a special use permit for a type III home occupation Mr Pogge said it is staff s opinion that the request meets the intent and conditions of the ordinance He did note a letter had been received from the Stillwater Townhome Association opposing the request Mr Carlsen asked about type III businesses Mr Pogge stated the businesses are those where customers come to the home such as a hair salon and are allowed in the RB District Mr Kalmon asked how common such requests are Mr Pogge stated typically the City receives one or two requests a year and he said generally there are no problems as long as the applicant/permit holder follows the conditions of the permit Mr Kalmon asked if there are any Comp Plan issues related to this request Mr Pogge responded in the negative Mr Middleton opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed On a question from Mr Middleton Ms Merhar stated there would only be one client present at the home at any one time and she stated appointments would be scheduled so only one client is present Mr Middleton asked whether the Commission might want to put a cap on the number of clients or further regulate the hours of operation Mr Milbrandt pointed out the permit is subject to review upon complaint Mr Peroceschi seconded by Mr Wolden moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No 07-45 Final plat and final PUD approval for Liberty Village 5ch Addition and special use permit for a commercial office/retail building at the southeast corner of County Roads 12 and 15 Outlot D Liberty Village Mike Waldo Liberty Office Group LLC applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and the conditions related to the issuance of the final plat and PUD and the special use permit Mr Wolden asked about condition No 18 which restricts any restaurant use to no more than 1 831 square feet Mr Pogge explained that condition is related to parking requirements Mr Carlsen said the parking lot arrangement appeared it might be difficult to enter and exit Mr Pogge said staff is satisfied with the proposed layout The applicant was present and noted there are opportunities for shared parking as well as on -street parking Mr Dahlquist asked whether tenants would have to come back for a special use permit City of Stillwater Planning Commission September 10, 2007 Mr Pogge stated any future tenants would have to come before the Planning Commission only if the proposed use is outside of this permit use — retail office and potential restaurant uses Mr Middleton opened the public hearing No comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Peroceschi seconded by Ms Block moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 7 30 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary t - w (Lj,llwata,1 y I R 1i A O f M I N N f 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE September 24, 2007 CASE NO V\07-46 APPLICANT Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson Inc PROPERTY OWNERS Jennifer MacDonald REQUEST A variance to allow a pool to be located in the side yard and within the required 10 foot side yard setback LOCATION 512 Sixth Street South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING RA - One Family Residential PC DATE October 8, 2007 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner ftf DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Sec 31-514 Subd 5 of the City Code in order to allow a pool to be located in the side yard' Additionally, the applicant would like to install pool's mechanical equipment within the required 10 foot setback for all property lines Sec 31 514 Miscellaneous Residential and Non Residential Performance Standards Subd 5 Swimnung pool locations All swimming pools or appurtenances thereto shall be located in the rear yard at a distance of at least ten feet from any property line (see Chapter 33 2 for additional requirements) 512 Sixth Street South Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 512 Sixth Street South slopes from the northwest corner down to the southeast corner The garage sits higher than the home and the front of the property Due to the topography behind the home it would be difficult to place a pool in this location This hardship is particular to this property Staff would note that the property directly to the south has a pool in the side yard similar to what is being requested in this case The City did not issue a permit for this pool Per state code, a neighboring violation can not be used to justify a variance In this case the issue is related to the physical property and is not being justified due to the neighboring violation 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors This property is zoned for a single-family home and is currently being renovated for continued use as a single-family home Without tlus variance the property owner will be able to continue to use the property as a single-family home Staff does not believe that approval of this variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right which has been denied 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The purpose of this code is to provide a uniform street appearance and to protect adjoining property owner from damage from accidental water discharges In this case the