Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-22 CPC MIN4' a er, 1ME I......AEI 7t ■II�EI�IA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 22, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:06 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hade (arrived sometime during the public hearing for Case No. 2020-09), Hansen, Kocon, Meyhoff; Councilmember Collins Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Wittman, City Clerk Wolf APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of February 26, 2020 regular meeting Commissioner Kocon requested a correction on Case 2020-03, to state that he asked the square footage of the building, and Mr. Turnblad's response was 1,000 square feet, referring to the building, not the lot. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2020 meeting as corrected. Motion passed 6-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case ND. 2020-09: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to create a. new Zoning District known as FIMU. Highway Mixed Use. City of Stillwater, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that during the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, a new future land use category was created to guide development along the Highway 36 corridor. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan identified potential annexation land at the Manning Avenue intersection with Highway 36 that would be well suited for mixed use. The new land use category is called "Highway Mixed Use" and is envisioned to incorporate higher density residential together with commercial uses. It is expected that associated with this new land use category will be two zoning districts: 1) HMU, Highway Mixed Use Zoning District for property south of Highway 36, and 2) CMU, Community Mixed Use Zoning District north of Highway 36. These new mixed use zoning districts along Highway 36 will be a hybrid of BP-C, Business Park Commercial and RCH, High Density Residential Zoning District standards and uses. North of Highway 36, the mix is anticipated to be vertical (residential above commercial) and south of Highway 36 it could be either a vertical or horizontal mix. Another text informing the content of the new HMU Zoning District would have to be the pre -annexation agreement entered into between the City Council and the developer of land at the southeast quadrant ofthe Manning Avenue/Highway 36 intersection. The development is known as Central Commons. Prior to submitting his petition for Planning Commission April 22, 2020 annexation of the subject property, the developer entered into the agreement to give some shape to the many unknowns he was faced with. The City and the developer agreed in concept to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) site plan. Upon approval of the annexation, the zoning for the property will be AP, Agricultural Preservation as is common for such annexations. The City shall propose an ordinance creating the Highway Mixed Use Zoning District and if approved, propose a zoning map amendment to have the property rezoned Highway Mixed Use. City Staff and the owner have reviewed and agree in concept to the Highway Mixed Use (HMU) zoning district language. Staff requests that the Commission review and make a recommendation on the ordinances that would create the HMU Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the City Code changes as they appear to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the pre -annexation agreement between the City Council and developer. Councilmember Collins pointed out that on the chart of permitted uses, there is a combination of Conditional Use Permits (CUPS) and Special Use Permits (SUPs). Why not just go with CUPs? Mr. Turnblad replied that the zoning code currently refers to SUPS. State statute considers a SUP to be something totally different. Zoning code language needs to be made consistent, referring to cups. Commissioner Meyhoff asked what was the determining factor for the height restriction of 55'. Mr. Turnblad responded that the current height limit in BP-C is 35 feet or three stories. To be able to add residential on top of that, staff decided to go with five stories. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Chip Longacre, 12058 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, spoke in opposition to the development, citing light pollution, traffic and pedestrian congestion especially on Manning Avenue which is the only access he has to his property. The 260 unit apartment building will be constructed close to his property line. He objects to the clearing of trees that once covered the area, and believes the developers are putting a spin on the project to promote it to residents. Pat Lockyear, 2001 Hazel Court, Stillwater, asked what was the reason for developing the new zoning district? Was it a proposed development or the City thinking they needed to build up along the corridor, or both? Mr. Turnblad replied the HMU land use classification was developed in working on Stillwater's 2040 Comprehensive Plan which has been on the books for a year. It was felt that as the business park commercial area redeveloped, it would be a mix that is not historic like downtown but has its place. Mixed use has become a very common way to redevelop commercial areas. Roger Tomten, 718 South 5th Street, Stillwater, board chair of Sustainable Stillwater and member of the GreenStep Cities Committee, said he has heard the HMU area designation was added fairly late in the Comprehensive Plan process and was not discussed at length. The proposed zoning language for the mixed use district should include a reference to a central public green space or gathering space. Restricting multi family residential to a maximum of 30% could be detrimental to achieving the goal of developments that reflect a town center and should be changed to something like "no more than 70% housing.'' Setbacks don't reflect current pedestrian -oriented design. He encouraged re-examination of the numbers for lower setbacks. He also would like to see efforts made to integrate a shared parking plan rather than relying on the standard parking minimums which create unused asphalt surfaces. Mary Russell 921 North Second Street, Stillwater, expressed disappointment that the new zoning language doesn't reflect many of the things that are in the Comprehensive Plan regarding implementation of the GreenStep Cities program. 