Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-24 PC MIN 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 24th, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Kocon, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht Absent: Commissioner Meyhoff and Lauer Staff: City Planner Wittman and Bill Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of January 27th, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Councilman Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to approve the minutes of the January 27th, 2021 meeting as amended. All in favor, 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution CPC 2021-02: Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial CPC Case No. 2020-01. Staff and Commissioners had questions regarding how to handle the vote regarding this resolution. They would like to table this item to the next meeting so they can confer with the City Attorney. Motion to table by Chairman Dybvig, seconded by Steinwall. All in favor, 5-0. 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. City Planner Wittman reviewed the application from 200 Chestnut Partners LLC, owner of the property at 200 Chestnut East and is proposing to redevelop the site with a four-story, 61-unit apartment building with 73 underground parking spaces. In addition to holding a neighborhood meeting prior to the application submittal, the applicant participated in a Technical Review meeting with local agencies and organizations to gain insight on how the proposed project conforms to local regulations. The project proposed to the Planning commission (PC) reflects those regulations; where variations occur or conditions are recommended for conformance, they are outlined within the report. Ms. Wittman explained that residential uses, as well as Large Building Projects, in the Central Business District (CBD) require a Conditional Special Use Permit. The proposed fourth story, jointly with the building’s overall 48.5’ height, exceeds the maximum allowable Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 2 of 13 three-stories and 37’ height in the Historic Height Overlay District. The applicant is requesting variances to the City’s CBD Setbacks, the Height Overlay standards, and the Off- Street Parking and Loading requirements. Given the scope and location of the project as well as the proposed height is 10% greater than the maximum allowable limit, City Code requires the PC make recommendation for City Council (Council). Ms. Wittman went on to report that approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Design Permit is required prior to Council consideration. On December 16, 2020 the HPC reviewed a Design Permit application for the property that contained a recessed fourth story that included a mix of residential units, enclosed common space, and rooftop terracing. Citing the project’s need to conform to the mass and scale of buildings in its vicinity (including the adjacent Stillwater Commercial Historic District), the HPC tabled consideration of the design, requesting modifications to the scale of the fourth story – if not full removal. On January 20, 2021 the applicant obtained conditional approval of a Design Permit application from the HPC though the HPC’s conditioned the approval with no fourth story. The applicant has appealed the HPC’s decision to the City Council. The design presented to the PC contains a fourth story though the vertical improvements are recessed from most right-of-ways. On February 18, 2021 the applicant met with the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC), and advisory body to the Council, to discuss the request for a parking variance. The applicant is proposing to create 73 off-street spaces, leaving a 35 space deficit, and utilizing an on-street parking space for loading and unloading. As a reminder to the PC, City Code allows for mitigation of parking (by payment in lieu of parking creation) in areas with zero lot lines or similar conditions. The DTPC indicated that, with certain conditions, they believe the development could still conform to the intent of the Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations. They recommend Council allow the developer to pay a fee in lieu of creating 35 parking spaces. Their conditions surrounded around requiring off-street spaces to be dedicated to the residential units so that only guests are utilizing the public parking system. The applicant is requesting consideration of a (1) Conditional Use Permit for 61 multi-family residences in a Large building project in the CBD Zoning District; (2) A 35 space variance to the Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements; (3) A one-story variance to the three- story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; (4) A 11.5’ variance to the 37’ maximum allowable height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; (5) Variances to the 20’ (Combined) Side Yard and 20’ Rear Yard Setback in the Central Business District. Commissioner Hansen asked whether there is a condition regarding outdoor noise. Ms. Wittman responded traditionally we add conditions to commercial Conditional Use Permits with outside events, however, it is unlikely in this situation. Commissioner Steinwall requested Ms. Wittman provide more explanation regarding the requested Variance to the parking regulations; and Ms. Wittman explained the proposed building is required to have 108 parking spaces, but is only proposing 73. The conditions would require the developer to build the 73 underground parking spaces and assign 1 to each unit. They would then be required to pay a fee for the 35 parking space deficit. Commissioner