property owner is proposing to install a privacy fence to screen the pool Additionally, with the topography change on the property and the existing landscaping the pool should be well screened from Sixth Street The property owner to the south sits higher than the elevation of the proposed pool and will be protected from any accidental water discharges from the pool The property owner is proposing to place the pool equipment just off the side property line Staff would recommend that all of the pool equipment be located a minimum of three feet from the side property line, similar to what would be required if this was a shed With this condition, staff believes that as proposed the pool will meet the intent of this section and will not adversely affect the public interest r 512 Sixth Street South Page 3 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property and that it is not created by any act of the owner In this context, personal financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not factors involved in justifying a variance 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district 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 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variance allow a pool to be located in the side yard and within the required 10 foot side yard setback [Sec 31-514, Subd 5] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the requested variance allow a pool to be located in the side yard and within the required 10 foot side yard setback [Sec 31-514, Subd 5] If the Comrrussion chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b That the pools mechanical equipment be located no closer than 3 feet to any property line 3 Continue the public hearing until the November 14, 2007 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is November 13, 2007, however, staff could extend the review deadline for an additional 60 days as allowed by state statutes in order to allow adequate time to consider the requests RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends denial of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form and supplemental material 0 Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING MacDonald Pool Variance Request Project Narrative The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1 Subd 24 (14) which requires swimming pools and appurtenances to be located in the rear yard at least a distance of 10 feet from any property line The property does NOT have a rear yard as defined in Chapter 31 1 Subd 4 which defines a rear yard as follows "Yard, rear means an open, ung c space on the same lot with a main building, between the rear line of the building and the rear line of the lot and extending the full width of the lot' The area normally thought of as the ` rear yard' on this lot is occupied by the garage and driveway Therefore, no ` rear yard exists on this lot This, of course, is the hardship for the variance request. This condition is not something that the applicant created and it makes this particular lot somewhat unique The variance will not confer any special privilege to this lot that other lots will not enjoy The pool will not fit within the area between the house and the garage It does not make any sense to ask the applicant to relocate the garage and driveway to create a rear yard, as there are no other areas on the lot that can accommodate the garage and driveway and still meet the setback requirements The intent of the ordinance is to use the house to shield the pool area from the neighborhood's view This proposal meets the intent of the ordinance The apphcants are proposing to install the pool and appurtenances on the side of the home, but behind the front of the house The pool area will be screened from the street by a six foot privacy fence and planting materials The pool as proposed will be immediately adjacent to the pool on the neighboring lot to the south, but further back from the front of the lot than the neighboring pool The neighboring lot has the same condition as the applicant insofar as the garage and driveway are occupying the area normally considered the rear yard The total impervious area of the lot is being reduced from the existing condition. The existing condition is 19 3% impervious for the buildings (25% allowed) and 20 6% impervious for the driveway and sidewalks (25% allowed) By replacing some of the sidewalks and driveway area to pervious surfaces, the proposed impervious area of driveway, sidewalks and pool areas will be 17 6% The building areas are unchanged 12445 55th Street North Lake Elmo Minnesota 55042 • Phone (651) 439 8833 • Fax (651) 430 9331 • Website www ffc inc com Bruce A Folz LS Timothy J Freeman, LS Todd A Erickson PE 1939 2001 Principal Principal yy . s : , p_ { r s " y - LAJ 10 19 IA " i IT 19oil 17 16 Ar 241 $ r� — 131 , al ' i u ! ,,, vaa •. tiny:,- ,_ ;. r d . ( p,g, $� 3�" - WEST WI L ,tS. EET e _ odb 1115- Notes -- -CERTI"FICATE OF SURVEY Notes Orientation of this bearing system BARR ETT M STACK Underground or overhead, public or private is an assumed datum. ( ILL`,NATER,MfN�N 51082 utilities, on or adjacent the parcel, were o Indicates 1/2" ID iron pipe set marked E� °Fa1MT1eYlNtAeaee� not located in conjunction with this