HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-27 PC MIN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 27, 2021
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, Kocon, Meyhoff, Steinwall,
Councilmember Odebrecht (arrived at 7:08)
Absent: None
Staff: City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of November 19, 2020 regular meeting
Commissioner Steinwall suggested the minutes be amended to reflect that the variance being
discussed for Case No. 2020-54, White Pine Ridge, was 20’.
Ms. Wittman noted that the original request was a 25’ variance but after discussion with City
staff, the developer agreed that a 20’ variance might be a more reasonable request.
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of
the November 19, 2020 meeting as amended. All in favor.
Possible approval of minutes of November 30, 2020 Joint City Council and Planning Commission
meeting
Motion by Chairman Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the
November 30, 2020 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5-0-2
with Commissioner Meyhoff and Councilmember Odebrecht abstaining.
Councilmember Odebrecht introduced himself as the Council representative.
Chairman Lauer thanked Councilmember Collins for his service on the Commission and
Councilmember Collins thanked the Commission for their support over the past nine years.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
Resolution CPC 2021-01: Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial CPC Case No.
2020-54
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Meyhoff, to adopt the Consent
Agenda. All in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
Planning Commission January 27, 2021
Page 2 of 6
Chairman Lauer announced this item is being tabled to the February 24 Planning Commission
meeting per the applicant’s request.
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.
Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants would like to construct a new house and septic system.
There is an existing nonconforming septic system on the property, installed in the early 1970s
with no known maintenance. The septic 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 30’ variance
because the drainfield will be situated within the St. Croix River Overlay’s 30’ steep slope
setback. Staff finds the proposed septic system project meets the standards set forth for the
issuance of a variance, and practical difficulty has been established. Therefore, staff
recommends approval with five conditions.
Commissioner Hansen asked if it can be assumed that if the variance is approved, the County
will approve the septic system.
Ms. Wittman stated that Washington County reviewed the project and directed the applicant to
apply to the City for a variance to the steep slope setback. The County agreed this is the only
appropriate location for the system.
Dale Muhlenpoh, applicant, 10884 Thone Road, Woodbury, said he inherited the property from
his mother and she had talked about replacing the septic system a long time ago.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing.
Merrilee Olson-Jones, 2210 Boom Road, downhill from the site, voiced concern about tree
removal, further erosion on her property, and the possibility of liquid coming from the septic
system. She added that the ground is largely limestone which is porous and can break down.
William Dupre, 2202 Boom Road, downhill from the site, questioned whether the goal is to
replace the septic system or to improve the view for the new owner. He asked for an exact
location of the proposed system.
Ms. Wittman stated it is to the east of the existing home and west of the corner property of
Fairy Falls Road and Boom Road, on top of the hill.
Mr. Dupre said, with almost two acres to change the location, why would it not be more west to
the highest point of the property instead of towards the bluff?
Ms. Wittman answered there is no location to put the septic system that is not within the
required setback from the bluff. The design has been proposed by the applicant’s
environmental team and preliminarily reviewed by Washington County. A new system may not
be placed in the location of the old one.
Ms. Olson-Jones reiterated her concern about erosion and tree removal. She worries about
removal of trees for the view, and the impacts on people on the lower part of the hill.
Mr. Muhlenpoh responded that the closest tree to be removed would be about 150 away from
the rear of Ms. Olson-Jones’s property line, so the impact on her property will be minimal.
Mr. Dupre asked how the new system will impact all the downstream wells.
Ms. Wittman conveyed that Washington County indicated that the proposed location conforms
to their setback requirements from wells, so they did not express concern for contamination.
Planning Commission January 27, 2021
Page 3 of 6
The County also stated it will likely be more efficient than the current system. Well test kits are
available to homeowners from the County.
Mr. Dupre pointed out there is a huge ravine that is very often wet. He asked whether this
system will have an impact and whether there are springs located in the area.