80% maximum lot coverage seems like way too Page 2 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 much impermeable surface. She does not see anything in the proposed zoning language addressing affordable housing. It seems like this zoning code has been written to fit this development. Kevin Tholen, 4854 Linden Trail North, Lake Elmo, suggested that a requirement for vehicle charging stations should be added to the zoning language, with the ability to add on in the future. Louise Watson, 927 Northland Avenue, Stillwater, recommend that impervious surfaces be minimized in this district. Open space should be maximized for pollinators, bird habitat, native plants, as many trees saved as possible, and connections made with existing tree corridors and walking paths. She would discourage the use of turf grass in favor of low or no -mow turf. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dybvig said some of the points are valid. The Comprehensive Plan discussed a central public gathering space and that doesn't seem to be incorporated into the zoning code change. However, overall this seems to be going in the right direction. 50% residential seems reasonable and he is OK with five stories. Commissioner Kocon stated that he likes the mixed use and commercial with residential above it. Having a green space within the development would be a positive element and soften the whole look. He likes the five stories and doesn't have a problem with setbacks. Commissioner Hansen said he feels five stories is too tall. He would like to see four stories. He agrees about adding language from the Comprehensive Plan about a central green space. 30% residential may be too low. 50% residential would be OK. It would be good to spread the residential to be more over the retail rather than by itself. In his opinion 80% lot coverage seems reasonable, knowing that that a central open space area is being recommended. Chairman Lauer remarked he is alright with five stories, 30% or more residential, and adding Comprehensive Plan language about the central public space. Commissioner Hade said he opposes five stories. He questioned whether the Fire Department can serve a five story building. Commissioner Meyhoff said five stories seems reasonable and the Fire Department can serve a five story building because he lives in one. However, the mix of retail with multi family on top is a dying trend. It doesn't work well for retail. He is comfortable with 80% maximum lot coverage. He would like to see car charging stations discussed as a possible requirement for zoning language. Mr. Tumblad said typically language about vehicle charging stations has not been incorporated into zoning districts, but into performance standards for projects that are approved. Staff recommends such language would go into performance standards but the Commission may recommend to the Council that it should be added somewhere. Commissioner Hade asked why the Commission is concerned with electric cars when there is virtually no public transportation. He also feels there should be an allocation for low income housing. Mr. Turnblad replied that belongs in the zoning code but in a different section. Commissioner Hansen remarked the City can't add every single layer that's included in the Comprehensive Plan into every ordinance. Commissioner Hade said it sounds like the City is going to cow -tow to one developer. Commissioner Kocon said there has been discussion about the Comprehensive Plan for two years and this is part of that. Add-ons or trade-offs can be brought into the discussion. Page 3 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 Commissioner Dybvig noted there will be zoning code changes based on what was in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. That will be the time to integrate a number of these issues such as affordable housing and charging stations. Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to recommend to the Council approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to create a new Zoning District known as HMU, Highway Mixed Use, with two changes: the percentage of residential should be 50% as opposed to 30% maximum, and adding the Comprehensive Plan language about a central square to 31-326, Option 4. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay. Case No. 2020-10: Consideration of an Annexation Preliminary Plat Zoning,Map Amendment Review of the EAW Conditional Use Permits and a Concept PUD for a 35 acre project known as Central Commons. Property located at the SE corner of Manningand nd Highway 36. Mark Lambert representing Central Commons, LLC, property owner. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the case. Mark Lambert, Central Commons, LLC plans to develop a 35.3 acre mixed use site in two phases. The proposed development is part of an annexation petition. The first phase of development would be synchronized with the construction of the new grade separated interchange at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. Site grading for this phase would begin this year and include the construction of a 95,716 square foot Hy-Vee store, a 4,100 square foot Hy-Vee fuel sales, convenience store and coffee shop, as well as a market rate apartment building with up to 200 units and four stories. Completion of these buildings is planned to occur with the completion of the new interchange late in 2021. The timing of the second phase of development is not yet known, but would occur on Outlots A and B. The exact uses on these two outlots are yet to be determined. He stated that when the Municipal Board approves the annexation - which it is likely to do because Stillwater Township supports the detachment - the Board automatically puts it into AP Agricultural Preservation zoning. It must be rezoned to do any type of development. The proposal is to rezone the site to the new zone, Highway Mixed Use (HMU). The City is in the process of making the City's zoning codes consistent with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan but this developer got ahead of the City, so the City had to speed up that portion of the consistency project. Also staff assumed that the outlots would remain in the AP zoning district but actually the request was to rezone all the property to HMU. The entire public review process will still have to be done to approve the plat in the future. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the access points to the development, the internal street pattern, a depiction of the four story apartment complex, and the layout of the apartments. There is a mix of apartment sizes with a total of 200 units proposed. There are recreational facilities and a private trail system that loops around the pond. There are 186 parking stalls underground, two major surface parking fields, and proof of parking stalls around the edge of the property which would be developed if necessary. There is a remote garage and a combined parking agreement since it is a PUD, for a shared parking field with Hy-Vee. The proposal exceeds parking minimums. He explained current and proposed sidewalks and trails in the immediate area. Sign information was submitted but there are more details to be addressed. Staff is suggesting that when the final plat and final PUD for this phase are submitted for review, an updated signage plan be submitted. A photometric lighting plan was submitted. The City's goal is to hold illumination to zero luminares at the perimeter of the property, along streets and especially where there are abutting residential areas. This will be updated before moving on to the City Council. Mr. Turnblad explained the conditions of approval being recommended by staff. Permits will be required from several agencies including MnDOT, Washington County and others. The 30 day comment period for the EAW ends April 29. All comments will be collated and addressed at the City Page 4 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 Council meeting May 5. At that time the Council will decide whether an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. None of the approvals being recommended tonight are final until the annexation petition is approved by the Municipal Board which is anticipated soon. The developer has submitted the following specific development requests: 1) Annexation of 35.3 acres from Stillwater Township 2) Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 1-4, Block 2; and Outlots C & D; Central Commons Addition to HMU, Highway Mixed Use 3) Preliminary plat approval for the five -lot, four-outlot mixed use subdivision to be known as Central Commons Addition 4) Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Phase 1 of Central Commons Addition 5) Conditional Use Permit for Hy-Vee pharmacy drive-thru and grocery pick-up 6) Conditional Use Permit for C-Store fuel sales and coffee shop drive-thru. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the annexation, rezoning, preliminary plat, concept Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permits with 20 conditions. Commissioner Hade asked, if this is approved, is there any requirement for Hy-Vee to open the store? There are already a lot of grocery stores in this area. Mr. Turnblad replied that, if what is developed deviates from the plans, the developer would have to come back to the City Council. Chairman Lauer acknowledged the reason the Commission is not looking at the EAW is that the waiting period is not over, but what if the Commission finds something troublesome in the EAW? Mr. Turnblad replied since the EAW comment period is not closed yet, if the Commission finds environmental issues, they can be brought to the Council's attention. The Council may direct the Planning Commission to weigh in on the EAW. Commissioner Kocon said on one hand he is concerned about too much impervious space and on the other hand the proposal has people parking all over Hy-Vee. He is concerned about the parking plan. Mr. Turnblad answered that by code, shared parking is allowed. With shared parking, the proposed parking plan is more than sufficient. Granted drivers have to walk a half block to park behind Hy- Vee if they use those spots. But it doesn't make sense to put in more parking spaces than needed up front. Commissioner Hansen asked, if the proof of parking spaces are developed, can a condition be added to require vegetation screening? Mr. Turnblad answered that a condition could be added saying if these spaces are developed, a landscaping plan would be needed. Mark Lambert, developer, 10211 Norrell, Stillwater, explained his commitment to Stillwater. Development efforts on these parcels go back 20 years and he purchased the property 2 1/2 years ago. Hy-Vee was initially interested in the site and then they walked away from it because of a number of problems they felt they could not resolve. With the help of agencies and jurisdictions, solutions have been created. The interchange is moving forward and the roads will be built by fall 2022. They are helping write grants to get funding for the interchange and will