survey, with a plug inscribed STACK RLS 13774 unless shown or noted otherwise hereon. • Indicates monument found in place or survey L►NDBHRVItyeR Locatiom shown for existing concrete walls point set, as noted hereon Td Me 4"16n are aWaxifnte. Many of these walls are ----OU---- Indicates Overhead Utility lines in place are tipped mW broken, as generally noted Offsets shown to existing structures are mess to the "C M " Indicates Resurvey Dimensions shown on City of outside bldg wall line, unless noted otherwise hereon Stillwater Sectional Mai) No 10, as further noted below SURVEY MAD8 EXCLUSIVELY PORT 3wifer J. MacDonald, a.k a. Jennifer J. Lampi, S1Y SovM Sixth Street, Sti1lW&W, Mirf Sota SIM DKOCRIPTIONAs Supplied (copy of Title Ins. Co. Policy/No. OPA-0018343, vested in Jennifer J Lampi) Lots 3 and 4, Block 48, Churchill, Nelson and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota SURVEY REPORT AND ADDITIONAL NOTES, "M Indicates field measured values "R. ISO?" and "8.160?" Indicate conflicting record dimensions as shown on the plat of Churchill, Nelson and Siau~ 's Addition to Stillwater, hereinafter referred to as "the plat", recorded as Document No. 416049, Vaihington County records -"R " Indicates record dimensions as shown on the plat The Plat, also known as Myron Shipards per°fected plat, was authorized and executed by an act of the Minnesota Legislature in 068 and sl-ce*-A p.ior recorded plat documents Dimensional conflicts appear on the face of the Perfected Plat "C M.' LJJILtgt'r.l Re -survey dimensions for Blocks 47 and 48, Churchill, Nelson and Slaughter's Addition, as shown on City of Stillwater Sectional Map No 10, dated Feb 1914, prepared by Lewis W. Clarke, City Engineer A copy of the pertinent portion of this City Map is attached to this survey Mr Clarke went to great detail to cote and doccnjent his solution to the dimensional conflicts on the plat These dimensions and angles, as shown on said City Map, appear to fit public street improvements, occupation lines and survey monuments found inplace internal of and on the occupied boudaries of Blocks 47 and 48 of the plat Mr Clarke appears to have placed the dimensional error were it occured, that is in the easterly tier of lots in Block 48 and the westerly tier of lots in Block 47 of the plat Discuss this matter with legal counsel for an opinion on what steps, if any, that may be required to address this matter Also included with this survey is a photo enlargement of the pertinent portion of the Perfected Plat showing conflicting dimensions. Blocks 47 and 48 of Churchill Nelson and Slaughter's Addition are shown thereon as Rditn I ral IV �3 4 4� � � I �\4 •, — S 7 7.4 25 Al 16Y qS 974 / od : y ®'� cif cG� e0A /O'X dO N op - d' oK r�*— Amw tAO'AMW o I ,Ng W roll � i I h fi'm h1w NO .S/,Z r I k G�t.�eG6 hoil /t' M07 Al Fr-' pU I FNo /A /P o s t 9 GG ++i �144 v I �f f sp LiNe _ 1 10 �i9llf �►9V /r�wo�� RI ♦ t "/001oil e1 ` LDie MOM /s '/,? Ar �rcr Soft' -r /S4e Z7 - - - - Wir`X M 5 ) ,e , so (Gc�vPito '�� Lo r ,P i60 s y ! hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was _;,. ��,��;� �� , t�-._'i'� ^"` L preliared by me or u r my direct supervision and that k8a y _ _ ` r , J, `, I am a duly Land Surveyor under the laws of ��, = L X ,� ,�✓ _ _ the State of Ca i>oc �t/o ¢14ro ¢ 9 ' Rr Ne ,I, Date April 1J, ZQQ3 B 13774 it 4 ITE P LAN EXISTING IMPER VIO US - BUILDING AND S URFA CES Driveway �.orV1ouS wervlo us SldeWalk A' PR OPOSED IMPER VIO US - B UILDING AND S URFA CES i r t font plants plants 4' block steel fence A�t with gate. radeng Notes at Stairs 1 Plan nw-nsmtts concept dronoge plan anl} Pod cwntroetor and l t9 cm&odor to tieterrruna 9 concept drwnop Plan Al swlaWe to raoantntaWr' eortdIons for pod eonsen,etm% and owae dr Aw Oran tie Silt sock on al planted oleos. Pfoee sOswad fle steps ��9 ) _ drams tie ��t at a depot of ttr be.' rwt q(ada Ptooe Oran tee r bdoe plants rails 2roft Place welted rwerroet ow drain lie 3 Mtorn of drown tie at pop-up dram to be rat of t2" setae of t ; rrst Oran bows on dram as system - to rrmue prow tape of Ian tS loom �ope _ li dram boxes t yp dram tile, t -�' r yp stone I L I -ea �•� plants t plants plants own atural stone patl flagstone walk th groundcover t rr� urol stone patip plantings_ _ ' I mo/ 50 4CM t '`. ' I =*t✓ now r, bar vulh 1' �r ` stool$ Tah. y,�efood sh } { � Pad t1 3. oeoteng at town outd631 - plants I kitchen oleo 6' wood privacy fence fire pit and `�`'�"$� lent y > i- pop—up drain extend west rrqqet ,1 patio area t shgwer 1 ` _ with rip—rop existing i'e'q ., ^^ i lfebOCk t ,:,`c� __ ----------------- -------------------- -- - - - ---- -•--------- ---------------- - - f -- tl ; t"F1�fJ ` ^ � J drain tt remove f �! -- = r------------ typ ` �+s�w _ t' �} % ash tree,G�' ds plants -,�� .