Hansen questioned if there was any proposed change to Union Alley as a one- way street, and would the open parking on that street be changed? Ms. Wittman responded that no consideration was given to using Union Alley as a parking permit zone only in the downtown lots. The traffic study from SRF found that the traffic would not be negatively Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 3 of 13 affected by the change. The proposed project would have 12 excess parking spots to accommodate the units that have more than one car. Mr. Nick Walton, President of Reuter Walton Development, owner of the site, gave some background how they received feedback regarding this project and have effectively addressed negative aspects. He addressed Commissioner Hansen concerns regarding outdoor noise, and was open to the idea of an additional condition, but also stated they would have management rules in place as well to help mitigate the noise. Mr. Bob Loken gave a presentation and pointed out the parking study was based on the larger building, so the 35 parking space deficit would be less. The context of the building design was based on the industrial aesthetic buildings, which are common on building further from Main Street. Mr. Loken added that while they are proposing a fourth story, there are other buildings with similar heights within the downtown. Mr. Walton expressed they have put as many parking spots within the basement as they could. As the water table is directly under the property, they were not able to build any additional going down. Mr. Walton discussed the new addition at the Water Street Inn and pointed out the various heights of that building compared to their proposed building. He also stated that without the three units on the fourth floor the project cannot proceed due to financial reasons. Mr. Loken went through and summarized the changes to the proposal since the December 16th, 2020 and January 20th, 2021 meetings. Councilmember Odebrecht agreed with Staff on the need for housing and he thought the parking situation was resolved. He questioned the Short Term Home Rental number used, and thought a higher number, such as ten would better support the community via tourism and building. Mr. Walton responded that the they were open to the number Short Term Home Rental units allowed. They would be comfortable with 2-6 units, or 10% of the total number of units. Councilmember Odebrecht asked the applicants to explain why they need the fourth story; and Mr. Walton explained the suites on the fourth floor are an essential financial reasons. Councilmember Odebrechet asked Ms. Wittman to clarify whether the elevator bump out could exceed the height regulations; and she stated as the elevator is an integral part of the building it would be allowed to exceed the height restriction. Commissioner Steinwall questioned whether the height of the elevator and stairwells will still be higher than the fourth story; and Mr. Loken explained the life safety reasoning behind the layout of the fourth story. Mr. Walton indicated that the prior meetings had not shown the detail of the glass hallway. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Ms. Kim Nelson representing the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters (NCSRCC), stated the project and current design is reasonable and the construction of this project will provide jobs for laborers, many of whom live in Minnesota and the Stillwater community. During the COVID pandemic a project this size would provide jobs for the Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 13 community. She asked the Commission to approve this application in its current state with the fourth floor. Mr. Hunter Sanders, Emerson Ave, stated as a construction worker himself during the COVID pandemic, this project would provide much needed jobs for many community members. Mr. Matthew Wolf owner of 107 Chestnut St E, pointed out the Height Overlays are there for a reason and the other buildings within the district were made to comply. Mr. Steve and Mrs. Diane Middleton, Newgate Ave N. questioned the applicant on whether they were going to provide a dog relief area for those living within the complex; and Mr. Loken replied that there is not a plan at this point, but they would prefer the residents to use the neighborhood to better interact with the community. Mr. Walton said they could be flexible if need be to accommodate that, including bags in the lobby. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon is okay with the setback requests it fits with the character of the downtown, is okay with the use permit for multifamily. He feels the issues lie with the request for the extra story, the height variance for the fourth story, and parking. He was surprised by the lack of outcry from the neighbors regarding parking. As the Parking Commission believes they have resolved the parking issue, his main issues are the extra story and the height Variance. Commissioner Hansen stated there are tall buildings within the downtown and we are trying to avoid that so that 10-20 years down the road we don’t regret approving them. His main issue is parking. He does not think 1 spot per unit is enough. If we were to add this large of a project downtown, it might strain the already strained parking downtown. He would like to see this project go through, however is not comfortable with the parking variance. He stated he is in support of the Use Permit as long as the project fits in well. Commissioner Steinwall praised the applicant and developer for working with the community members, taking the character of the town into account when designing the