Ms. Wittman said those questions will be addressed by Washington County Public Health when
reviewing the septic system. The Commission’s concern tonight is the placement of the system
on the property. Without a variance, the property would never be able to change the septic
system location. Old septic systems fail and leech.
Alyssa Tuttle, 2218 Boom Road, echoed Ms. Olson-Jones’s concern about erosion, which seems
to have gotten worse in the last few years. She suggested all the residents should get together
and come up with a plan to mitigate the erosion. She asked whether there are other septic
systems that close to the bluffline.
Ms. Wittman explained that the City doesn’t issue permits for septic systems. If a new system
conforms to all requirements, the City is only notified after the fact. All the surrounding houses
were developed around the same time so there may be similar requests in the future. The City
appreciates that the owner is taking the initiative to replace the system before it fails.
Regarding erosion, there is a condition of approval that the site needs to be stabilized. Mr.
Muhlenpoh has agreed to develop a plan for tree replanting. He no longer owns the property
but has agreed to replace the septic system for the new owner. There is an escrow to do things
like help stabilize the site. She encouraged the neighbors to meet with the new owner.
Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Steinwall asked what is the City’s role in the permit for the septic system?
Ms. Wittman replied the septic system installation permit is issued through the County. The
City would review any building permit for the house.
Commissioner Steinwall said, regarding the proposed condition that the site be stabilized
following construction, she would encourage stabilization work to be done before excavation.
Ms. Wittman replied that this is a steep slope. Sometimes the City’s experts need to get on site
to determine what needs to be done and where. To say that stabilization must occur
beforehand puts Mr. Muhlenpoh in a situation where he cannot uphold his end of the
agreement to replace the system. This could potentially affect agreements that have already
been made between the current and former owner.
Commissioner Steinwall argued that doesn’t preclude determining what can be done before
excavation at the top of the slope.
Councilmember Odebrecht commented while that may be a hardship for the homeowner, it
should not preclude the Commission from doing the right thing.
Ms. Wittman said it has not been confirmed that the erosion is coming from this property, and
this application cannot be held responsible for the erosion unless it is confirmed.
Commissioner Kocon commented that the first thing to be concerned with is effluent. The new
system will be a better system. Conditions 2 & 3 address runoff adequately. The purview of the
Commission is the variance to the steep slope setback.
Planning Commission January 27, 2021
Page 4 of 6
Commissioner Hansen noted that the platt for this property is very unusual. There is no other
place to put a septic system. Trees will have to be removed no matter what. Practical difficulty
has been established and the Commission should be able to grant the variance as conditioned.
Commissioner Meyhoff said in his experience, part of the permitting process from the County
will include standards for stabilizing soil before and during construction.
Chairman Lauer reminded the Commission that the intent of the conditions is to reduce
environmental impacts. It’s better to have a new system than an old system.
Councilmember Odebrecht asked if the neighbors will be heard at the County level.
Ms. Wittman said she doesn’t believe there is a public forum for replacement of a septic system
at the County level, but she will put the Olson-Jones, Dupre and Tuttle neighbors in contact
with Washington County Public Health, the Watershed Management Organization and the
Conservation District.
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve Case No. 2020-
62, a Variance for a septic tank and drainfield on the property located at 2220 Orwell Ct, with the
five conditions recommended by staff, changing Condition #2 to state that the applicant shall work
with the City’s Natural Resources Technician on the development of a tree preservation and
replanting plan as well as a site stabilization plan. All in favor.
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.
Ms. Wittman stated that 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 on November 19, 2020 and denied a request for a 25’ variance to
the 100’ setback from CR 12 for one lot within the development. While the original request was
a 25’ variance, after discussion with City staff, the developer agreed that a 20’ variance might
be a more reasonable request. The Commission determined that the variance 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 a 20’ variance to
the required 100’ CR 12/75th Street North right-of-way setback, providing a new practical
difficulty narrative. An applicant may resubmit a substantially similar request within one year
if the request was denied without prejudice. Staff finds practical difficulties have been
established and that the proposed 80’ setback meets the standards set forth for the issuance of
a 20’ variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval with three conditions.