be dedicating five acres of land to make all the roads work. He listed the amenities planned for the apartment building. The building will be energy -efficient and will be affordable in its pricing. There are future outlots for development that are in concept stage, possibly including an exercise facility, hotel, clinic, or other uses. The high voltage overhead lines running through the site were a challenge when trying to lay out the site. It is the intent to have enough parking so people do not need to use the Hy-Vee spaces. Phil Hoey, director of Real Estate, Hy-Vee, said the company has been considering this site for a couple of years. He explained Hy-Vee's commitment to environmentally sensitive lighting and sustainable practices in regard to sourcing and food waste. The plan calls for 62% impervious Page 5 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 surface, below the threshold. The plan is to offer the same services as the other Hy-Vee food stores. To answer a previous question regarding the Spring Lake Park building that is now empty, they are finalizing plans to complete the construction of that building. Commissioner Hade asked, was a similar proposal given to Oak Park Heights and rejected? Mr. Hoey answered the proposal being reviewed tonight was not submitted to Oak Park Heights. Hy-Vee never made a formal application to the City of Oak Park Heights. Commissioner Hade asked what is the average salary of a Hy-Vee employee? Will they be able to afford a $1,000/month apartment? Mr. Hoey replied it depends on each market. Hy-Vee pays a very good wage and offers profit sharing. Commissioner Hade asked why is Hy-Vee interested in the Stillwater market when there is a Cub, Target, Kowalski's and WalMart nearby? Mr. Hoey replied Hy-Vee does not go into a community unless they feel they can serve a need that is not being met. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Sheila Maybanks, 201 Bayberry Avenue Court, Stillwater, a member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said the Committee saw connectivity (walking, housing and community) and a sustainable and resilient community that could deal with climate change as being vital to Stillwater in 2040. GreenStep Cities and Sustainable Stillwater have serious concerns about Central Commons. It does not appear that the key elements of accessibility and climate resilience are reflected in the project. The way the site is used does not reflect the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. Louse Watson, 927 Northland Avenue, Stillwater, asked what is the needs assessment for another grocery store and when was it done? Is there a plan to replace the existing grocery stores with something else? There doesn't seem to be any rationalization for having this grocery store. Chairman Lauer responded it is market driven, the developer thinks they can serve a market that is not being served currently in the City. Ms. Watson suggested the vacant lot across from Perkins that has unused impervious surfaces be considered as a site to fulfill some of the needs that are being met by this proposal. Commissioner Hade said Ms. Watson's question should be addressed by Hy-Vee rather than by Chairman Lauer. Commissioner Kocon remarked it is more of a market, economic question than a planning question. The Planning Commission is not an economic development commission. Commissioner Hade countered yes it is, because it deals with planning and economic development. He asked if the City owes anything to the current people that have been here forever. He questioned the need for a Hy-Vee. Mr. Hoey asked, would it be normal practice for the Commission to ask any user to prove out their need in the community? Commissioner Kocon pointed out what is in front of the Commission is the land use, not economic development. Kevin Tholen, 4854 Linden Trail North, Lake Elmo, asked Mr. Lambert if the electric vehicle chargers will be outfitted with the capability to add additional stations. Page 6 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 Mr. Lambert replied the charging stations will have the capacity to grow as charging needs grow. Mary Russell, 921 North Second Street, Stillwater, said she likes the walking paths around the pond and the small apartment sizes. She also was on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and Stillwater GreenStep Cities Committee. Affordability is a big issue for Stillwater. Stillwater has a target set for affordable housing units. She questioned what annexing this land mass will do to the City's Met Council statistics. It looks like this might help meet those goals. This could be an exciting gateway to Stillwater and she would like to make sure it doesn't look like a strip mall. Is there a proposal for landscaping screening for the parking on the front of the development? She also is concerned about planting with native plants. There are grants available, for doing sustainable plantings. Roger Tomten, 718 South 5th Street, Stillwater, asked Mr. Lambert: if the development offered reduced setbacks, would he be open to adding commercial square footage to offset the cost of the development? Has he considered integrating future mass transit to the site? Has Hy-Vee ever done a vertically integrated mixed use project? Given earlier discussion about a central gathering space, does he have thoughts about how that requirement might impact the site plan? Mr. Tomten asked Mr. Turnblad, was there any discussion with the developer about integrating any of the housing units to meet Stillwater's requirement of 227 affordable housing units? Will Manning Trail to the south be City -owned? Will the timing of the Manning connection to Stillwater Boulevard be part of this development? If it occurs later, could the trail connection at least be made earlier to facilitate