building. She stated this project would be a good addition to the downtown and help keep the downtown alive and vibrant. She agreed with the exploration of the pet relief area. Steinwall also agreed the setback variances were not a concern for her, however, the fourth floor and height were a concern. She did not believe the applicant made a case for practical difficulty aside from economics. She stated she would consider increase in the Short Term Home Rental allowance. Councilmember Odebrecht agreed the height and fourth story are the most concerning. He asked Ms. Wittman to clarify the parking requirements again; and Ms. Wittman clarified the parking study was based a higher number of units then now proposed, and the proposed project meets the low end of the threshold range suggested in the parking study. The project will also provide an additional 12 spaces, and mitigating the remaining deficit through the parking system. Councilmember Odebrecht stated then he does not have a concern with parking. There are very few places within the downtown where younger families and younger people will be able to rent and therefore this property presents a unique opportunity for that aspect. He Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 13 stated Slide 15 demonstrated this was not going to change the character of downtown. He suggested the Short Term Home Rental number increased to 6 units. Chairman Dybvig echoed the comments of the others, the concerns are the height and the extra story. He does not see the practical difficulty for those. He asked Ms. Wittman to clarify the parking variance; and Ms. Wittman stated if the parking variance is approved, they will not need to mitigate the deficit of parking. Instead, if the Planning Commission were to approved the parking mitigation plan, they will need to follow the conditions suggested by the Downtown Parking Commission. Chairman Dybvig suggested they go with the parking mitigation plan, rather than the variance to the parking. Commissioner Kocon agreed the building is well designed aesthetically. He pointed out the building is up against a bluff so there is a difference in view regarding that. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a 58-unit residential building, a 3 story/ 2.5’ Variance, Variances to the setbacks, the Parking mitigation plan as proposed, and raising the Short Term Home Rental to 6 units. Commissioner Hansen stated there is no noise ordinance conditions listed. He is concerned about the economic considerations and affects regarding the development. As affordable housing is needed within Stillwater, if there is no fourth story allowed, would the prices of the units jump too high and become unaffordable. He stated perhaps this is a greater discussion that should be had. Commissioner Kocon stated based on the location of the building, he does not think there will be anything but market based apartments. Commissioner Hansen clarified that he did not mean low priced apartments, however, a jump of approximately $400 more a month in rent is a large amount and could make it unaffordable for most. Councilmember Odebrecht agreed and he trusts the developers number are correct and the motion as it stands could effectively kill the project. Chairman Dyvbig suggested finding a middle ground by allowing 61-units, but no fourth story. Commissioner Kocon agreed to the amendment of 61-units. Commissioner Steinwall as the seconder also agreed to the amendment. Chairman Dybvig and Ms. Wittman discussed the general conditions added to permits. No amplified music being a condition often used. Commissioner Kocon amended the motion to list 10 p.m. City quiet hours and no outdoor amplified music allowed. Commissioner Steinwall agreed with the motion amendment. Ms. Wittman repeated the current motion stating recommendation of approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 61-unit residential multifamily building, a 3 story/ 2.5’ Variance, Variances to the setbacks, with staff recommended conditions which includes the Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 6 of 13 Parking mitigation plan as proposed. Condition #3 to listed up to 10% of the unit allowed for Short Term Home Rental, and an additional condition to read City quiet hours at 10 p.m. and no outside amplified music allowed. Councilmember Odebrehct question if they are not allowed a fourth story, how could they have a roof top terrace. Ms. Wittman said those are allowed to project above a roof line. Roof top terraces are common downtown. Chairman Dybvig stated it would be similar to the Water Street Inn. Motion passes 4-1. Commissioner Hansen voting nay. Commissioner Hansen wanted the record to reflect that he was in favor of the project, but does not think the parking was adequately addressed and therefore he voting against the motion. Case No. 2021-02: Consideration of a Variance associated with a future re-subdivision for the property located at 819 William St N in the RB district. Michael Russ, property owner. Chairman Dybvig stated that his residence was within the noticing parameters and therefore asked the applicant if he would prefer the Chair recuse himself from the discussion and vote. Mr. Michael Russ, applicant, stated he had no objection to the Chair remaining in the discussion and vote. Ms. Wittman stated that Mr. Russ owns the 15,000 sf property at 819 William St North and is looking to split his lot into two 7,500 sf lots. However, if the lot were to be split, the existing house would then fall within the newly created 25’ rear yard setback. While the house would meet all the other setbacks, a variance to the rear yard setback