� ,��ryr tone ret �• _� hu vas wall_j f i1�L T-rjyT.mellGfZ��tT �R / Q �-1wa l I I 8 9 1 H F L A E 0 1 M I N N I S 0 1 A DATE September 24, 2007 CASE NO NA APPLICANT St Croix Preparatory Academy REQUEST Discuss Revised Location for School LOCATION 8528 Neal Avenue North Located on west side of Neal Avenue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SFLL, Single Family Large Lot ZONING TR, Traditional Residential PLANNING COMMISSION DATE October 8, 2007 PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development DirectorT BACKGROUND As you will recall, the St Croix Preparatory Academy is searching for a site they can develop for their new school On June 11, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the school's request to build their facility at 8753 Neal Avenue North (the Heifort property on the east side of Neal Avenue) The Comrrussion voted to deny the proposed height variance and recommended that the City Council deny the remainder of the development requests To preserve its right to present the entire case to the City Council, the school appealed the variance denial Rather than have the proposal go directly to the City Council for a public hearing, school officials requested to be placed on the Council's July 3, 2007 work session agenda as a discussion item only The purpose of the discussion was for the school to present its plans to the Council to better gauge what the school's next steps should be The result of the discussion was that St Croix Preparatory Academy tabled its application for the Heifort property Subsequently, school officials have explored the possibility of building at 8528 Neal Avenue North This property is on the west side of Neal and lust to the south of the Hiefort property St Croix Preparatory Academy Revised New Location Discussion Page 2 The new location would be comprised of three parcels The northerly parcel is currently a part of the Millbrook development The southern two parcels are owned by C3 Land Development These two parcels were recently approved by the City for residential development Though the plat for the development was approved (Brown's Creek Reserve), actual development was never begun The combined size of all three parcels is about 14 acres (gross area) Access for the school would be from White Pine Way, not Neal Avenue All of the schools athletic fields and parking would be located on this site SPECIFIC REQUEST Before progressing too much further with detailed site planning, school officials would like to have a discussion with the Planning Commission to get a feel for general reactions to the new location EVALUATION OF REQUEST A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CITY ZONING CODE COMMENTS Comprehensive Plan a The City's comprehensive plan future land use map guides both the Carlson and Lennar (Millbrook) properties for SFLL, Single Family Large Lot development 1 Prior to approval of the Millbrook PUD, the northern of the three parcels was guided for AF, Attached Single Family (1 e townhomes) development But with the approval of Millbrook, the townhomes were relocated to the northwestern portion of Millbrook and the subject parcel was approved for SFLL development b SFLL classification is used for areas that will develop residentially at 2 0 units/net acre or less In addition to residential uses, there are a number of other uses that are allowed in a neighborhood that is guided for SFLL development Those uses include schools, hospitals, parks, churches, etc Consequently, schools are consistent with the comprehensive planning for the new location II Zoning Code a The base zoning of all three parcels is TR, Traditional Residential i Schools are not listed as an allowed use in the TR zoning district Though, schools are traditionally allowed in all low density residential neighborhoods In Stillwater they are allowed for example in the RA zoning district The principal difference between St Croix Preparatory Academy Revised NeNA Location Discussion Page 3 the RA and TR districts is that garage setbacks are much more rigorously regulated in the TR district In almost every other respect, including allowed uses, the two districts are the same It would therefore make sense to allow schools in the TR district as well ii An ordinance amendment would be needed to allow schools by special use permit in the TR district ill As an alternative to allowing schools in the TR district, the new location could be rezoned from TR to RA iv Would the Planning Commission prefer rezoning or an ordinance amendment? b The overlay zoning for the northeastern portion of the property is South Twin Lake Shoreland Overlay i In the shoreland overlay district, schools are not listed as an allowed use ii An ordinance amendment would be required to allow schools by Special or Conditional Use Permit ill This situation also applied to the Heifort property As part of the research for that application City staff discussed the situation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The DNR gave its verbal approval of an amendment that would conditionally allow schools in the shoreland overlay district c The overlay zoning for the southwestern portion of the property is Brown's Creek Shoreland Management District i This overlay district encompasses all land within 300 feet of the creek's floodplain ii Buildings within this overlay district must have a 40 foot setback from the bluffline ill Setback from the creek is 100 feet iv The Brown's Creek Watershed District staff has met with the school to discuss the proposed new site Their staff believes that the site could be developed for the school use and meet all of the watershed district's development standards B GENERAL