connectivity? Mr. Lambert replied, regarding reduced setbacks, the challenge doing these large projects is that developers have to be visionaries and also find users, which creates tension between reduced setbacks/more density and the users who are attracted. Power lines were a constraint. Outlots A and B have no users yet. The development has worked with Washington County and MnDOT to develop a great road system. Maybe some mass transit could be somewhere in the area. Vertical integration is challenging because often, retailers don't want to be under residential and residential don't want to be above retail. Each prefers to be close but not underneath or above. He is willing to look at creating a central gathering space. It is challenging to integrate the commercial component with the power lines and have nice spaces. He wants to find a price point that allows some smaller units. Ben Backburg representing the Sanctuary of Lake Elmo, the neighborhood to the west of this site, said the neighborhood wants to be on record as abutting landowners, that it seems like people are way in front of themselves. He appreciates that City staff think the annexation might be simple but whenever there is an annexation, rezoning and safety issues, the process can get significantly drawn out. This property has gone through a number of different hands. Case law will be considered in moving from rural agricultural zoning to high density urban zoning. The homeowners' association is seriously looking into the issues and has tried to slow down the process. Sheila -Marie Untiedt, Stillwater Township Board Chair, said the township has no objections for this parcel to be annexed as the township has no commercial zoning and offers no services. This parcel cannot be developed within the township. It was assigned to the township a decade ago by the Municipal Board. Gregg Sainsbury, 11923 58th Street North, Lake Elmo, in the Sanctuary neighborhood, remarked that this development will add traffic and reduce safety. He is concerned about light pollution and he does not see how this plan does anything other than detract from his standard of living and his property value. He asked Mr. Lambert if he agrees that this development will significantly detract from the 60-70 homeowners in Sanctuary, or does he just not care. He asked if the developer has talked to anyone in his neighborhood to ask them what they think about this? Page 7 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 Mr. Lambert replied there are at least three traffic studies floating around about how to safely route traffic in the area. He does not think it will reduce values, he thinks it will improve values. There is a pond and landscaping between Mr. Sainsbury and this development. As a member of the community himself, he is trying to bring conscientious projects here. He has not gone door -knocking to the 70 homes in Sanctuary. That is part of why this public hearing is taking place. Terese Bastyr(spelling?), Sanctuary resident (did not provide address), said she wants someone to comment about the amount of crime this new development will bring in with a grocery store, apartment complex and hotel. This will be next door to hundreds of children. Why does the developer think it is OK to bring this environment into the community? Mr. Lambert replied he does not think that crime will increase because of the development. Jeffrey Kloewer, 11928 58th Street North, Lake Elmo, Sanctuary resident, expressed concern about additional crime, lighting and accessibility to the neighborhood. He asked, will delivery trucks enter and exit? That will cause problems. He doesn't think another grocery store is needed. He will be looking at a four story apartment from his back deck. Robin Anthony, Executive Director of the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce, said this project is an opportunity for more businesses to come into the greater Stillwater area and an added community that will contribute to the local economy. Mr. Lambert appears to be a smart business person who will do the right thing. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dybvig remarked that the overall plan seems good. There have been a lot of changes made in response to concerns raised. Commissioner Kocon concurred it is a good plan. The Commission must make sure the landscaping must ameliorate light, sound and frustration for the neighbors. He could support the project. He suggested making landscaping for the parking on the south side a condition of approval. Commissioner Hade said he does not think the entire community has had an opportunity to give input. It is a huge change. He sees no need for the development. The application should be tabled. Commissioner Hansen said he thinks the developer has already made a lot of concessions and worked through constraints. It will be a benefit to the community despite the challenges inherent in every development. This is a preliminary plat with final plat yet to be reviewed. Commissioner Meyhoff remarked that the developer did a wonderful job taking a challenging piece of property and making it work for the project and the community. Motion by Commissioner Kocon to recommend that the City Council approve the Annexation, Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment Review of the EAW, Conditional Use Permits and Concept PUD for a 35 acre project known as Central Commons, with the 20 staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #21 that landscaping be part of preliminary plat approval to enable the proof of parking area to happen. Mr. Turnblad noted he failed to mention that Condition # 16 talks about a sign permit and the condition in the Commission agenda packet is slightly different than the one he showed in is presentation. Condition # 16 should read: a complete sign plan and any variances desired by the developer must be submitted together with final plat and final PUD application materials. Commissioner Dybvig asked if City staff supports rezoning the entire parcel including Outlots A and B. Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 Mr. Turnblad replied yes, because the Outlots cannot be developed until they go through their own public planning process. Commissioner Dybvig asked Commissioner Kocon if his motion includes rezoning of the entire site. Commissioner Kocon replied yes, and the motion should include Condition #16 as Mr. Turnblad stated. Commissioner Meyhoff seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hade voting nay. Ms. Wittman pointed out this recommendation is scheduled to go to the Council on May 5 so there is more opportunity for public comment. Case No. 2020-13: Consideration of Variances to the maximum allowed impervious surface and to the total accessory structure coverage for the property located at 615 Broadway St S. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that Reid and Julie Miller have recently received building permits and variances to construct a single family house with a tuck -under garage. The proposed landscaping plan has significantly less coverage than the previous estate did, but still exceeds the maximum coverage allowed and will require a variance. An underground shed, beneath the proposed bocci court, is proposed to house the pool equipment. This proposed shed, when combined with the square footage of the existing attached garage, exceeds the maximum allowed coverage for accessory structures and will also require a variance. The applicants are requesting: 1) a variance to allow the impervious lot coverage to be 27.8% (30.3% was erroneously on the notices sent out), whereas the maximum allowed impervious lot coverage is 25% which may or may not include the fire pit; and 2) a 180 square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1 180 square feet) to be greater than 1,000 square feet. Of concern was the impact of the retaining walls on the property owners to the north and to the south. The City does not have setback requirements for retaining walls so the retaining walls are compliance with current City code. The retaining wall in this area is designed to prevent further erosion. The Public Works/Engineering Department looked at it and would like to add three conditions of approval regarding the walls. Staff finds the proposed landscaping plan and pool equipment shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore recommends approval of the variances with eight conditions. Councilmember Collins asked, was there a rain garden on the property previously? Ms. Wittman replied there was terracing in the back with some planting and a small pool. However it appears erosion has been occurring for quite some time. Councilmember Collins said he is concerned about the erosion of the bluff. He asked if staff feels the proposed retaining walls will mitigate the runoff. Ms. Wittman responded that when impervious surface is increased, more runoff has to be treated on - site. This is reviewed by Public Works/Engineering. There is a greater increase in the grade and concern has been raised about the velocity of the water running off, but strategic placement of the infiltration can capture the water in the backyard to prevent it from going off the property. Councilmember Collins asked if the proposed equipment shed for the pool/spa is enclosed, and if sound must be mitigated. Mr. Wittman replied it is located on the property line, underground on three sides. City code requires that pool equipment must be 10' off the property line. Just before the meeting, Mr. Miller told her they will move it 10' off the property line. Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. April 22, 2020 Myron Reubendale, 609 South Broadway, immediately to the north, pointed out that the only information neighbors received about the variance request came with the request about 10 days ago. Neighbors are concerned about the drainage and erosion of the property. All the water from the front flows toward the back of the house and off the cliff. Another issue is that the survey shows the property is square but the property is actually angled. Additionally, the new proposed retaining wall will be about 6' tall and about 10' above the lower yard area so he will be looking at the wall. The neighbors were under the impression no additional variance would be requested. They feel the variances put the bluff at risk for further erosion. The notice mentioned the original house having more hardscape coverage but that refers to the Millers' original design, not to the demolished structure built in 1887 and this was not made clear. Joel Moline, 300 Locust Street East, immediately to the south, expressed concern about erosion and stormwater runoff. His property receives stormwater runoff already, without the additional impervious surface. The bluff is already unstable and this will only increase the velocity of the water runoff. He does not want to look at a 10' wall from his garden. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins noted that Mr. Moline brought up good points concerning where the water is going to go. Commissioner Dybvig remarked the project seems problematic due to its proximity to the bluff. The amount of useable space that water has to absorb into the ground is diminished. Chairman Lauer said it seems like there are City concerns, that is why conditions were added. He can understand why neighbors do not want to look at retaining walls. Commissioner Kocon asked if total re -engineering of the lot, which has been stripped bare, allows the possibility of draining all water toward the storm drain rather than the bluff. Ms. Wittman replied there is an opportunity to engineer it so the water on the east side of the patio ends up in a gutter system sending it to the west side of the property. That might be the plan that the Millers end up working out with the Engineering Department in terms of how they meet the Middle St. Croix Watershed District's requirements. Chairman Lauer said he favors tabling the application to ensure drainage is handled properly. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to table Variances to the maximum allowed impervious surface and to the total accessory structure coverage for the property located at 615 Broadway Street South until there is a better feel for whether the plans will completely handle drainage concerns from an engineering standpoint or if further mitigation is required. Motion passed 7-0. Case No. 2020-14: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to build a garage with living space above it located at 816 Williams St N. Sarah McFarland, property owner and Brent Jahns_tonc. representing Image Contracting, applicant. Ms. Wittman explained that Sarah McFarland is planning to construct a 20' X 40' detached garage in the southeast portion of the lot, which will be accessed from William St N. The garage is proposed to have an equally sized dwelling unit above it. She is requesting: 1) a Special Use Permit to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above a new garage; 2) a 192 square foot variance to allow for the total ground coverage of the accessory buildings (1140 square feet) to exceed the ground coverage of the principal building (948 square feet); 3) a variance to allow the accessory dwelling unit to be located in the front yard; 4) a 3 foot variance to allow the height of the accessory dwelling unit (22') to exceed that of the primary residence (approximately 19'); 5) a 2 foot variance Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 to allow the garage to be set back 28' from the front lot line, whereas the required setback is 30'; and 6) a 140 square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings including attached and detached private garages and other accessory buildings (1 140 square feet) to be greater than 1,000 square feet. Staff finds that, with certain plan alterations and conditions of approval, the proposed garage and ADU meets the Special Use Permit provisions and the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and approval of the following variances with seven conditions: 1) a 192 square foot variance to allow for the total ground coverage of the accessory buildings; 2) a 3 foot variance to allow the height of the accessory dwelling unit (22') to exceed that of the primary residence; and 3) a 140 square foot variance to allow the maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings to be greater than 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Kocon asked, will trees be removed? Brent Johnstone, applicant, replied there is a deciduous tree in the front that would be removed. The owners want to save the pine tree if possible. That is the purpose for the garage being in front of the house setback. Commissioner Kocon remarked that the garage is ugly. The tree could help obscure it. Also the extension to the house should be removed along with the shed. Sarah McFarland replied the suggestions are valuable. They can play with the design to make it not just a box and match the house better. The shed in the back of the property will be removed. Part of the reason the proposed garage is set in front of the house is to keep the pine and maple trees to hide the blockiness of the garage. Pushing the garage forward gives more useable backyard space. Mr. Johnstone added that they are willing to consider suggested design changes to make it work. Ms. Wittman explained that height is measured from the average elevation of the front of a structure to halfway between the eave and the peak. The project as designed will still probably be within three feet of the height of the house. Commissioner Hade commented that Stillwater's housing stock is mostly very old. In many ways, City code does not take that into consideration for those who want a more modern style home. Commissioner Dybvig said he lives within 350' notification for this property and feels he can make an impartial decision but is willing to recuse himself if desired by the applicants. Ms. McFarland said they are comfortable with Commissioner Dybvig participating in the vote. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hansen said he feels the garage needs to be pushed back because it will look taller than the house in the front, detracting from the house. A shed roof could be added over the garage door to break up the monolithic front. He does not like trees being cut down but the garage will provide some shade to the yard. He would support the application if the garage is pushed back at least flush with the front of the house. Commissioner Kocon noted that the garage could be made smaller than 20' x 40'. Chairman Lauer said he too would like to see the garage pushed back on the lot to not dominate the streetscape. Ms. McFarland said if the garage needs to be flush with the front of the house they will go back to the drawing board because it changes the plans. Page 11 of 12 Planning Commission April 22, 2020 Ms. Wittman added the City is not in a mad rush with building permits at the moment. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Chairman Lauer, to table consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to build a garage with living space above it located at 816 Williams St N. so staff may work with the applicant on re -design. Motion passed 7-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner I !a , t adjourn ri meeting at 11:26 p.m. All in favor, 7-0. ` ris Lauer, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 12 of 12