Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-27 CPC PacketSjllwater THE B I R T H P L A C E O F M I N N E S OT A PLEASE NOTE (NEW FOR 2021): Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into https://www.zoomgov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 27th, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 19th, 2020 regular meeting minutes 2. Possible approval of minutes of November 30th, 2020 Joint City Council and Planning Commission minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 3. Resolution CPC 2021-01: Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial CPC Case No. 2020-54 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4. Case No. 2020-60: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variances for a residential building in the Central Business Height Overlay Historic District. Property located at 200 Chestnut St. Joel Hauck, applicant and Chestnut Partners, LLC, property owner. Tabled to the February 24 Planning Commission meetinj per applicant's request 5. Case No. 2020-62: Consideration of a Variance for a septic tank and drain field on the property located at 2220 Orwell Ct in the RA district. Dale and Lois Muhlenpoh, property owner. 6. Case No. 2021-01: Consideration a Variance for a Right of Way setback. Property located at 12950 75th St N in the TR District. Jon and Ann Whitcomb, property owners. VII. DISCUSSION VIII. FYI — STAFF UPDATES 7. Annual Commission Training IX. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1I11TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 19, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen (left at 8:49 p.m.), Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Collins Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 28, 2020 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the October 28, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Hansen abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2020-50: Consideration of Variances associated with the construction of an attached garage and porch on the property located at 805 3rd Street North, in the RB district. Charles and Amy Hartl., property owner — POSTPONED FROM 10/28/20 MEETING. City Planner Wittman explained the application. The applicants are seeking to add a 480 square foot attached two stall garage with a 190 square foot screened in porch behind it. The existing small garage will be removed. The proposed new garage will be large enough to alleviate winter parking issues, which are exacerbated by being at the end of a dead-end road. The owners would additionally like to attach a screen porch to the rear (east) side of the home. This proposed addition will require the following variances: 1) a variance to allow an attached garage to be set back a total of 11' from both interior side yards, whereas the minimum combined side yard setback is 15'; 2) a variance to allow for a screened porch to be set back 20' from the top of the steep slope, whereas 30' is required. A letter was received from the neighbors, the Smiths, expressing concern about potential damage of one tree that is close to the property line. Staff finds the proposed addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties, such as the lack of a usable garage and the property being flanked by steep slopes, have been established. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances with six conditions. Condition #6, added by staff after writing the staff report, states "trees and root zones close to the new driveway will be protected." Charles Hartl, applicant, stated the current garage is too small. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the applicant explored other options for the screen porch to avoid the steep slope variance. Planning Commission November 19, 2020 John Sharkey, builder, explained they wanted the porch to be attached to the home which necessitates the variance. Commissioner Dybvig asked if the garage rooftop could be screened to create a three season porch. Mr. Sharkey said that would add mass and would not be in keeping with the historic home. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-50, variances associated with the construction of an attached garage and porch at 805 3rd Street North, with the six conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Steinwall voiced concern about the steep slope variance. She sees no practical difficulty or need for the porch. Commissioner Dybvig acknowledged that the increase in impervious surface will generate more runoff which can cause erosion. He suggested a condition stating that the patio shall be constructed of a pervious material. Mr. Sharkey said they plan to make the patio surface 100% pervious. Commissioners Meyhoff and Kocon agreed to add Condition #7 to the motion, stating "the rear yard at -grade patio will be constructed of permeable materials." All in favor. Case No. 2020-54: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for White Pine Ridge, a proposed subdivision to be located at 12950 75th Street North, in the AP district. Jon and Ann Whitcomb, property owners — POSTPONED FROM 10/28/2020 MEETING. Ms. Wittman stated that Jon Whitcomb of Browns Creek West LLC has applied for rezoning, preliminary plat and associated variances for a 14-lot single family development to be known as White Pine Ridge. The site is located at 12950 75th Street North and contains 8.81 acres owned by Mr. Whitcomb and .24 acres (10,264 square feet) of property owned by the Lohmer Trust. The smaller parcel of land, located directly to the east, is proposed to be used exclusively as right-of- way. The applicant has requested: 1) rezoning of the property from AP, Agricultural Preserve, to TR, Traditional Residential; 2) preliminary plat known as White Pine Ridge for 14 single family lots; 3) a 25' variance to the 100' setback from CR 12 for Lot 1, Block 1; and a 250' variance to the 600' maximum cul-de-sac length. The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning and preliminary plat. City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning, and an 80' CR 12 setback and cul-de-sac variances with 30 conditions. Commissioner Steinwall said she is not sure that the dry pond proposed in the northwest corner, at one of the highest points of the property, is going to serve the stormwater requirements, given proposed Condition #19 that the developer show that all stormwater requirements can be met on site without overtaxing proposed infiltration basins. She feels this condition needs further clarification. Ms. Wittman responded there is concern from the City's engineering department and the Watershed District about the dry pond but staff believes the plan can be modified so that all stormwater requirements can be met on site. Jon Whitcomb, applicant, explained that the Watershed District will have to approve the plan for all the water generated from this site to be accommodated. The dry pond is not at the highest point of the property; its grade is significantly below the grade of all the homes in the northwest corner. Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission November 19, 2020 Additionally, he has had to illustrate to the Watershed and City engineer that not only will the site manage the water generated, but that the properties to the east will not receive any runoff. The handling of the water has been addressed and that condition has been satisfied. Commissioner Hansen remarked that with similar developments, homebuyers often request variances for decks and porches. He would like to address this issue on the front end, possibly at the time of preliminary plat approval. He would prefer that development applications reflect the acceptable setbacks rather than just putting in a patio door and leaving it open to a future desire for a deck. He will not be in favor of granting variances on these lots in the future. City Planner Wittman answered that staff has been identifying these situations earlier. At the time of building permitting, staff is asking for decks to be shown on plans. However, sometimes a homebuyer wants a bigger deck than the builder proposes. In this development, Lots 8 & 9 run up against the 40' slope setback. That is why staff proposed a condition of approval that variances won't be granted for Lots 8 & 9. Mr. Whitcomb said he understands the concern but the lots and pads in his development are much larger than the lots on the plat to the north. Commissioner Kocon said if the buildable footprint on Lots 8 & 9 will accommodate a deck, then not allowing any variance probably works for everyone as a condition. Commissioner Hansen agreed but he is concerned about all the lots in regard to potential future variance requests. Ms. Wittman said when a preliminary plat is approved, it is with the belief that the City is not going to be issuing variances because the developer is showing a building area where setbacks are met. Commissioner Steinwall said perhaps the condition could say that Lots 1-14 shall be developed in conformance with the Code, rather than just limiting that statement to Lots 8 & 9. Commissioner Hansen replied that ultimately it is assumed that all plans will conform to the Code. He is not sure this needs to be stated but the Commission should be more diligent about saying no when variance requests come up. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Bob Lohmer, 12960 75th St. N., said he has absolutely no plans to develop his property but if he did, it would be on the lower end the way Mr. Whitcomb has shown the road on the south end. Richard Schultz, owner of the property to the east of Mr. Lohmer, suggested the Commission could require the developer to combine Lots 8 & 9 and portion the extra property out to all the other lots. He asked how utilities will be extended and asked about the configuration of the Neal Ave. extension. Ms. Wittman replied that utilities will be extended from the West Ridge development down Northland Ave. where there is a utility easement. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon referred to a memo from Deputy Fire Chief Ballis voicing concern that the cul-de-sac is longer than code allows and stating that special approval for such situations has been granted in the past when a developer provided automatic suppression systems in all homes along the road. Also, the cul-de-sac should be no less than 96' in diameter. Ms. Wittman clarified that when a cul-de-sac is 500-701 feet long, it must have a 96 foot diameter and special permission must be granted for cul-de-sacs greater than 750 feet. The future planned Page 3of7 Planning Commission November 19, 2020 roadway has no specified timeline, but Deputy Fire Chief Balls was comfortable knowing that a roadway extension would occur at some future date. Commissioner Dybvig expressed concern that the cul-de-sac may not be shortened for 20 years or more. Meeting the Fire Code is a safety issue. The Commission should look at adding some type of requirement that the homes be sprinklered or that within the next five years, the road goes through. Commissioner Hansen said he would want to make sure if the property to the east is ever developed, that it is not developed from a cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac. Ms. Wittman stated one of the challenges of working with multiple property owners is that sometimes there are cul-de-sacs off of cul-de-sacs. She understands the Commission's concern but further restrictions will make these properties difficult to develop unless they all develop at once. Commissioner Steinwall countered that the Commission must review the applications as presented assuming that the neighboring properties may never develop. That may mean for health and safety and fire code compliance, adding another condition that fire suppression be added to all the lots. Commissioner Kocon said either the five most northerly lots should not develop until there is another route out of the development, or a condition should be added requiring fire suppression for the homes on those lots. Mr. Whitcomb stated the 600 feet measurement is from the stub that goes into Mr. Lohmer's property, which is the way the City has enacted this provision in the past. A stub road to neighbor's property has been used in past developments as a reference point to determine the length of a cul-de- sac. If the Commission creates an additional provision in this case, it would set a precedent and he would be very reluctant to have that restriction put on those lots. Ms. Wittman added that she spoke with Deputy Fire Chief Ballis who said that when the length of a cul-de-sac is between 500-701', a 96' diameter is required. While special permission is required for cul-de-sacs longer than 750 feet, when future planned roadways exist it meets the intent of the Code, and fire suppression systems would not be required. Commissioners Steinwall and Dybvig stated there is no planned roadway yet. Ms. Wittman explained what the City requests of developers is to show how future roadways would connect. This is the same design that was used for West Ridge. The City has allowed longer cul-de- sacs when developers showed there are connecting opportunities. She reminded the Commission that the matter will be brought before the City Council with the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Kocon remarked if the Fire Department is comfortable with the proposal, he would like to see that documented and he would suggest a condition stating that it must be formally signed off by the Fire Department that the proposed cul-de-sac is acceptable with the 96' turnaround. Commissioner Dybvig said he has an issue with a setback variance. He does not think practical difficulty has been shown other than financial, as a way to put four lots in rather than three. He asked what is the compelling reason for the 80' setback? Mr. Whitcomb said the 100' setback is more than the County requirement which is 75'. The City granted itself a setback variance at the Fire Hall and at Maryknoll. Even without the variance, he can still fit four lots in there, but it would mean packing more into a smaller area. Ms. Wittman noted that the original request was a 75' setback but Mr. Whitcomb and she discussed that 80' might be a more reasonable request. Motion by Commissioner Kocon to recommend Council approval of Case No. 2020-54, Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for White Pine Ridge, a proposed subdivision to Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission November 19, 2020 be located at 12950 75th Street North, with the 28 staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #29 requiring a written statement from the Fire Department approving the cul-de-sac length as proposed and a 96' turnaround or the request that the northern lots be sprinklered; adding Condition #30 that the Lohmer property be split prior to approval of the final plat; and adding Condition #31 that the width of Lot 10 be increased to 35'. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Councilmember Dybvig, to recommend Council approval of Case No. 2020-54, Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary Plat, and approval of the cul-de-sac variance, and denial of the setback variance for White Pine Ridge, a proposed subdivision to be located at 12950 75th Street North, with the 28 staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #29 stating "the Lohmer Trust property shall be split prior to the approval of the White Pine Ridge final plat"; adding Condition #30 stating "the width of Lot 10 shall be amended to 35"'; and adding Condition #31 stating "the preliminary plat shall either obtain Fire Department approval or structures will need to meet fire suppression requirements." All in favor. Commissioner Hansen said he would like the record to show he is OK with a 75' or 80' setback but he also knows that to grant a variance, certain criteria must be met. It appears the plans would work for the applicant without the variance and that is why he voted in favor of the motion. Case No. 2020-57: Consideration of a Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a garage addition to the property located at 313 Pine St.W. in the RB district. Matt and Jen Hauer, property owners. Commissioner Hansen recused himself from the discussion and vote. Ms. Wittivan stated that the applicants are proposing to add a deck and a porch on the rear side of the house, as well as a master bedroom suite above the existing garage and closing in the breezeway to attach to the house. This would require a variance, because the existing garage and the proposed addition above it are only one foot from the side property line. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow an attached garage to be set back 1.1' from the side yard setback, whereas the minimum side yard setback is 5'. Additionally, this variance will allow for the combined side yard setback to total 7.7', whereas the combined side yards must total 15' in the RB Zoning District. One letter of opposition was received from Chad and Krista Thomas, 504 5th St. S., voicing concern about drainage and maintenance considering the improvement would be one foot off the property line. Drainage would be directed away from the Thomas property but staff understands the maintenance concerns. This is not reflected in the staff report because it was only very recently received. Before receiving the letter, staff found that the proposed addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and that practical difficulties have been established; however the Commission may consider that the variance might not be granted to the full extent requested due to the maintenance concerns expressed by the neighbor. Staff strongly recommends the property owner work with the neighbor to get a private easement for maintenance access. Jen Hauer, applicant, stated that they had an agreement with the former neighbor that they could build their garage. They have discussed the proposal with the new neighbors who did not express concern until very recently. They are willing to redesign the second story if that is what it takes to get approved. The reason for going over to the edge of the garage was the recommendation of the architect and builder regarding the structural load. They have worked on these plans for three years. Ms. Wittman asked if the applicants plan to rebuild the whole garage or just add the second story. Ms. Hauer replied they had to dig down in back of the garage to see if there were footings in place. Their two options are to rebuild the garage with proper footings for a second story or to do underpinning to support the load above. Their intent is to the keep the same footprint. Regarding the Page 5of7 Planning Commission November 19, 2020 letter from the neighbors, she said they intend to solve the existing drainage issues with the construction. They would consider moving the second story back as suggested by the neighbors. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Chad Thomas, neighbor, said they were a little surprised when they got the packet as they had never seen a drawing of how close the whole mass of the structure was going to be to the property line. They didn't realize that the applicants were also going to request an easement. Ms. Hauer said the easement was Ms. Wittman's recommendation. They hoped to work an agreement out with the Thomases that they could put up ladder, but never would want anything like a driveway easement there. Mr. Thomas replied they are OK with allowing for example a ladder, as long as vehicles won't be driven over trees and bushes. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioners Dybvig, Kocon and Meyhoff said they are inclined to grant the variance as requested. Chairman Lauer said the project will improve the look of the house but he feels going vertical almost right on the property line seems like an encroachment. Mr. Thomas said he would not want to have an easement agreement in writing at risk of future sales of the house. He would prefer a verbal agreement. Ms. Wittman clarified that an easement would be recorded against the property. The Thomases could put a fence up on the property line right now which would restrict maintenance access. The house will look better with the second story but the maintenance component is challenging. Councilmember Collins remarked he would like to see something to protect both property owners in future years. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2020-57, Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a garage addition to the property located at 313 Pine Street West, with the five staff -recommended conditions. Chairman Lauer said he has no problem with the rest of the proposal but he prefers a formal easement agreement. Motion passed 4-2 with Councilmember Collins and Chairman Lauer voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. FYI STAFF UPDATES There were no staff updates. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 p.m. All in favor. Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission November 19, 2020 Chris Lauer, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 7 of 7 Stillwakz The ©rIhpiwrn ni Minnamla 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION November 30, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING 7:00 P.M. Planning Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Polehna and Weidner Planning Commission Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Hansen, Kocon, Steinwall Absent: Commissioner Meyhoff Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad City Planner Wittman NEW BUSINESS Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Community Mixed Use Zoning District Discussion Community Development Director Turnblad provided background on the purpose of the discussion. The Stillwater 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions the creation of several new zoning districts. These zoning districts are included within the Comprehensive Plan's "Highway Mixed Use" and "Neighborhood Commercial" future land use categories. Recently the City adopted the first of the two planned zoning districts associated with the Highway Mixed Use land use category. This first zoning district was given the land use category's name and was called the Highway Mixed Use (HMU) Zoning District. It is on the north end of the south side of the Highway 36 corridor. The other zoning district is called Community Mixed Use. The CMU District is intended for areas that are currently developed as commercial that would be redeveloped as mixed use. Mr. Turnblad explained that the goal of the HMU is to allow the addition of high density residential to the commercial mix. In addition to living units (apartments or condos), other permitted uses would be parks, early childhood education, commercial greenhouses, hospitals, home occupations and Type C short term home rentals. This district is generally a melding of the uses in the BP-C district, the Central Business District downtown, and general commercial districts that are currently scattered around the City. The following uses would not be allowed in the CMU: warehousing, wholesales, automotive, and industrial uses. The CMU would not follow the same zoning standards as other zoning districts. It looks at new forms of development, called "form -based standards" which are different from traditional zoning district standards. He introduced Jeff Miller and Laura Chamberlain with HKGi. Mr. Miller described that building form standards include upper floors stepped back from the front of the building, principal entrance placement visible from the street, street facade articulation (to prevent long, flat building fronts) and transparency (to avoid blank walls). City Council Meeting November 30, 2020 Building placement standards include building to zone, building street frontage, and off- street parking. The build -to zone uses a maximum setback rather than a minimum setback. Mr. Turnblad added that a major difference between traditional standards and form -based standards is employing minimum setbacks rather than maximum setbacks, giving buildings an active street presence and putting parking out of view. Mr. Miller explained CMU massing standards. Building height maximum is 55' or five stories, whichever is greater, and minimum height is two stories. The third story and above must be set back to reduce the perception of the scale of the building. No lot area minimum is proposed. Front and side yard setbacks adjacent to a street (build -to zone) would have a maximum setback in addition to a minimum setback. Minimum side and rear yard setbacks are smaller than traditional; this allows for higher density development that is more walkable. The minimum percentage of the building that needs to be in the build -to zone is 75%. Street articulation means that every 40' there is some sort of projected or recessed element. This contributes to the walkability of the area. Street facade transparency only applies to the first level; non -tinted, clear windows are required for the ground floor. The lowest level must have 60' transparency for mixed use or 20% for residential uses. Other massing standards include no parking between the building and the street; a public entrance is required for building facades facing public streets, parks or plazas; and the maximum distance between entrances would be 70'. Councilmember Junker noted that allowing 55' high buildings east of Highway 5, past Greeley Street, caught his attention. He also asked what percentage of the third and higher stories must be stepped back. Mr. Turnblad replied that the step -back from the front would be applied to any portion of the building abutting a public street, park, or other public space. Currently the BP-C has a maximum height of 40' whereas the CA District does not have a height limitation. The idea is that the first floor would be commercial with the upper stories being residential. Councilmember Weidner asked about the height allowance and questioned where the building occupants will park; and Mr. Turnblad replied the goal is to make it attractive and feasible to put housing above commercial. Maybe it could be limited to three stories but he is not sure that two residential stories above commercial would be economically feasible. With a shorter building, parking must go underground which drives up the development cost. Councilmember Weidner pointed out that three stories with underground parking was able to be achieved downtown. If commercial use is accommodated, then there would need to be surface level parking as well. City Planner Wittman noted that the 55' height was just a carryover from the HMU as a base point. She asked if the Council feels that is too tall. Councilmember Junker stated his initial reaction is that it is too tall, but is open to discussion. Mr. Turnblad added that the City is not requiring that the second story is residential, it is an encouragement. Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting November 30, 2020 Mayor Kozlowski asked how much of the proposed area is open for redevelopment; and Mr. Turnblad answered that over time, everything out there will redevelop. The City would encourage properties to be developed in this fashion. Commissioner Hansen noted it sounds like there is opposition to going to five stories. As busy as Highway 36 is getting, having a sound buffer (from the extra height) would be beneficial. Councilmember Junker noted that there are no five story buildings off of Highway 36. He added that first floor commercial with residential above creates noise and inconvenience for residential occupants; this has been challenging in this type of development although it has become popular. Councilmember Weidner agreed, adding that this is not a walkable area in the first place. There is almost no pedestrian traffic there now. Commissioner Steinwall asked would Highway 36 be considered a street and require step backs; and Mr. Turnblad answered the step back would be applied from the frontage road so there would be articulation along the highway. Commissioner Steinwall noted if the minimums were only 5' on either side, that could result in big buildings with only 10' between them. She inquired if zero lot line construction should be considered; and Mr. Turnblad replied that is certainly a possibility. Mayor Kozlowski stated he would not want to require a second story in this district as it could be an obstacle to redevelopment of some sites that need to be redeveloped soon. If the City allows a second story but does not require it, does that deter some types of development that do not want to be next to big box development; and Mr. Turnblad answered that requiring a second story helps support mixed use and forces new development patterns. Ms. Wittman reminded the Council that the 2040 Comp Plan calls for this area to have greater housing density. Mayor Kozlowski recalled discussion that the City was mostly built out and the Met Council was not looking to increase density very much in Stillwater. Mr. Turnblad responded that the Met Council has density and affordable housing requirements for the metro area as a whole. Stillwater has been assigned a certain number of affordable housing units that it is expected to meet by 2030 in order to be eligible for certain funding revenue streams. This is one opportunity for adding housing units within a commercial area. Mayor Kozlowski voiced concern that requiring a second story could have an adverse effect on redevelopment, especially for properties that are already underutilized, for example the Herbergers site. He would like to see case studies of other communities that have implemented these requirements and see what kind of developments they have attracted. Councilmember Polehna stated he feels that allowing 55' heights ruins the character of the entrance of Stillwater and is not very appealing. Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting November 30, 2020 Chairman Lauer remarked that part of the problem is that if you put one 55' tall building there now, and everything else does not get redeveloped for a long time, it will look out of character. Commissioner Hansen agreed that this district would be a great place to hide some density. He referred to Woodbury's Citywalk, which is likely close to 55' tall. He feels that 55' heights along Highway 36 is appropriate. Commissioner Kocon told how the addition of a senior high-rise among one to two story buildings along Central Avenue in NE Minneapolis worked well. If the high density residential does not go in this area, he questioned where it would go in Stillwater. Councilmember Junker noted that the current Lakeview Hospital site will be redeveloped in the future, when the hospital moves. This could be a site for multi -family housing. Commissioner Dybvig questioned what the City wants this area to look like in 20 years. The City needs to give signals to developers about its vision. The area is not going to be terribly walkable at first, but once there is more residential mixed in, it will become more walkable. Business models are changing, including the hotel industry and the big box stores, so there is a lot of potential for redevelopment of this area. Councilmember Weidner stated that it seems like allowing five stories throughout the entire area would be out of character. Why stop at five stories, why not give the option of 10 stories? Commissioner Kocon commented that five stories is a compromise; there are areas that could be redeveloped in the short term. Certain business models are failing and changing. Commissioner Steinwall indicated that when talking about proscriptive development and concerns for minimums, the City may not want to require multi -use within multi -family. Could it be allowed, but not required? Mixing commercial with residential may be a fad that may pass, and she would worry about locking into the zoning code something that would not be as appealing in the future. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that the zoning requires mixed use. The ground level has to be 66% non-residential. This does not preclude ground level residential, but it cannot be 100% residential. Commissioner Hansen stated he would not want to see a lot of apartment complexes along Highway 36. He is in favor of mixed use, because this area is the primary commercial/retail space in town. If the City allows five or 10 stories, developers are going to request five or 10 stories; development always maximizes the allowable space. Councilmember Weidner agreed that developers will always say they cannot do it in five stories - they will ask for six stories. Mayor Kozlowski commented that four stories is plenty; 55' seems too high in this location. Ms. Wittman summarized the conversation thus far: along Highway 36, the group is not opposed to multi -use, but there is some concern about requiring it in upper stories; and higher heights are more appropriate along Highway 36 than further back. Staff will review other communities' requirements and what the development patterns look like. Page 4of6 City Council Meeting November 30, 2020 Mr. Turnblad went on to review the proposed Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning District. The 2040 Comp Plan calls for preservation of historic commercial properties scattered throughout the City, such as neighborhood grocery stores. These are presently legal nonconforming uses. The NC District would create a new use column in the zoning table to allow the uses that are there. The most inclusive district is CMU, which allows almost everything, whereas NC would be least inclusive and the most restrictive; its goal is to provide services for the neighborhoods that surround it. This would legitimize existing uses. Massing standards require buildings close to the street with parking, if available, in the rear or side with screening. Front doors would be near the sidewalk and any outdoor commercial activities would cease by 10 p.m. It has not been determined whether design review should be required. Ms. Wittman added that this district is not necessarily about specific businesses but, rather, preservation of pocket commercial areas, for example, allowing a commercial business in a neighborhood to be rebuilt if it burns down. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that another option would be to rezone these areas to general commercial, but that is a very liberal zoning district and staff does not want to open the door to a wide spectrum of commercial activity. Commissioner Steinwall asked if all of these potentially neighborhood commercial areas are in the historic districts, except perhaps the one by Owens Street; and Ms. Wittman answered that they are in the Neighborhood Conservation District. In that district, at present only residential construction is reviewed. Commissioner Hansen asked if the goal is to legitimize existing commercial in residential areas, as opposed to allowing for new commercial areas to pop up; and Mr. Turnblad replied that the point is if the currently non -conforming use ceases or the building burns down, it allows them to be reused. Ms. Wittman stated it would legitimize historically commercial buildings. She added that the area of Fourth & Churchill is not intended to be downzoned. Commissioner Hansen acknowledged it is important to have neighborhood shops and to allow existing buildings to rebuild as they are now, if for example the building burns down. Commissioner Steinwall remarked that a funeral parlor use as stated in the use table may not be appropriate for this district. Mr. Turnblad acknowledged this is the time to discuss possible uses that should be taken off that may not feel right in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Hansen stated he would like to see more uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit, for instance neighborhood drugstores. Councilmember Junker stated he supports the concept of legitimizing these businesses with their own zone, for instance businesses like Just for Me, Nelsons, and Lens. Councilmember Collins agreed. Commissioner Steinwall asked about the automotive facility at Owens and Mulberry; and Mr. Turnblad replied that is already zoned commercial; staff is not suggesting downzoning it. Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting November 30, 2020 Commissioner Steinwall suggested that design review should encourage a design that is consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Dybvig agreed that design review for neighborhood commercial is appropriate. Ms. Wittman stated that there are currently no design review standards for commercial uses in residential areas. This would require discussion of what is appropriate for review: just signage, signage plus materials, a threshold of a certain percentage being demolished, etc. Commissioner Hansen remarked that commercial spaces should not be made to look like a residential area. He likes the little commercial nodes through the City. Mr. Turnblad thanked the Council and the Commission for their direction. Another workshop will be scheduled in the future. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. �j • ATTE Beth Wolf, City Clerk' Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Chris Lauer, Chairman Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 Planning Report MEMO DATE: January 20, 2021 CASE NO.: 2020-54 MEETING DATES: October 20, 2021 LANDOWNER: Jon and Ann Whitcomb Robert G. and Mary K. Lohmer Trust DEVELOPER: Jon Whitcomb of Browns Creek West LLC REQUEST: Adopting written statement of reasons for denial LOCATION: 12950 75th Street North REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION At the Commission's last regularly -scheduled meeting the Commission considered a request for a 20' variance to the 100' 75t'' Street North right-of-way setback for one lot to be located in the future White Pine Ridge residential subdivision. In a 6-0 vote, the Commission denied the variance on the basis the applicant had nto established practical difficulty and that the request was purely economic. Pursuant to State law, the Commission must adopt a written statement of reasons for the denial. SPECIFIC REOUEST Adopt written statement of reasons for denial of the 75th Street North right-of-way setback variance requested as part of the future White Pine Ridge development. RECOMJ]VIENDATION City staff recommends adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-01. cc Jon and Ann Whitcomb Bob and Mary Lohmer RESOLUTION NO. CPC 2021-01 CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DENIAL PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, § 15.99, SUBD. 2, FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION TO FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12950 75TH STREET NORTH CPC CASE NO. 2020-54 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a request from the Applicant Jon and Ann Whitcomb a 20' variance to the 100' right-of-way setback from 75th Street right-of- way to allow for the future construction of a home at 12950 75th Street North (PID 3003020140012), legally described as follows: The south 1373.77 feet of the East Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 30, Range 20, Washington County, Minnesota; excepting therefrom the north 58.61 feet of the west 268.95 feet of the south 1373.77 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the west 80.00 feet of the south 720.00 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the east 245.00 feet thereof; and also excepting therefrom all that part which lies southerly of "line 3" as described as follows: "Line 3" is 75.00 feet northerly of and parallel with the following described centerline: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 01°04'48" West, assumed bearing, along the north -south quarter line of said Section 30 a distance of 38.03 feet to the beginning of said centerline; thence North 81°50'36" East, a distance of 1,395.68 feet; thence Easterly a distance of 1,279.97 feet along a tangential curve concave to the South, having a radius of 5,729.58 feet and a central angle of 12°47'59" and a chord bearing of North 88°14'36" East to a point on the East line of said Section 30, said point being 262.54 feet Northerly of the east quarter corner of said Section 30, and said centerline terminating at said point WHEREAS, City Code Section 31-302 allows for the construction of new structures to be setback 100' from the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had a future structure to be located 80' from the right- of-way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicants' Application at their regular meeting on November 19, 2020; and WHEREAS, at the November 19, 2020, Planning Commission meeting, a motion was made by Chair Lauer and seconded by Commissioner Dyvbig to deny the right-of- way setback variance request. The Commission voted 6 in favor, with none opposing, and the motion passed; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2(c), provides that "[i]f a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for the denial. If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written statement of the reasons for denial stated on the record at the November 19, 2020, regular Planning Commission meeting by Commissioners voting to deny the 20' right-of-way setback variance: 1. The requested Variance was not consistent with all the standards for granting a Variance as described in Section 31-208. More specifically, the Planning Commission members voting against the requested Variance stated on the record at the November 19, 2020, regular Planning Commission meeting that the request was not justified for the following reasons: a. The owner had not provided evidence practical difficulty had been established; and b. The reason for the request was solely economic. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater this 27th day of January, 2021. Chris Lauer, Chair Attest: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE NO.: 2020-62 REPORT DATE: January 12, 2021 MEETING DATE: January 27, 2021 APPLICANT: Dale Muhlenpoh LANDOWNER: Dale Muhlenpoh REQUEST: Variance to the steep slope setback to allow for the installation of a new septic system (drain field and tanks) LOCATION: 2220 Orwell Ct ZONING: RA, Single -Family Residential REPORT BY: Graham Tait, City Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Mr. Muhlenpoh owns the property at 2220 Orwell court, and is looking to construct a new house and septic system. The spetic system tanks and drainfield are proposed to be located in the rear of the property, on top of a steep slope. This would require a variance because the drainfield will be situated within the St. Croix River Overlay's 30' steep slope setbacks. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 30' variance to City Code Section 31-521. Subd. 1. (d). to allow a structure to be setback less than one (1) foot from steep slopes of over 24 percent grade, whereas the minimum steep slope setback is 30 feet. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. CPC Case 2020-62 Page 2 of 4 The property is zoned RA, One -Family Residential; all uses being proposed are permitted in this zoning district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The steep slope setback is designed to protect personal property, minimizing the risks associated with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep or unstable slopes. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on any steep slope. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? City Code requires that houses hook up to water and sewer when available. The location of this property does not make it eligible to hookup since municipal sewer is unavailable. Therefore a septic system must be installed for this property to be used. This will not be out of harmony with the zoning code because it will have no negative impacts on the integrity of the slope. Joe Sanders, from Washington County Department of Public Health & Environment, put forth that "once the system is fully installed and the required vegetation [has] re-established over the disturbed soils, it should be just as stable as before." Furthermore, this project only requires a few trees to be cut down and the system will be completely subgrade, which will not result in any major visual impacts to the bluffs. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? No, it would not be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A single-family property utilizing a septic system for disposal is reasonable in the RA zoning district when community sewer services are unavailable. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? Around 75% of this property is made up of steep slopes and there is only a relatively narrow area behind the house that has a grade less than 24 percent. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. In 1975, the house was given a variance to be located 18' away from the ravine on the south side of the house. There are also steep slopes on the east side of the house as well. The applicant CPC Case 2020-62 Page 3 of 4 chose to locate the septic system on the east side of the house where the distance between the house and the steep slopes is the greatest. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If granted, this variance would not have negatives impacts to the surrounding locality. The septic field will be fully subgrade, and will have no aesthetic impacts on the locality. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire is for the variance does not reflect economic considerations. The applicant is simply seeking to install a septic system that works with the existing contours. 4. This variance is not in conflict with any engineering, fire or building requirements or codes. Washington County Department of Public Health & Environment has reviewed this application. The County's analysis explained that, due to the property's steep slopes, limited usable area, and rocky soils the most common kind of septic system (Type I), cannot be built, and instead a type III septic system must be installed. The County has stated the proposed installation appears to be compliant with installation code requirements. In conclusion, the County has no issues with the proposed septic system. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 62, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Any trees over six inches in diameter when measured at a point 54 inches above ground level, must be replaced on the property at a 1:1 ratio. 3. Natural vegetation must be restored as soon as feasible, after the project is completed, in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. 4. Building permit plans will need to be approved by applicable engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. 5. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the requested variance. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table the request for additional information. CPC Case 2020-62 Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed septic system project meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties have been established, such as the property being roughly 75% made up of steep slopes. Furthermore, staff puts forth that this variance would not negatively impact the visual character of the bluffs or neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2020-62 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Site Plans (three pages) Topographic Map Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions' Report cc: Dale Muhlenpoh To : Stillwater Planning Department Re : Septic Variance for 2220 Orwell Court Stillwater, MN From : Dale Muhlenpoh ( current owner ) I am requesting a variance to install a new / upgraded septic system at 2220 Orwell Court. Because of the size, configuration, slopes and bluff designation on the property, there is really only one location for a new system and drainfield. This location will have a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. The neighboring property at 2200 Orwell has its drainfield installed on essentially the same extension of the grade to the north of the proposed new system. The area proposed is the only area of sufficient size that will accommodate a drainfield and tanks for the existing home , a new home, or the existing home with additions. There will be some existing trees that need to be removed for this system, but it will not significantly affect the essential character of the surrounding properties and will minimally, if at all , change the views from the river to the property. I am aware after discussions with Abbi, that any structural additions will require variances because of the lot size, slopes and current setback requirements that were not in place when this area was platted.. I believe in fact that the area was platted after the fact , when several lots had already been sold and developed. I have attached a partial copy of the septic design, with the designers thoughts on the location as well. Thank you for your consideration. Dale Muhlenpoh 12/9/2020 J EXISTING IMPROVEMENT AREAS: HOUSE - 2,289 (IN SQUARE FEET/ DECK - 519 DRIVEWAY - 1,441 CONCRETE.173 WALL/PLANTERS - 356 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS - 4.770 SOFT. Z.; i 1 F►OW2 AA iaE SEPTIC! WELL LEGEND WELL LOCATION AS SHOWN ON SKETCH PROVIDED BY DALE MUHLENIOH SOIL BORING AND SEPTIC LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY TEN THIRTY ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, DATED MAY 27T11, 2020, RM1,_ .N Bva Gopher State One Call 1 C18 1is.45400001 ® aERRK MFTFR ▪ ELECER10 TRANSFORMER - CUT WIRE -0- FOVEA POLE e TUEPNOHEFTINSFAL 5AMTARY 0Unan p WATER WEIL gMSMq FOUND CAST KOH VONUMENT O roMeDF..MiRIFMt KW. O SET IRON RYE KARRED WDH MN LICENSE NO. Sons ® GM TVREwsTAL 1///////////,', BURP. UNE 7 Nlu.ar.HANA,me U.C&.I Nara, 0,0190R0190 TELEPHONE >'- OYEAI WO NUM LINOLAGROUND CAS -fplQ �[cIaELS 60 r r rf I-1®USE DETAIL— / AWE ;_ ..r LEGAL DESCRIPTION: MUI WAMEwGTON COMM TAR MCOMS.1rE TOLE TIOT[ 1E.Den Lot 10, Block I, PINTH555E ACRES, a1CONNp sa she recorded plat theleal, Wnhln5ton County, Mlnn. ma_ TITLE NOTES: (NO TITLE WORK WAS IDIOT DEDTHAT FOR TITLE E SURVEY. cIoT OR TT OR 5 NOME.Aua0. ES aV THATg975 LIMIAlME5A' 50 V01 OPINION A COULDITITL, COMMITMENT IS RECEIVED lMW1T THR SURVEY ONCEA CURRENT TITLE COMMRMEM l5 RECEIVED.) I, ONAMAGE AND UTILITY FASLWNFS AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD PLAT. 2. EOTENTML LACK OF ACCESS FROM OIWELI. CT. N. VIA COMMON DRIVEWAYS. SURVEY NOTES: I . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983. BEARING ARE DIFFERENT THAN SHOWN ON THE RECORDED RAT. ALL INTERIOR ANGLES MATCH THE RECORDED PLAT ANGLES. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN. 3. CONTOURS SHOWN Ni ROAR DATA OW/NNW FROM THROWN M14TOP0 WE855E NOT FEUD VERIFIED. SURLEMEMAL FIELDCOLLEC110 DATA AROUND THE HOUSE AREA ON 6-7-20 MERGED INTO RDAR CONTOURS. AREA SDTAI AREA AS SNOW. - 18,165 iI Y 1731,11RCA93 Nattiestz- I I. jil r 1 I r / / II ! I CONTACT. Dale Mu Minn.') 612-B40-9659 COUNTY/CTTY: w.4S1-i I Nc-rohe = LINTY C ETY A=0F 5TI LLWAT'EI REVISIONS: DATh REVa9021 5-15-20 ISSUED 8-10-20 PROPOSED HOUSE CERTIFICATION: ORWELL CT. N. PID#2103020110014 5011e /200 1970 Norlhweslern Are. SUIMa.er, MN 55082 MIN 451.LPSA985 e.neryse6-e9 .An CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. RILE NOMN 1840(8CT NO, svIrram s 2220615 SITE PLAN Dare CERTIFICATION: IN. wica;% t hereby certify dud this plan was prtortori me, or under nay direct supervis .4 I am 0 a duly teemed Land Survey\ of Me mate of Minnesota. ae.'"""6"11111861' 11174 6111.‘; S-27"0 nibu: ?S7 PROJECT LOCATION: ORWELL CT. N. PID#21030201 10014 NW:=1:!=leg2A. Suite /200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 danekssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. • FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVZZ615 ZZ20615 SITE PLAN Benchmark -100' Back door footplate Abandon old non compliant tank and drainfieid 2220 Orwell Ct N - Stillwater - 5 Br Septic Design Design By: Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions, SBC Maintenance Access ib B2 B3 1 `zY94 sr°Pe New Tank Information • 1,500 Septic - Inlet - 91.73' • 1,000 Septic - Inlet - 90.73' v • Current Tank Inlet - 97.33 0 150' 0" ► B1 ProPerty tine Trench Summary 12" Deep Trenches on contour 29 feet long each Excavate out to 48" and replace with washed sand CONTOUR LEGEND 10 FOOT INTERVAL CONTOUR �~� ] -- 2 FOOT INTERVAL CONTOUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Contours are provided courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). SURVEY DIVISION The Minnesota DNR makes no represenlelion or wananties, express or implied, with respect 11680 Myamn Road North to the reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of transmission. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 There Is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability, (851) 430-4300 or reliability of this data for any purpose. The user accepts the data 'as Is', and assumes all publIcwodre®co.washIngton.mn,us risks associated with Its use. The Minnesota DNR assumes no responsibility for actual or www.co,washinglon,mn.uarsurveyor consequential damage Incurred es a result of any user's reliance on this data LEGEND DNR PROTECTED WATERS DNR PROTECTED WETLAND DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY NORTH SCALE: 1 inch = 50 feet SC-TlGWNSNIP-RANI INDEX 170300 1603020 1503020 1200302012103020122030201 290302200 2803020 72 03020 COUNTY WPM NAP * . LOCATION OF IRIS MAP SECTION VICINITY MAP 22 I 21 I 12 I *I 1 - NIW *IC 23 24 13 I - �+—E 32 31 42 41 - SNIP 33 I 34 I 43 I 44 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FORMAT (GEDCODEJ teCIOM TO'MISIV WOE CALMER SPECIFIC M EER MEM lima WARM PAPLFi II III II II MI (0001) •lur ROI aoaln 1%.6114 e®efr.mMP10M01 $17.00 THIS DRAWING IS THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION OF LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES. WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES. PROPERTY LINES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL LOCATIONS MAP LAST UPDATED: November 12, 2019 NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE DATE OF CONTOURS: November, 2011 DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: Apt, 2019 TEN THIRTY ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions, SBC 1684 132nd Ave NE Blaine, MN 55448 Regarding Septic Design For Property [Anted At: 2220 Orwell Ct N May 27, 2020 Please find the enclosed design for the replacement septic system for the property located at 2220 Orwell Court North in Stillwater, Minnesota. This design was completed on May 27, 2020 to be in compliance with local and state requirements. An overview of the type III septic design is shown below with more details in the enclosed design documents. • Design flow of 750 gallons per day (gpd) for a five bedroom home receiving the flow by gravity from the house. Current home is a 3 Bedroom home, however the desire is to renovate the current home to 5 bedrooms or tear it down and build a new 5 bedroom home on the existing footprint. • Flow from the home will be collected in a new 1,500 gallon septic tank by gravity, which will then flow into a new 1,000 gallon septic tank in series. o The 1,000 gallon septic tank will have a Polylok 525 effluent filter installed with alarm. • The septic tank effluent will then flow into seven gravity fed trenches in series utilizing drop boxes for distribution. o The soil had up to 50% rock fragments and a soil correction is needed. Trenches will be excavated down to 48 inches. Washed sand will then be brought in and put into the trenches from 48 to 12 inches deep. Distribution Media will be placed at 12 inches below grade. o Trenches should have at least 12 inches of cover over the media and utilize erosion control to prevent topsoil from washing away. o Using a 25% safety factor the volume of mound sand needed is 87.1 cubic yards for the soil correction. • The backup area for the system will be the current location of the drainfield and if it fails it will be excavated out and the same trench configuration and soil correction will be utilized. If there are any questions or concerns with the design please do not hesitate to call or email. Sincerely, Alex Pepin 612-248-4281 alex.pepin@tenthirtyenvironmental.com ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT BY: Planning Commission January 21, 2021 January 27, 2021 Jon and Ann Whitcomb Jon and Ann Whitcomb The Lohmer Trust Variance to the right-of-way setback 12950 7th Street North TR, Traditional Residential Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2020-01 INTRODUCTION Jon and Ann Whitcomb and the Lohmer Trust have obtained preliminary plat approval for White Pine Ridge, a 14-lot single family residential subdivision proposed for 12950 75th Street North. The Planning Commission considered the preliminary plat and associated variances at their November 19, 2020 meeting. At that time, the Commission denied a request for a 25' variance to the 100' setback from CR 12 for one lot within the development. The Commission determined that the request was based on economic concerns and that practical difficulty had not been established by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a new application for consideration of the variance request, providing new practical difficulty narrative. City Code allows for an applicant to resubmit a substantially similar request within one year if the request was denied without prejudice. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 20' variance to the required 100' CR 12/75th Street North right-of- way setback. ANALYSIS The State of Minnesota enables a City to grant variances when they meet the review criteria below. CPC Case 2021-01 Page 2 of 4 1. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The property is zoned TR, Traditional Residential; all uses proposed are permitted in this zoning district. 2. The variance must be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. a. What is the purpose of the regulation for which the variance is being requested? The specific purpose of a 100' setback for structures located west of Northland Avenue is to maintain uniform patterned development along the highway as well as providing sufficient buffer between the future homes and the roadway. b. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Zoning Code? The Zoning Code requires properties west of Northland Avenue to be set back 100' from the right-of-way. Properties to the east of Northland Avenue, directly across its street extension, are permitted to have a 35-75' setback, depending on the property's zoning. So, while the variance is not consistent with the regulation for which the variance is being requested, it is consistent with current development pattern along the highway and future properties that will be located off of the Northland Avenue extension. Additionally, Washington County requires a 75' setback from the county road. The granting of a 20' variance to the City's 100' setback to allow for one home to be placed 80' from the right-of-way would also be consistent with the standards set forth by the County. c. If granted, would the proposed variance be out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan? A trail is proposed for the north side of CR 12 in this location. Allowing for a home to be constructed 80' from the right-of-way would still allow for future installation of a 10' wide trail as well as adequate buffer/setback from the roadway. 3. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the Zoning Code. A practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a "practical difficulty". a. Is the property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner? A property with a single-family residence set back 80' from the right-of-way is reasonable in the TR-Traditional Residential zoning district. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property? As noted by the applicant, the future White Pine Ridge's Lot 1 is at the entrance to this (future) residential neighborhood. It is the only highway -adjacent property west of the CPC Case 2021-01 Page 3 of 4 Northland Avenue extension that is also to the east of the Browns Creek Tributary. This is unique. c. Are the circumstances created by the landowner? These circumstances were not created by the landowner. This is the only location where Northland Avenue can be extended. Northland Avenue is the location where the speed limit changes to 55 miles per hour. The zoning code's requirements for the increased setback was likely due to the speed limit change and (mostly likely) did not take into account the Tributary's location on future development. d. If granted, would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? If this property is set back 80', it will be in keeping with the setbacks of all other properties to the east of the Tributary. e. Have practical difficulties been established independent of economic considerations? The applicant's desire for the variance does not reflect economic considerations as the applicant has demonstrated they can achieve the 14-lot development without the variance. However, under this modified configuration, some of the homes in the future White Pine Ridge will be placed closer together. This would not keep the large lot feel that is consistent with all other properties in White Pine Ridge. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. The variance shall only apply to Lot 1, Block 1, White Pine Ridge. 2. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with CPC Case No. 2020- 01, except as modified by the conditions herein. 3. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. B. Deny the requested variances. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial without prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds practical difficulties have been established and that the proposed 80' setback meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. What the applicant is seeking to do is reasonable (and reasonable alternatives have been considered), there is uniqueness given this is the only property between Northland Avenue and the Tributary, and the essential character of the CPC Case 2021-01 Page 4 of 4 neighborhood will not be altered if the variance is granted. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances for CPC Case No. 2021-01 with all of the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Preliminary Plat cc: Matt and Jenn Hauer f � 1�1 �T�� /\ 1 / I 1 11 tea' ,- a ''- '{r U w-., i�c- • "` .. "� . ' . , 1 . y y_� -10 (water 1 Ilk � d e �.: '�11M. . l t "'AP-- x" ,, 4'1. c. The Birthplace of Minnesota MI _ •-'' 3295O ST NSTH' - * �► ,ry • Site Location 12950 75th Street e2 Subject Property Map North 3 I�2 12764 ��,,, 7990 7979 —" 12840 7959 7960 3325 7960 m - \ 7959 7930 7880 7879 . F, 940 4 7939 7939 12440 7750 7760 7770 7790 7819 1 •97 7919 7890 7897 12450 = 0 460 920 1 840 12430 '"H MINAR LANE NORTH 7789 7850 7857 Feet 7730 12420 ° 7775 7760 7759 7817 General Site Location 7710 12340 T TTTH STREET NORTH w 7729 A rt gr, • aomilt� �� %' 12380 12421 s 7680 7685 7720 350 71:1-/ II 1 IIIIh erit. � I ..—. nix -i a- \ ,C NY. 12345 NORTH 12377 7660 7625 7610 7699 12950 12960 c 11111 r, / 12363 miNnR AVENUE.7669 7640 7609 7639 � ��It, ��• .v all , ���� �� J% I��41 ���`;' 1 imrllIIPIr �� r■ w rEM . ®.® �.4. A ® 1 7520 _.• 250 ._wICJ Z 1 12360 12490 12530 3AH 2 EE- 1�, �1>L/�/ �;-� �V -i1` �� sTH STREE( NORTH NORTH •�o`11L�� � � JI 1 rll�lrn ■■� ®® �tr� \\ , � �'� 12721 ■ le ilia .y y '' :, I i ®�� . . It 105 =O� 12975 : _�m�11�+r1; •107 :FA_ `` i r 115 - • III y - �( : ■ *4'r— :1JRri k. White Pine Ridge Variance Request The developer of the property is requesting that the commission consider the issue of the setback from Myrtle St on Lot 1. The developer is requesting a 20' variance to total 80' setback from Myrtle vs. the 100' the ordinance suggests. The White Pine Ridge site sits at the intersection of Myrtle and Northland Ave, the Northwest corner of the intersection. The site sits against the tributary overflow creek from the pond directly to the North and the overflow allows for the City storm water to find it's way to the diversion structure and eventually Lake McKusick. The tributary requires a large setback, this property is the ONLY one East of the tributary, which we feel is the natural location for a change in set back if there is one. The White Pine Ridge site has conflicting setbacks, one from the County at 75' and one from the City at 100'. We are asking that a balance between the two setbacks' be created and a 80' setback from the street for the first lot, consistent with other properties in the area. This variance will create a more consistent setback along 75th, at the Maryknoll intersection a 75' setback was used, and to the East of that even less. The variance, if granted will create a balanced pad size within the neighborhood allowing the builder to keep consistent home sizes with the rest of the development. w 00 O N r(D O rD 0 Z -H 0 -n W m z Z_ Z NJ • 01 ro O O (0 rD Z 0 0 0 0 rD O (D rD N saTnu!w SO 0 -h O 0_ rD O rD B. = ro 00 v rD 0 Q v A-) S21fO1NOJ n rD rD = 0) Al 7 eP ut V1 n 0 0 (11 -t n O w 0 w 0 0 rD O rD N' VI (0 m� g ,rt rD n rnD r° 0 O = 5 6 (o fD o.)N 0) to = 0 o_ _, 2 = rD rD CD v, rD O_ 0 071 0 r(D 0 N V) 01 S m rD 7 D.)00 7 La v) w 0 O P.,�z(„ n rD —1 0 =-- O = 0� A.)TI S 0 (0 CO m Op �, ,- - -1 Z N NNi w Z 10 Al Z rD W 7 (0 -O n rD -1 rD .-r 0 rD S VI ,°O=2 N en - S V rD 5 (D O_ V1 0 0 O rD lQ 0 N S C v' P N 7-"- rDn O -, O o_ S. v, rD C N C O ,-r Cr) rD CD rD V, lJ'I N rD V ,- LA 00 -n Al 0 v, rD 0 (n a) ,-, = o P.) O O '- S [1VJIdAl1 SAID z m ° 33V321fS 31321JNOJ NIVW1131VM 'a3dI213A a13Id ION '31ISB3M OdO±NW 21Na 3IH1 WO21d PARCEL AND ON STEEPS SLOPES PER LIDAR DATA OBTAINED (/1 m C m m Dn Z m 0 0—I 001 1 n0 OZ 07I C 0 0> m N 0 m 0 TI -H 2 m s D gon -0 m w r ,•--r NJ 0 ,74 rD O a v, N 01 O 0 0 -h rD v, 0 W w V rD rD 0 -h rD m VI 2 a 0 -h rD m v 2 Al -h -h 7- 0 7- (11 p Fri Al 0 -h rD 0 _ w O w -H 2 m D -< 111 0 m z 0 m 0 Z 0 r m D 01 r 0 3 3 -10 r D D m m D z C 0 N nog <c 0.H � N I1 0 D m D m z 1 r r r r r r 0000000 0 10 * 4. W N 0 II II II II II I I 01 01 w 10 213M3S 1N2101S 3JV321fS SnONIW11119 113M3S A11V1INVS O 01 V1 N N lO pp Lri --♦ 1• • 2 0 0 m SVD ONfON02130N11 3N11 JNI011118 0 Z m A1111111 O V3 H213A0 n D O n m m 3NOHd3131 ONfOND2130Nn JIldO TABU ONfOND2130Nn n z p � z �rn m -< (!) z -I '5) 0 z n rn I I N 01 W p TI • z -H m 0 Al 318VJ ONfOND2130Nn J1211J313 ONfON02130N11 z 01 0 0 m 0 2 m n 0 -n N 3NO 113HdOD 2i3d NMOHS 531111I1f1 GNf10202i3aNf1 m 0) rr O 0) -o 0 = O = rD Dy 01 2 - Z 2 nn OD z n� ON Zm o O (n Z cn 00 ((/1 Z O-1 -n m N n (/1 m C z- r 0 m 00 w co 2 m 000 —1-1-1 00 V 01 11 11 11 N N NJ 01 O V 01 0 w w -P V) V) V) ppp 'r1 m m 1 71 71 3A1VA 2101VJIONI 1SOd D D TI 0 Z TI D n_ Z n NJ 000 —1-1-1 v1 w 11 11 11 N N W NJ V1 N Cr) 00 01 01 01010 01 01 V) ppp TI TI m 2 0 v1 m 0 -n m 0 TI Cr D m N 0 Z_ Z n 0 0 z D z n S>IJ`d813S 03SOdO21d v, w 0 ro _ 0 (0 rD Z 0 O 00 Al 3 0_ r rD w N V 01 O O -h rD 0 -' 0 -h 0 0) 0) rD rr rD -h 0 S rD w = (o 0) 0 (0 rD 0 S N 0 _ O rD rD 0 -h Al 0' w 0 w :91ON A3A If1S 0 rD v1 S rD 0 rD rD rD 0 3 (0 n O 0) r-r N 0 _ (DD 0 rD 0 -h 00 —1-1 11 11 N -P 01 N 00 W 01 01 01 pp TI 1 1 D 0 -H O z D r m N 0 m Z D r 0 01 n A.) rD n - v, X 0 S 0 = N X 0..< O n - _ rD(o �S r-r = rD = W O rD V S - 0 V m 3 fDD r-r X O S , r�r 3 0 0.)— = S rr (0 rD 00 — �-r O -0 O - ro S (0 3 -h n' O ,rt 0 —' rDr-r — S S rD (roi N m O (11 0 S = C K 111 N.)= 0 0 (0 0 -,00 rD ' (0 -h rD ,-r ,••r 0 W ' r-' S S AL) rD rD rD 0- O r* n Q1 NJ N 00 rDrD 111 X -1-1 ro(/'0 O -0r.m. (0 O E. 0 n — rr 0 O - O. r* S 3 N S rD (0 v, W N O O -h _ O = 0 S V v, rD W _S rD V 23 N W rD O NJ fir° O SO O rD (0 O NJ 1' o S v, ¢1 rD O v' rD 0 (O w 0 O = Q W N z z cn w m m v1 v) rn D Z oo0 01 Cr) n m D m m z TI r m 0 D 01 0 0 C m Z 0 0 m 0 r 0 D r z 0 n 01 m n -H -H 0 0 D 0 D Lc) V) 2 0 z D D D • r m D • = v3I`d -lv101 w O w (O 01 N p m '9598 L9 2i38Wf1N 1N31Af1JOa O 01 'd`dW DNINOZ (gwo3T!LIM)- L 13J2Pdd SV a31Id SINVN3AOJ 3A11J3102id dO NOLLV IV1J3a D'�1 nc xi w n m cn -I-0 70o D -0 m MIN MI <n Dc m Z m n0 �z m 0D D r 000 0 0 G ocl( T* 0 N3131N 2131VM NIV210 IN1101S NISVB HJIVJ 31OHNVIN A21V11NVS 1fONV31J A21V11NVS 1V1S303d 3NOHd3131 31OHNVIN 3NOHd3131 213131NSVJ 006410U 31OHNVIN 2131VM 113M 2131VM dO1S BN1J NOIIJ3NNOJ '1d30 3N1J 31OHNVW 1A1NO1S NOIIJ3S ON3 0321V1d 31OHNVIN SVJ 310d 213MOd 33111 S1101101330 310d 1H011 33211 S11021331NOJ 213WN03SNV211 J11113313 1V1S303d J1111J313 1VNDIS JI33V211 NOIldI JJS34 1VD31 S31ON 31111 :vlva 1N3WdO13A34 IV 0 z n z m D 0 z EC, 113131N JI 1J313 NOLLVA313 10dS 31OHNVIN JI211J313 JNI2108 110S 213NOI110NOJ 211V 31OHNVIN NMOMIN 1 9 O 03 T 0 O • 1VIS303d Al 318VJ NJIS JI33V211 00 N O D 0 3A1VA 2131VM m m z 0 .0 VI W W o H N o W W I O O rvH (AO 0 0 H 0 0 0 o Z W N NOI1VJ01 1J3fO2Id L / 0u-0 q00 W ND 103 I4 II Y 89e 70.9 noon e4» / S89°27'14 ' 268.96 237.16 SIDE YARD LINE r 228.80 mL m' 248.11 HOT TUB RESTRI C 1f' NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON ---- COUNTY HIGHWAY PER WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 344751 n z n o � 74 0_ '< (0 0 0_ sa7 N3• — o i N N <_� fp00 03 7100 CL o ^ S p ¢, S Q s trt O $, "3 LO N 0 1Vld A21VNIWI132Jd ► . TH LI OF THE SOUTH 1373.77 FEET e THE EI/2 OF THE EI/2 OF HE NE 1/4 OF SE-C. 30, T30R20 889°27' 14"E j 153.34 REAR YARD LINE 119.53 =13.1 1 1 32. 6 UE RST-RICTED ACCE /' l " l f —1 l I—( /— — /— — / /1 / 1 / /— / / r —, oX /m m r—J') 0 m 0 Z 0 0 0 z 0 2 :,kJIJ/A1Nf1OJ 74 NJ p CT) m O �O V —♦ _� D Z 0 m 0 m0 r D Z O D m mn(n D m Z O m 0 Z 0m 0 NW CORNER - FEET OF THE THE EI/2 OF 1/4 OF- SEC. 910 LO L# 'aAV uaaTsaML JON 0S6 L 01 IV 00 W 00 00 n 0*Wv1W 2 0 CO Z mHZrm�1C1 7v20H� DO m Z Z 0 m v)> '- -H oo(m/1m2 z O D _ OZO0H n co 2 = m r D m o Z z Z n ( 0 1J1 D H m m Z M00 c _ Z r Z Z m to v7 I O — — OF THE EAST 245.00 SOUTH 1373.77 FEET OF THE EI/2 OF- THE NE 30, T30, R20 Vl W Ul 01 0 0 01 0 rD O CD rr rD Q m S v1 r* n �* 0 nco3 00c 3 rD rD' 70 rD rD :13V1 N O J rt Ln (11 0 :91141 SV NMOHS 3dV S1N31N3SV3 Aina l QNV 3 JVNIVdC1 O3SOdO21d i11was The Birthplace of Minnesota ATTENTION All City of Stillwater Boards and Commission members are invited to attend a training on Thursday, January 28, 2021 6 PM online using Zoom (details below) Presenter: Kori Land, City Attorney DETAILS: Time: 6PM — 7 PM 7 PM — 9 PM Attendees: All Boards & Commissions Heritage Preservation Commission & Planning Commission Topics: Conduct of Meetings Conflicts of Interest Data Practices Act/Social Media Municipal Planning/Zoning Public Hearings ZOOM: To participate, go online to www.zoomgov.com/join or call 1-646-828-7666. Enter the following when prompted: Meeting ID number: 161 553 4600 Passcode: 380430 Please email questions to Beth Wolf, City Clerk at bwolf@ci.stillwater.mn.us 216 4th Street North, Stillwater Minnesota — 651-430-8800 — www.ci.stillwater.mn.us