Commissioner Dybvig asked, how big is the buildable area within the affected lot 1?
Jon Whitcomb, applicant, said the buildable area for lot 1 will be less than the other lots due to
the setback restriction, necessitating a different type of house be built. The hardship for lot 1 is
that it is not the same width as the other lots. Across the street to the south is the pond coming
out of Croixwood which is the natural boundary between east and west. This site is the one
spot along that whole stretch that has the greater restriction. It makes more sense to allow for
a similar setback as those lots to the east of this site.
Commissioner Steinwall asked about the trail easement referenced in the staff report.
Ms. Wittman replied the trail easement was not shown on the preliminary plat but it was a
condition of approval. Regarding the buildable area, lot 1 is about 41,000 square feet where
Planning Commission January 27, 2021
Page 5 of 6
the lot to the north is 26,000 square feet, but with the 100’ setback, over half of the total area
of lot 1 is not buildable. Lot 1 will also be subject to the trail easement. There would still be 60’
from the setback to the trail easement if the variance is granted.
Councilmember Odebrecht said it seems as though granting the variance will result in a more
consistent feel along 75th Street.
Mr. Whitcomb added that the White Pine Ridge site has conflicting setbacks, one from the
County at 75’ and one from the City at 100’. 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.
Chairman Lauer opened the public hearing.
Gary Gallmeier, 12997 Boutwell Road, asked where the runoff will go. His property already has
a lot of water runoff causing erosion. The City never had permission to dig the ditch. He would
like the City to go look at damage that is already done on his property.
Chairman Lauer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kocon said he supports the 20’ variance request, as he supported the previous
25’ variance request.
Commissioner Dybvig countered that the situation has not changed and there is not
necessarily practical difficulty other than wanting a bigger building pad. At the last meeting it
was shown that even without the variance, the builder can still fit four lots there. He suggested
moving the lot lines 5’ each rather than taking the footage all out of one lot. He added that a
bigger setback allows for a nicer trail that can meander a bit.
Commissioner Hansen said he supports the variance. Non-financial practical difficulty has been
established. The need for consistency is the most compelling argument for granting the
variance.
Commissioner Kocon asked how this setback became 100’ when across the street it is 75’.
Commissioner Dybvig noted there must be a starting line for every setback. All the way to
Manning, the setback is 100’. This is the starting point of that 100’ setback.
Commissioner Hansen said it’s an arbitrary place to start the 100’ setback. It makes more
sense to grant the variance because the City decided arbitrarily, before there was any
development, to establish the 100’ setback in this location.
Commissioner Dybvig said under state law, a variance is basically saying there is a reason to
break the law. If there is not a compelling reason then the Commission needs to deny the
variance. The reason for this variance is to build a larger house. It has even been stated that a
house may still be built without the variance.
Commissioner Steinwall agreed. If the setback seems inappropriate, the zoning code could be
amended. She does not see the practical difficulty in this case.
Chairman Lauer remarked he did not see a practical difficulty in November, and still doesn’t.
The developer has already shown that he can do the project without the variance, so therefore
it should not be an economic consideration.
Commissioner Meyhoff said he cannot see that practical hardship has been established.
Planning Commission January 27, 2021
Page 6 of 6
Motion by Commissioner Dybvig, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to deny Case No. 2021-
01, Variance for a Right of Way setback for property located at 12950 75th St N, with prejudice.
Motion passed 4-3 with Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, and Councilmember Odebrecht voting
nay.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
FYI STAFF UPDATES
Annual Commission Training
Ms. Wittman reminded the Commissioners to attend the Boards and Commissions training
session on January 28.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at
8:30 p.m. All in favor.
Chris Lauer, Chair
ATTEST:
Abbi Wittman, City Planner