COMMENTS Traffic study i As with the previous location, one of the key issues will be the impact of traffic ii The City has commissioned a traffic study that will analyze the traffic in the area It will include the impact of traffic from the school at maximum enrollment as well as Millbrook at buildout St Croix Preparatory Academy Revised New Location Discussion Page 4 iii A draft of the traffic study may be available at the October 8th meeting Property already annexed i Unlike the previous location, the new school location would be on property that has already been annexed into the City of Stillwater Trail development 1 As with Browns Creek Reserve, the City will want to have the trail system within Millbrook continued through the subject property and connected to McKusick Road Also, a sidewalk or trail should be constructed along the western side of Neal Avenue Neighborhood input All neighbor's within 350+ feet of the new location will be mailed this staff report together with a notice of the Planning Commission discussion on October 8th Though it would be premature to hold a public hearing for the proposal at the October 8th meeting, the Planning Commission chair may at his discretion widen the discussion to include some comments from the public if he chooses to do so RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the land use implications of the revised location for the St Croix Preparatory Academy school facility This could include both positive and negative aspects as well as a perhaps a general indication of whether it is an acceptable location from the Planning Commissions perspective cc Jon Gutierrez, St Croix Preparatory Academy Ed Kodet, Kodet Architects Stillwater City Council and Mayor Neighbors within 350+ feet of new location attachments Location Map Base Zoning District Map Shoreland Overlay District Map City of Stillwater BiATJaS"a•. •::�. 'a k.:t`:'�. �' s,..:3 ' aSiiie63 :'ia� Shoreland Management Overlay Districts Protected Lakes and Streams Natural Environment Lake Recreational Development Lake 0 General Development Lake /Brown' s Creek & Tributaries Shoreland Management Districts St. Croix River Shoreland Management District Stream Shoreland Management District ® Lake Shoreland Manalgement District illy of ate Community Development Department Road centerlines Zoning District Classifications A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA - Single Family Residential 0 RB - Two Family TR, Traditional Residential ® LR, Lakeshore Residential C] CR, Cottage Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential CCR, Cove Cottage Residential CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential - TH, Townhouse 0 RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Density Residential ® VC, Village Commercial CA - General Commercial CBD - Central Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial BP-O, Business Park - Office 0 BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB - Heavy Industrial CRD - Campus Research Development PA - Public Administration Public Works Facility Railroad WATER Road right-of-ways Property outside City limits St. Croix Prep Academy Zoning Districts — r" — — --I- — — St. Croix Prep Academy Concept Discussion - NEIGHBORHOOD NOTICE DISCUSSION OF NEw (LOCATION FOR ST CROIX ]PREPARATORY ACADEMY The St Croix Preparatory Academy has requested a discussion with the Planning Commission on anew location for their proposed school facility The new location is 8528 Neal Avenue North, which is located on the west side of Neal Avenue at McKusick Road The Planning Commission will hold the discussion at their regularly scheduled meeting of October 8, 2007 The meeting begins at 7 00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 216 N 4`" Street Since the October 81h meeting will not be a formal public hearing, your role as a neighbor could be either simply listening to the discussion or actively participating in it Since the setting is not a formal public hearing, it is left to the Planning Commission Chair to decide whether discussion will be limited to the comrrussion, or he whether it will be widened to include comments from neighbors as well In either case, I encourage you to attend the meeting City of Stillwater i urn b ad Community Development Director Mailed on 9/ 25/ 07 w35NJrifP .q+cFv=r Memo Community Development Department To Planning Commission From Michel Pogge, City Planner 0111_ Date Tuesday, September 25, 2007 Re Comprehensive Plan Goal Review Message The City Council has called for a special joint meeting between with the Council, Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Comrrussion to review a draft set of comprehensive plan goals from the comprehensive plan steering comrruttees The meeting will be on Thursday, November 8 at 7 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall This will be an opportunity for you to formally comment on the goals as a whole A copy of the draft goals will be mailed to you a week or so before the meeting If you have any questions please feel free to contact me Thanks, Mike From the desk of Michel Pogge, AICP City Planner City of Stillwater 216 N 4th Street Stillwater MN 55082 651 430-8822 Fax 651 430-8810 email mpogge@ci stillwater mn us