Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-28 CPC MIN.ter. taI IIN TVF I.atI 6! NI%IIi1f Ii PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 28, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lauer called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Lauer, Commissioners Dybvig, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall, Councilmember Collins Absent: Commissioner Hansen Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval orminutes or Se tember 23 2020 re ular meetin Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2020 meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Kocon abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Lauer announced that Case No. 2020-50, Variances associated with the construction of an attached garage and porch at 805 3rd Street North (mis-noticed for 805 3rd Street South in error), and Case No. 2020-54, Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat and associated Variances for White Pine Ridge, a proposed subdivision to be located at 12950 75th Street North, are being tabled to the November 19, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Case No. 2020-47: Consideration of a Variance related to the construction of an addition onto an existin detached garage on the property located at 902 6th Street South in the RB District. Sean and CIoda h McAfee property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the application. The property owners are proposing to add a 16' X 24' addition onto the south side of the existing 440 square foot detached garage. The addition itself conforms to City Code, however the existing building, to which it is being added onto, is legal nonconforming because it lies within the property line setbacks. The applicant is requesting: 1) a variance to allow a detached garage to be 28 feet from the exterior sideyard setback (30 feet required); and 2) a variance to allow a detached garage to be less than a foot from the rear yard setback (three feet required). Staff finds the proposed garage addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and does not conflict with the intentions of the Zoning Code for this district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances with four conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-47, Variances related to the construction of an addition onto an existing detached garage at 902 6th Street South, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2020-48: Consideration of Variances to the side yard setbacks for an existing 4-unit town home on the property located at 1167 Parkwood Lane, in the TH district. Long Lake Villa. Limited Partnership, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that townhouse complex at 1167 Parkwood Lane is divided among three separate buildings. This property got approval for a Special Use Permit (Case No. 2017-69) to locate a seven unit (two building) townhouse complex on this lot. The property owner got permission from the City Council to move two structures from Oak Park Heights into Stillwater and to build a third structure. During the building moving process, the northerly 3-unit building was set down backward from what was approved. The project managers did not realize that the building was rotated 180' from the approved plan until the City pointed it out and the building was fully occupied. The as -built certificate of survey determined the structure was over the setbacks. When originally submitted to the City, the building design had been inverted. Adjacent property owners reached out to the City to express concern that they believed the building was not in conformance with the requirements and the site plan. Because there are not licensed surveyors on City staff, the engineering department did a site visit and determined they were in conformance, and the City allowed them to drop the building in that location. The direction the building was placed puts the front (northern) corners a few feet into each interior side lot. The applicant is requesting: 1) a variance to allow a townhouse to be set back 20' from the from the interior side yard property line on the northeast corner of the property (25' feet required); and 2) a variance to allow a townhouse to be set back 22' from the interior side yard property line on the northwest corner of the property (25' feet required). Ms. Wittman went on to explain that staff finds the proposed addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. While staff does not support using variances to legitimize mistakes made during construction, this circumstance is different. Because the project included the moving of a large building which was inverted 1800, it was a mistake that resulted in an encroachment. In these circumstances, staff feels that a variance would be warranted, but would strongly advise addressing the runoff issues that have been further exacerbated by this mistake. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances with four conditions. Ms. Wittman stated that one proposed condition is that a new stormwater management plan be submitted and implemented within six months of approval. Additionally the City still holds some escrow funds for grading, so a fifth condition could require that these funds not be released until the stormwater management plan is implemented. Chairman Lauer asked, what is the responsibility of the City? Ms. Wittman replied that the night that the buildings were placed, staff was not on site. City staff looked at markers to determine they were accurate and in line. The building was not going straight in, but was put in with the long end in a tight space. There is no guarantee that the mover could not have hit one of the stakes - there is room for error in a circumstance like this. Commissioner Kocon asked, wasn't there a foundation waiting for the building to be set on it, which was inspected by the City? Ms. Wittman said that is a good point. She has not gone through the entire inspection record to know all the inspections that occurred. It is correct that the foundation should have been in conformance. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Michael Hughes, 1172 Parkwood Lane, said it was correct that there was a foundation in place that perfectly lined up with the building that was installed. The problem was with the foundation that was Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 staked out and poured. He brought this to the attention of Mr. Nolde and the City. It was not the case that people were caught by surprise without notice. Mr. Hughes watched the property quite closely and it seemed that a lot of the commitments have not been adhered to. He has had tremendous runoff from this project that he had not had before. It eroded the topsoil the entire length of his building. Marty Morse, 1172 Parkwood Lane, said she and her husband Michael Hughes originally supported this development on the vacant lots, but they are concerned that they still don't have the data to know what the encroachment is. She understands that City employee Byron had collected data on the property line and discovered it was inaccurate so he discarded it. Ms. Morse was given a copy by Lauren with property line distances marked, which appeared inaccurate. She and Mr. Hughes expressed their concerns to Mr. Nolde on May 6, 2018 but did not hear back from him. Mr. Hughes wrote to Mr. Nolde and said it didn't seem the same as what was shown to them on site. By May 10 there was a foundation, bringing another opportunity to check to see that the foundation was correct. On June 6 the first of the units was moved onto the site during daylight. She voiced concern about what affect the issue may have on their ability to develop their property in the future. She is also concerned about erosion and discharge issues. Mr. Nolde has placed large hoses going out to water basins. She is concerned about the expiration of Brown's Creek Watershed District approval of the project in 2019. She and her husband have had to reposition private improvements. There also was confusion in that this was submitted for a four unit townhome and it was meant to be a three unit townhome. They hope it is limited to three units. Commissioner Kocon commented that the Hughes/Morse issues are valid. He asked what solution works for them. Ms. Morse replied that erosion control is big issue and she would be happy if that is addressed. She does not want to be impacted in the future by consenting to this variance if it prevents her from perhaps splitting their very large lot in the future and developing the eastern portion. Mr. Hughes voiced concerned about whether consenting to the variance would remove financial remedies to him. He suggested some of the landscaping escrow funds be used to restore the lawn. Ms. Wittman stated that the development on 1167 Parkwood is not going to impact future development of the Hughes/Morse property. For the record, the developer submitted an as -built survey signed by a surveyor which is a legal document created by a certified professional. Any surveying work that City staff does is not certified because there is not a certified surveyor on staff. The Commission could require a sixth condition that a Certificate of Survey by a registered land surveyor be submitted before the variance takes effect. That would confirm the property lines that Ms. Morse is concerned about. Commissioner Steinwall asked, since the City still holds escrow, what else needs to be finished? Ms. Wittman answered that she is not aware of anything in terms of approvals by the City. All occupancies have been obtained and the building code requirements have been met. This variance is the final thing Mr. Nolde needs to complete before the project is done. He has completed the grading per the grading plan. The City was inadvertently still holding escrow funds. One escrow amount was released, only to find out from Mr. Nolde there were two other escrow accounts. The City released the escrows that staff knew of at the time, but inadvertently retained additional escrow funds. Commissioner Meyhoff asked, could a new water management plan affect the setbacks of adjacent property? Ms. Wittman replied the City doesn't allow a development to push water onto adjacent property so Mr. Nolde will have to address water runoff on his own property. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Mr. Nolde remarked this is the first he knew of any erosion problem on the neighbor's yard. He had understood that the City agreed with his grading plan and released the escrow. He has no problem with trying to comply with the conditions. If he damaged the neighbor's property he will make it right but it should be between him and the neighbors. Chairman Lauer asked, if there was a foundation waiting for the building when it was put down, how did it end up over the line? Mr. Nolde replied that his surveyor went out and staked, the City approved where the building stakes were, and he has no explanation how the building and the setbacks got moved. He cannot find any explanation for the cause. He had a certified surveyor and registered engineer stake the project. Mr. Hughes asked if the certificate of occupancy is temporary, because he believes it was issued after the expiration of the Brown's Creek permit. He was told that no work should have proceeded after the expiration of that permit. Ms. Morse added that she spoke with Lauren in early September 2020 and he indicated they were temporary occupancy permits. Art Junker, 1164 Parkwood Lane, said considering the latest technology for doing surveys, he doesn't understand why this got to be such a problem knowing that it was brought up early on, before the foundation was made. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon commented that he does not see picking up the building and moving it as a viable alternative. He believes amelioration needs to be done to control the runoff that was created by the improper siting of the building. Brown's Creek Watershed District needs to be brought back into the decision process, which is one of the recommended conditions of approval. He would like the neighbors to be comfortable with the plan for controlling runoff and solving the issues. Commissioner Dybvig recommended adding a condition that reasonable cost for the damage that has been done gets paid for by either the escrow or the developer. The only thing he can think of that is causing the damage is that the building encroached three feet further into the setback and isn't able to handle the water on site. Ms. Wittman said she doesn't disagree, but she doesn't know if the Planning Commission can legally require a development to help solve what is a neighborly issue. She can check with the City attorney. Commissioner Steinwall noted that the developer has already agreed that he is going to make the neighbors whole. She asked about the wording of the proposed condition that the City would hold a portion of the escrow - maybe it should be all of the escrow. Chairman Lauer asked what is the provision for involvement of the Brown's Creek Watershed District? Ms. Wittman answered that Condition 43 could be modified to state that the stormwater management plan shall be submitted to the City and reviewed for comment by Brown's Creek Watershed District. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2020-48, Variances to the side yard setbacks for an existing 3-unit townhome on the property located at 1167 Parkwood Lane, with four staff -recommended conditions, modifying Condition #3 to state that a stormwater management plan addressing the water runoff, infiltration and area erosion adjacent to the western property boundary must be submitted to the Engineering Department within 15 days. The plan Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 shall be reviewed and approved by the City in conjunction with Brown's Creek Watershed District. The approved plan must be fully implemented by March 1, 2021; and adding Condition #5 stating that the City shall not release any grading escrows until the required stormwater management plan has been completed and determined by the City to adequately meet the stormwater management and erosion control requirements; and adding Condition #6 stating that the property owner shall submit an as -built Certificate of Survey prepared and signed by a licensed surveyor which documents the property line and distances from all structures to all adjacent property lines; and adding Condition #7 stating that the neighbors at 1172 Parkwood Lane shall be made whole. All in favor. Case No. 2020-49: Consideration of a Variance to the front yard setback fora garage addition at the property located at 225 Hazel Street West in the RA district. Andy Michels of Michels Homes applicant: and Cary Lund, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants are proposing to build an attached garage with a small exercise room in the rear. The proposed location of the garage extends 22' into the required 30' front yard setback. The property is unique in that it shares a driveway with the neighboring property and is "landlocked" giving the property a very secluded and private feel. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an attached garage to be set back 8' from the front property line, whereas 30 feet is required. Staff finds the proposed shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and therefore staff recommends approval with six conditions. Mr. Lund said the garage is currently too small. He plows the shared driveway for his neighbors. Chairman Lauer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion by Commissioner Meyhoff, seconded by Commissioner Dybvig, to approve Case No. 2020-49, Variance to the front yard setback for a garage addition at the property located at 225 Hazel Street West, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2020-52: Consideration of a Final Planned Unit Development for Central Commons to be located at 5651, 5757 and 5775 Manning Avenue North in the_H_MU district. Mark Lambert, representative. Central Commons LLC, Property Owner. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that Central Commons, LLC, owner of the 35.3- acre property at the southeast quadrant of Manning Avenue and State Highway 36, is developing the property as a mixed use project over several phases. The first phase will be synchronized with the construction of the new grade -separated interchange at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. Site grading for this phase is planned to begin early next year. Within this phase the following building construction is planned: a Hy-Vee store of approximately 95,000 square feet on Lot 3, Block 2; a Hy-Vee convenience store of about 4,000 square feet with fuel sales and drive -through coffee shop on Lot 1, Block 1; and a market rate apartment facility with 200 units on Lot 4, Block 2. The timing of subsequent phases of development is not yet known, but will include the two retail lots north of Hy-Vee and Outlots A and B. The exact uses on the outlots are yet to be determined. The developer is requesting: 1) approval of Final Plat and Development Agreement for Phase 1; and 2) approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phase 1. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the recommended conditions in detail. Staff believes that the conditions of approval for the concept PUD are either fulfilled or in the process of being fulfilled and recommends approval of the Final Plat, Development Agreement and Final PUD for Phase 1 with 19 conditions. Commissioner Steinwall referred to the staff report regarding the proposed 10' height for monument signs in exchange for enhanced landscaping. She asked, what does enhanced landscaping mean? Mark Lambert, 6770 Stillwater Boulevard # 110, developer, said landscaping is not determined yet. Page 5of9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 City Planner Wittman clarified that the first staff report had 19 recommended conditions and the updated report had 17. Mr. Tumblad explained that some of the conditions were already met so there are actually 17 recommended conditions. There were 22 conditions in the resolution that approved the Concept PUD. Those that have been resolved were not brought forward into the final PUD proposal, leaving 17 conditions to attach to the final PUD. Condition # 18 could be added stating that details of all the conditions of approval of the Concept PUD be brought to the City Council for clarification. Mr. Lambert said that discussion with neighbors has continued and he has reached understanding with Washington County on the Linden/Manning interchange, and has addressed concerns about the light plan with the other neighbors, which was submitted today. The landscaping plan on the southeast corner toward Lake Elmo has also been enhanced. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-52, Final Planned Unit Development for Central Commons to be located at 5651, 5757 and 5775 Manning Avenue North, with the 18 conditions recommended by staff (with the understanding that the previous Condition #22 in the original staff report is now Condition # 18), and adding Condition # 19 stating that prior to review and approval by the City Council, an updated landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all monument signage landscaping. All in favor. Case No. 2020-53: Consideration of a Variance to the maximum structural coverage for a shed to be located at 516 2nd Street North in the RB district. Brad and Tiffany Vick, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. The applicants are proposing to build a 12' X 8' (96 square foot) shed in the southwest corner of the property. A shed in this location is allowed by code, however this property is already 482 square feet over the maximum allowed structural lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the lot's structural coverage to be 29.8% (maximum allowed structural coverage is 25%). Staff finds the proposed shed meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. There will be no adverse aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood, nor will stormwater infiltration be impacted. Therefore, staff recommends approval with six conditions. Brad Vick, applicant, said their garage is very small and they need more storage. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to approve Case No. 2020- 53, Variance to the maximum structural coverage for a shed to be located at 516 2nd Street North, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2020-55: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and associated variances for a patio remodel, bathroom addition and trash enclosure building to be located at 127/131 Main Street South in the CBD district. Buettner Real Estate, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that the owners of Leo's Grill and Malt Shop, 127 Main Street South, would like to redevelop their patio dining area off the corner of Water Street South and Chestnut Street East. The proposed design includes the addition of an accessory trash enclosure, an exterior restroom addition, awning/overhang to accommodate for elevated patio dining, and separation of walk-up and dine -in services. The applicant is requesting consideration of. 1) a Conditional Use Permit for a restroom addition and accessory structure; and 2) a variance to the 20' rear yard setback for the construction of a trash enclosure and elevated dining area. Staff finds the proposed improvements to Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 be reasonable and feels they will be constructed in a fashion that will not result in increased damage in the event of flooding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the design with conditions. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commissioner Steinwall voiced concern about where and how materials including grease would be removed in the event of flooding. Corey Buettner, applicant, said the area proposed for the trash enclosure is where the existing trash enclosure is located. The trash containers are on wheels and would be moved to higher ground if that were recommended by public health officials or City engineers in the event of flooding. Commissioner Steinwall asked if they have a place to put all those items in the event of a flood. Mr. Buettner said he has a storage unit in Houlton, WI but would make other accommodations if needed. Jennifer Noden, Seven Edges Design, said the trash enclosure doesn't require anything to be removed. The 55 gallon grease barrels with locked lids are secured to the wall so they will not go anywhere in the event of a flood. The interior is designed so that trash bins may float but they could not get out or flip. If the lids of the trash containers need to be secured that could be done easily. It is being designed so the trash containers do not need to be removed. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Kurt Vickman, owner of 308 East Chestnut, asked for clarification on whether there is going to be a second floor to the enclosure, and about the grease barrels and how they will be secured. Ms. Noden responded that the trash enclosure itself is an independent building. On the north side of the trash enclosure are enclosed steps up to a second level that accommodates seasonal seating. Gloria's To Go is a walk-up, pick-up food service. The seating being lost there is being picked up on the patio. The trash enclosure is a fire -rated building. The grease containers are 55 gallon steel drums with lockable lids. The grease is picked up regularly and replaced with empty barrels. The ordinance is intended to ensure that whatever is accessible to flood waters does not float away. The intent of strapping them to the wall is to secure them so they would not float away and still allow staff and the recycling company to access them. Mr. Buettner added that the grease barrels exist currently. The intent is to replace the 20-year-old wooden shed structure with a brick structure that will look better. Councilmember Collins asked, is it safe to assume that putting up a brick structure will make the barrels more secure than they are now? Mr. Buettner said yes. Mr. Vickman said the renderings don't show how that second story is affixed to the building. Ms. Noden showed a rendering to help Mr. Vickman understand where everything is. She said the seasonal vending area on the rendering is just a placeholder. That area has not been designed yet. Ms. Wittman stated for the record, Leo's has obtained approval to move the Leo's on wheels mobile food vending trailer onto that site, even though it is labeled Gloria's To Go. Mr. Vickman suggested if the seasonal vending is still in the design phase, it needs to be considered as relates to what is being proposed. Ms. Wittman responded that the Planning Commission doesn't review seasonal vending. There is no structure being proposed there. Mr. Vickman asked, how does the mobile food unit get in there? Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Ms. Noden replied when Chestnut Street Plaza is developed there will be no curb. The seasonal vending will be either trailered or craned off the property should they want to move it. They have talked to the City Council about how this will be moved as Chestnut Plaza is developed. Commissioner Kocon said the proposal is an improvement. He reminded the Commission that floods don't occur without time to prepare so there would be time to move things if needed. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve Case No. 2020-55, Conditional Use Permit and associated variances for a patio remodel, bathroom addition and trash enclosure building to be located at 127/131 Main Street South with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2020-56: Consideration of a Variance for a garage addition at 416 Grave Street South in the RA district. Tim Jozelow of St. Croix Carpentry, ap4 icant. Jeff Wright, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that Jeff and Diane Wright wish to expand their existing one stall garage, which is unusable due to the turning radius to enter/exit, into a two stall garage, and also to add more living space to their house. They are proposing to add a 20' x 25' addition to the south end of their house, which will feature a front loaded tuck -under garage on the lower level and a new kitchen / great room on the upper level. This addition will not raise the height of the structure, however the horizontal expansion will encroach into the sideyard setback by three feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an attached garage to be set back seven feet from the side property line, whereas ten feet is required. Staff finds the proposed addition meets the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance. Practical difficulties, such as the extremely poor garage accessibility, have been established. Therefore, staff recommends approval with five conditions. Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing. Roger Kuehn, 403 Grove Street, spoke in support of the application. Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve Case No. 2020-56, Variance for a garage addition at 416 Grove Street South with the five conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. 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 Councilmember Collins, seconded by CommissioneAK taourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m. All in favor. fj �] ATTEST: Page 8 of 9 rmilair Planning Co mission Abbi Wittman, City Planner Page 9 of 9 October 28, 2020