would have to be approved prior the City Council’s consideration of a re-subdivision. The applicant is requesting a 3.5’ variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b)(1) to allow a house to be setback 21.5’ from the rear yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 25 feet. Ms. Wittman stated staff talked with neighbor Dana Jackson who has concerns about storm water and run off. Ms. Wittman stated that if this re-subdivision is approved and a home is built, it would be required to adhere to the Middle St. Croix Watershed’s impervious surface and infiltration requirements. Those requirements could potentially improve the current drainage situation. Mr. Michael Russ, property owner stated he did not have comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Kocon inquired if the large tree was on the current property or will it be a part of the proposed new lot; and Mr. Russ replied that the large tree is located within the current home’s lot and no removal would be necessary. The side yard setback on the new lot should not affect the tree. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to approve Case No. 2021-02, a 3.5’ variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a house to be setback Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 7 of 13 21.5’ from the rear yard lot line, with the staff recommended conditions. All in favor. Motion passes 5-0. Case No. 2021-03: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, Concept PUD, and Zoning Map Amendment and variances associated thereto for the property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd N, in the AP district. Integrity Land Development, applicant, and Gary and June Jorgensen, property owners. Community Development Director Turnblad stated Todd Ganz, Integrity Land Development, LLC, is proposing to develop 4.19 acres of land that currently includes two parcels with a home on each. These parcels are located at 13187 Dellwood Road North (State Hwy 96) and 2384 Oak Glen Trail. About half of the property (2.02 acres) lies within the Natural Environment Shoreland District of South Twin Lake (see Map A). On these 2.02 acres, development must either be on one acre lots or must occur as a Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD). A shoreland PUD allows increased density if: 1) at least 50% of the site remains in commonly owned permanent open space; 2) densities are shifted away from the protected lake; 3) emphasis is placed on protecting the natural resources of the site, such as trees and water basins; and 4) no more than 25% of the site is improved with impervious surfaces. The developer has chosen to develop the entire site as a PUD, and the western 2.02 acres according to Shoreland PUD standards. In order to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has requested approval of the following: (1) Rezone the property at 13187 Dellwood Road from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two-Family Residential; (2) Concept PUD for a 12-lot development plan (includes both existing parcels); (3) Preliminary Plat of HEIFORT HILLS ESTATE 2nd ADDITION, an 11-lot residential development (not including the existing lot at 2384 Oak Glen Trail, which is already platted); (4) Variance from the minimum allowed setback distance from State Highway 96 in order to build new houses as close as 45 feet from the standardized right-of-way, rather than the 100 feet required. Commissioner Steinwall asked if we needed to obtain an easement for the private driveway that intersects with Highway 96; and Mr. Turnblad answered that it should be added to the list of conditions. Councilmember Odebrecht requested clarification on the rezoning. He noted the proposed zoning/density is not in line with the Oak Glen Neighborhood but is more consistent with the original Heifort Hills Development to the west. However, the road will not go that direction, it will go through the Oak Glen Neighborhood. He asked if there was a different zoning district that could be used which would fit the Oak Glen Neighborhood better; and Mr. Turnblad responded that the proposed zoning district is not consistent with the development to the west, Heifort Hills. There are other zoning districts, however, the Comp Plan guides for higher densities. Councilmember Odebrecht asked would we have made different decisions in the past regarding the Comp Plan if we have known this high density area would connect to a low density neighborhood; and Mr. Turnblad stated he did not know for sure. However, due to the Shoreland district requirements the eastern portion of the proposed development must have greater open space. Commissioner Steinwall wanted clarification to the concept plan shown; and Mr. Turnblad explained the cross hatching to be ponds and the ‘Y’ turn around to be “grass-crete.” Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 8 of 13 Commissioner Hansen asked if we needed a condition stating a 15’ requirement between homes as recommended; and Mr. Turnblad stated a condition requiring 15’ between homes should be added to the condition list. Commissioner Hansen also noted, condition number 4 requires a minimum of 10 feet from back of curb to home, and asked if that was met by the current PUD; and Mr. Turnblad replied that the 10’ from back of curb requirement has been met or could be met by shifting the buildings to the west and be accommodated. Commission Hansen then asked if the PUD met the ‘y’ turn around requirements for a fire truck to turn around in; and Mr. Turnblad stated that the Deputy Fire chief has not looked at the revised plan, however, he did provide the template of what is required. If this plan does not meet the requirements, the final plat will not be approved. Commissioner Hansen asked if we can add a condition for the “grass-crete” be maintained; and Mr. Turnblad answered that we can add that condition and that the homeowner’s association will be required to maintain the road and grass-crete, except for the area in Lot 8, where the property owner will be responsible for maintaining that portion. The developer and his engineer suggested we use pervious concrete or pervious bituminous in these areas. It is easier to maintain grass-crete, but the pervious concrete of permious bituminous is harder to monitor if is being maintained. Commissioner Hansen asked who will be included in the private road easement agreement; and Mr. Turnblad explained that everything in the outlot that will be owned by the HOA. Across the HOA outlot and the property at 2384 Oak Glen Trail there will be an easement for the private road and for maintenance agreement. Commissioner Hansen asked for clarification on private utilities; and Mr. Turnblad replied that water and sewer lines for the Heifort Hills Estate first addition, will come across the south portion of the property and loop into the Oak Glen Neighborhood. From that line, private water and sewer lines will be run to access the neighborhood. The private lines will be taken care of by the homeowner’s association and the public lines will have an easement. The water and the sewer will be municipal water and sewer. Commissioner Kocon clarified that the existing house at 13187 (Lot 7) and Lot 8 will utilize a shared driveway that accesses 96 right onto a right turn lane. The other 9 will be utilizing the shared road. He questioned by not add an impervious road that connects to the driveway with a knock down barrier, which would seem easier for emergency vehicles and safer; and Mr. Turnblad stated the Deputy Fire Chief must have a minimum of a 25 feet wide roadway to get out of the neighborhood and the driveway for 13187 is skinny to save on impervious surfacing. Councilmember Odebrecht asked whether the home at 2384 Oak Glen Trail would be moved; and Mr. Turnblad stated if the private road stays where it is currently proposed, the home would stay in its location. If the road where to split the lot, the home would need to be moved. He stated some developers in the past have done successful house moves. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if it were possible to create a buffer between this new proposed neighborhood and the Oak Glen Neighborhood; and Mr. Turnblad stated due to the Shoreland District requirements and the Comp Plan’s encouraged densities, there is no way to create buffer. Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 9 of 13 Councilmember Odebrecht asked what the minimum number of houses required by the Comp Plan; and Mr. Turnblad answered the Comp Plan is calling for 4.4 homes. Councilmember Odebrecht asked if Mr. Turnblad has ever seen a messier development than this; and Mr. Turnblad stated infill projects are always difficult. This proposed project is infill on three sides which makes it even harder. Mr. Todd Ganz, applicant, pointed out that the plans have been revised to include greater distances between houses, but they are not being shown tonight. Houses 9, 10, 11 have been spread out to allow more room for snow storage. The driveway for house 1 was moved south and there is a wider distance between the houses on Lots 3-6. Initially Heifort Hills Estate First Addition included the street to Neal Ave, however MNDOT would only allow 2 houses to use the driveway. Development Director Turnblad suggested we work to get access through Oak Glen trail. Mr. Ganz noted that he plans to use as many trees as possible around perimeter to buffer between development and Oak Glen Neighborhood. Along Highway 96 he would like to use a 6’ fence and trees to buffer. Regarding the ponds that is behind Lots 9-11, catches the water and infiltrates, and if it floods, it overflows into the pond closer to the Heifort Hills. MnDOT did not allow for emergency access out onto Hwy 96, therefore the use of the ‘grass-crete’ is necessary. He continued that Lots 2-6 will either be slab on grade or full basements, and Lots 9-11 are going to be walk-out full basements. Initially the thought was doing twin homes to get more in, but he insisted on single family detached to keep the value of the homes similar to the Oak Glen Neighborhood. The Homeowners association will be the same as the Heifort Hills 1st addition. Councilmember Odebrecht stated he was not sure how they could increase the space between the homes on Lots 3-6; and Mr. Ganz showed the new layout with approximately 15’ between units. Councilmember Odebrecht encouraged the developer do neighborhood meetings to reduce concern and comments, and reminded Mr. Ganz to wear a mask going door to door. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Beth Harrison, Oak Glen Trail (directly across the street) requested denial of the Preliminary Plan, the private street, Hwy 96 setback easement. She listed 9 codes they are requesting to set aside and read comments submitted to the Planning Commission on 2/24/2021. Mrs. and Mr. Dianna and Steve Middleton, Newgate Avenue North, stated they support everything Beth Harrison has said. They asked the Commission to deny the development. They own the property between this development and the highway that will affect the drivability of Oak Glen Trail. They asked where the construction fencing would go, the berm they mentioned, the holding ponds. They have property located the west of that strip, so this development would affect their development potential in the future. Mrs. and Mr. Caitlin and Dario Mejia, Oak Glen Trail stated they concur with Beth and are asking the commission to deny this request. They stated they have concerns for the safety of their small family. They questioned if the Comp Plan took into account the fact that this Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 10 of 13 property would cut off access and perhaps the Comp Plan needs to be revised. They suggested that the City create a clear plan for development in the future. Mr. Gary Gerds, stated he was disappointed that Community Development Director recommended approval. He was led to believe this was ‘an open question’ and the decision on this development had not already been made. Mr. Gerds asked Director Turnblad is he knew of any other street in within Stillwater that was cut through a residential development to meet the needs of a developer; and Mr. Turnblad stated no. Mr. Gerds added that this sets an unbelievable precedent. If allowed, why not allowed anywhere else in Stillwater? He noted that the developer cut down trees between the homes and ponds on the 1st Addition. He questions what will happen to the existing home and its setback. He was told the project met engineering requirements, but does not see how. Mrs. and Mr. Amy and Dan Stoffer, Swenson Street, asked Mr. Ganz if the houses were constructed already; and Mr. Ganz answered there are only eight homes left to be constructed in Heifort Hills First addition, but not for this project. He expressed he moved here for the open space, and it appears cut and clear trees and put up as many houses as possible. He appreciates the fencing and tree buffer, but would prefer no development. Combining a new high density development to an older single family neighborhood is not right. He questioned why we would you allow houses closer than the highway then allowed. He indicated that the developer Mr. Stoffer stated that the Developer came to the meeting unprepared and not preparing the City and its Commissioners properly is not right. He hopes for denial, protecting the citizens of Oak Glen. Mr. and Mrs. Paul and Rose Giordano, expressed that they live right next door to the proposed road and fears it is going to devalue the home and cause accidents. They questioned, if they did not widen the street to 32’, where are people going to park. Furthermore, there is no walkway to this development, so people will walk through their yards. He is concerned about the children within the neighborhood with a blind left-turn onto this road. He questions if civil engineering requirements and plan are being met. Easements to private road He stated that naming the road Oak Glen Lane makes it appear as an addition to Oak Glen. If so, then requirements and zoning of the Oak Glen Neighborhood should be followed. Mr. Peter Mayer, Oak Glen, stated that none of neighbors want this road. They settled in this neighborhood which has an established feel. When they bought their property there was no open land across the street it was surrounded by homes. Had they known this was a possibility they would not have purchased their property. This neighborhood has no sidewalks, and therefore all the residents use the streets. Connecting this road to a busy street would add traffic and problems. The only ones benefitting are those who do not live here. He quoted from Stillwater City Code, Chapter 2, Subd 6. Mr. Mayer asked that they do not practice ‘development at all cost’ and request ‘say no’ to this proposal. Mr. Tom Ash, Swenson Street, stated that Beth and Pete did a great job representing problems. Tom stated the removal of snow at 26’ does not seem possible and cannot be done right. He wondered if the turnaround at the end of the street will occur in someone’s driveway, and the Fire Department will have difficulty getting equipment in there. He questions delivery trucks and their use of the turnaround. He stated there are a lot of children in the neighborhood riding bikes, it is hard to see them so low to the ground. Great Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 11 of 13 care is needed in this neighborhood and this would greatly affect their safety. They recommend against the project and believe it would change the standards of the community. Mr. Bryce Urban, 2241 Oak Glen Trail, lives kiddie-corner and down the street. He stated that nine additional homes pouring out of essentially one driveway will create an additional 112 occurrences. This poses a lot of safety concerns for neighborhoods. When developed, this neighborhood was created with small streets and no sidewalks. If approved this would be setting a precedent and safety concern. Mrs. Caitlin Mejia stated Gary and June Jorgensen had been trying to purchase property along this roadway for years. The home at 2384 Oak Glen was a rental property and was not maintained. They have concerns about grass and snow plowing maintenance if this were to go through. Mrs. Diana Middleton wanted to add that the current owner does not maintain the property. Some possessions were stored on their property. Trees were removed and some were left on their property. She asked if the commission even have the plans updated and showed in the meeting. Chairman Dybvig summarized the process that they were just considering the Preliminary Plat with more details to follow if approved. Mr. Tom Ash asked about the next steps and the process going forward; and Ms. Wittman clarified the process and the next steps regarding this application. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Councilmember Odebrecht stated that he did have the correct plans and he simply misinterpreted what Ganz had said. He also stated the packet is publicly available. Commissioner Kocon stated there are a lot of moving parts and a lot of neighborhood concerns and questions. He stated the variance for setbacks is dramatic and the house would need to be moved or torn down. He stated that the City does have a Comp Plan that has been in place for a while a that plan includes this property. Mr. Kocon suggested that the developer have a plan for the home at 2384, whether that be tear it down or move it. He stated he could not embrace this plan at this point. Commissioner Hansen agreed with Commissioner Kocon and stated many of the questions the public have are good questions and many of theirs answers can be found in the City Code. He stated the PUD requirements are different then City Code. He stated he can cannot move forward with the plan as it currently sits. He questions why the Comp Plan would allow Low to Medium Density Zoning within the South Twin Lake Shoreland overlay district. Commissioner Steinwall stated she also has concerns regarding this proposal. Her concerns include the 100’ setback Variance, which she will not support. She questioned how tabling would affect the 60-day rule; and Mr. Turnblad stated the Preliminary Plat has a 120-day rule, while the Rezone and Variance have a 60-day rule. He also stated that the City can extend that review period and additional 60 days if the Commission would like to table and review this application again. Councilmember Odebrecht thanked the neighborhood for their feedback. He stated the test is whether this will change the essential character of the neighborhood. He stated that the 60-day rule is a piece that we have to follow as, if we do not, it is automatically approved. Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 12 of 13 He stated the Comprehensive plan is the overall plan that should guide the City. However, this portion sticks out like a sore thumb in the Comp Plan. He understands there is increased pressure on Hwy 96 and this would create a significant burden on the Oak Glen Neighborhood, especially 2444 Oak Glen. He feels this is unpreceded in Stillwater. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall to deny the Case No. 2021-03, Preliminary Plat, Concept PUD, Rezoning and Setback Variance to the property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd. Councilmember Odebrecht clarified he feels tabling will not change the fact that this development will change the essential character of the neighborhood. He feels all boundaries have been pushed to get this development in there. Commissioner Kocon asked to discuss the rezoning portion. He questioned whether the rezoning from AP to RA should be done at this time and asked for an amendment to the motion to include the approval of the rezoning. Councilmember Odebrecht agreed to amend the motion to include the recommendation of approval for the rezoning; and Commissioner Steinwall seconded that amendment. Commissioner Hansen suggested that if they rezoned it at this time it may be inconsistent with future development and he believes it’s better to leave it off the table. Councilmember Odebrecht agreed the original motion should include no change to the underlying Zoning; and Commissioner Steinwall agreed and seconded. Mr. Turnblad commented that you should never rezone a property until you are approving a plat. Chairman Dybvig summarized the motion to read: Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to deny the Variance request and recommend denial to the City Council of the Preliminary Plat, Concept PUD and Rezoning for the property located at 13187 Dellwood Rd and 2384 Oak Glen Trail, Case No. 2021-03. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2021-05: Consideration of a Variance to the exterior side yard setback to install a deck on the property located at 1002 4th Ave S in the RB district. Brian Smith, applicant and Margaret M. Georgi, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained Mrs. Georgi owns the property at 1002 4th Avenue South, and is looking to construct a 14’ X 8’ deck off the second story on the front of her house. The house is on a long but narrow corner property, and is setback far from the road, overlooking the St. Croix River. While the proposed deck is outside of the required front yard setbacks, the existing house and the proposed deck are within the exterior side yard setback; therefore, this deck will be an expansion of this existing legal nonconformity. The applicant is requesting a 10’ variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a deck to be setback 10’ from the exterior side yard lot line, whereas the required setback is 20 feet. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. No public comments. Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 13 of 13 Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kocon stated there are practical difficulties. The way the home sits on the lot forces a Variance and the neighborhood would support the Variance. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Hansen to approve Case No. 2021-05, a 10’ variance to City Code Section 31-308. (b). (1). to allow a deck to be setback 10’ from the exterior side yard lot line. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman gave an update on Jon Whitcomb’s appeal Variance to the City Council. Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission about considering a second meeting due to case load volume. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. All in favor. John Dybvig, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner