VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

[2. Case No. CD2025-059: Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Brixton, a For-Sale 108-Unit Townhome Development at Manning Avenue North and 80th Street North– (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818, bgutknecht@stillwatermn.gov)]

CD 2025 DASH 059, A LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIXTON.

A FOR SALE 108 UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE MANNING AVENUE NORTH AND 80TH STREET NORTH.

MR.. THANK YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. THIS IS JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE FOR THE PROJECT TODAY.

FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T IN ATTENDANCE LAST MONTH ON LAST MONTH'S MEETING, JANUARY 28TH, THE COMMISSION HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CLOSED.

IT TOOK TESTIMONY AND DISCUSSED THE THE CASE BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ULTIMATELY TABLED THE DECISION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ABOUT 11 POINTS TO BE BROUGHT BACK FORWARD, ANYTHING RANGING FROM TRAFFIC QUESTIONS TO PUD BENEFITS.

AGAIN, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE THAT MAY HAVE NOT BEEN IN ATTENDANCE. LAST MEETING THE SITE PROJECT HISTORY FOR THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IN 2023.

IN THE SAME AREA, THERE WAS A APPROVAL OF 179 UNIT RENTAL DEVELOPMENT CALLED SUNDANCE.

THIS WAS ULTIMATELY NEVER CONSTRUCTED. DID INCLUDE FIVE TOTAL PARCELS FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THE ONE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BRIXTON. THIS IS BEING PROPOSED THROUGH THE 2025 2026 CYCLE.

WE HAVE 108 UNIT FOR SALE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT ON ABOUT 14.4 DEVELOPABLE ACRES OUT OF THREE PARCELS.

THE PUD IS BEING REQUESTED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED DENSITY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TAILOR MADE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH WE OFTEN FIND IN STILLWATER. THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED CONCEPTS BEFORE TO STAFF AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND LATER LATER 2025, AND THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A PUD IN PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROVAL FROM.

RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY FROM. PLANNING COMMISSION.

FOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. WITH A FINAL PLAT TO BE APPLIED FOR AT A LATER DATE.

THE SITE LOCATION. ARE THOSE THREE PARCELS ON THE SCREEN HATCHED IN RED.

IT CONSISTS OF THREE PARCELS AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MANNING AND 80TH.

THE. THERE ARE THREE. EACH PARCEL HAS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON IT, WHICH WILL BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THERE ARE WETLANDS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST OF THE PROJECT SITE, WHICH INFLUENCES THE SITE DESIGN, AS DO THE SETBACKS OFF OF 80TH AND MANNING. KIND OF PUTTING THINGS TOWARDS THE MIDDLE.

REGULATORY REGULATORY CONTEXT UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT IS WHAT GUIDES OUR MEDIUM, OUR LAND USE.

AND THIS IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH SUPPORTS TOWNHOMES AND SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF 6 TO 14.5 UNITS AN ACRE.

THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH GIVES US OUR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IS THE COVE TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN JUST THE MORE GENERIC MEDIUM DENSITY OF THE COMP PLAN, AND THEN A PORTION OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BROWNS CREEK STREAM AREA.

AT THAT JANUARY 28TH MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, HEARD TESTIMONY AND DISCUSSED A NUMBER OF ITEMS. THE MAIN TEN THAT STAFF TOOK AWAY WERE TRAFFIC, SIDEWALK AND TRAILS, QUESTIONS, PROPERTY LINE BUFFER UPDATES COMMUNITY AMENITIES, SNOW REMOVAL, LIGHTING, HOA GUEST PARKING, EV READINESS PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSOCIATE WITH PUDS.

JUST CLARIFICATION ON THAT. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS, IN LIGHT OF THOSE COMMENTS, STAFF DID MEET WITH THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT MEETING ONCE OR TWICE. HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN UPDATED NARRATIVE SITE PLAN AND ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW.

IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE UPDATED SITE PLAN. I ALSO HAVE THE MORE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT, BUT THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO WORK OFF OF.

THE MAIN CHANGE THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT ARE A REDUCTION IN BUILDING SEPARATION IN OUTLOT B FROM 21 TO 20 4 TO 20FT NOW,

[00:05:04]

WHICH AFFORDS MORE SPACE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOW IT'S GONE FROM ABOUT 30FT TO 52FT OF SETBACK FOR BUILDINGS TO THAT PROPERTY LINE. THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL AMENITY AREAS DOWN HERE AND RIGHT UP HERE, THAT I'LL GET INTO IN A LITTLE BIT AS WELL AS A PERMANENT SIDEWALK ADDED ALONG THE ENTRANCE ROAD, AND THEN UPDATES TO THE BUFFER AREAS ON THE EAST AND SOUTHERN OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

LOOKING AT THIS, THE ONE COMMENT, THERE'S A FEW COMMENTS THAT I CAN DISCUSS AT THIS POINT.

TRAFFIC. THE COMMISSION CAN EXPRESS A FEW CONCERNS ABOUT CONGESTION AT 80TH STREET AND MANNING SITE ACCESS AND POTENTIAL TURN LANES, ALONG WITH JUST EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND BUS ACCESS.

THE APPLICANT DID CONFIRM THAT THE INTERNAL PUBLIC STREETS ARE SIZED FOR BUS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

THEY ALSO WORKED WITH THE COMMUNICATED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DISCUSS WHERE PICKUP WOULD BE, WHICH WAS A QUESTION THAT HAD COME UP. AND AT THAT TIME, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID CONFIRM THAT THEY WOULD LIKELY PICK UP AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WAIT UNTIL IT WAS FULLY DEVELOPED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEEDED TO ACCESS THE SITE AND GO WITHIN IT.

AND I DO ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN, THAT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD BEING PROPOSED HERE AS KIND OF ALSO AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD FOR FIRE AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, AS WELL AS A TRAIL CONNECTION TO THAT MANNING TRAIL.

OUR CITY ENGINEERS DID REVIEW THE PROPOSAL IN CONJUNCTION.

THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED TRAFFIC REPORT, AND FOR THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT OF SUNDANCE THAT WAS DONE IN 2022 2023.

AND THE CITY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT DID DETERMINE THAT AN UPDATED STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED OR NECESSARY.

IN THIS CASE. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ALSO CONCLUDED IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WOULD DEGRADE THAT WOULD RESULT IN SEEING TIMING CHANGES FOR THE LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF MANNING AND AN 80TH. WHILE THAT IS DEFINITELY UNDER THE COUNTY'S PURVIEW.

THE THE WHAT OUR DEPARTMENT FOUND IS IF IT DIDN'T GET TRIGGERED AT THE TIME OF SUNDANCE, IT WOULDN'T LIKELY BE TRIGGERED AT THIS POINT EITHER.

ONE ALSO COMMENT ON SIDEWALK AND TRAILS. THAT'S ANOTHER ITEM THAT THE COMMISSION BROUGHT UP IS JUST ASKING, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD INTERNAL TRAILS OR SIDEWALKS TO THE DEVELOPMENT? THE APPLICANT AT THAT TIME NOTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND MEETING DENSITY, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THEY MAINTAIN THAT POSITION AND STAFF WOULD CONCLUDE THAT IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ADD INTERNAL TRAILS OR SIDEWALKS WITHOUT THEN COMPROMISING WHERE THE BUILDABLE AREA IS.

ENGINEERING STAFF DID INDICATE ONE ITEM I DID WANT TO TOUCH ON.

THERE IS THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT SIDEWALK HERE AT THE ENTRANCE. THIS DOES MIRROR ONE AT ABERCROMBIE COURT, AND OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID INDICATE THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS COULD BE EXPLORED ACROSS 80TH STREET.

THOUGH FUNDING HASN'T BEEN IDENTIFIED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE PUD DISCUSSION. THE CONVERSATION THERE WAS THERE'S LIKELY A CHANCE THAT ANY THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF CROSSINGS, WHETHER IT'S CHILDREN OR JUST GENERAL PEDESTRIAN, THAT WANT TO GO TO OTHER AMENITIES THAT ARE EITHER SOUTH, SOUTH OR NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS HOA CLARIFICATIONS.

THAT WAS A QUESTION THE COMMISSION HAD. THE HOA WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LAWN CARE, SNOW REMOVAL, EXTERIOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE, UPKEEP OF COMMON AREAS AND GUEST PARKING FACILITIES.

AND THAT DOES INCLUDE SNOW REMOVAL. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT HAD BEEN RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING. AND THEN AS FAR AS EV READINESS, WHILE THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS, STAFF DID SPEAK WITH THE DEVELOPER, PULTE HOMES.

AND THEY MENTIONED THEY NOTED THAT ALL OF THEIR HOMES ARE TYPICALLY CONSTRUCTED WITH CONSTRUCTED WITH SUFFICIENT ELECTRICAL CAPACITY FOR EV CHARGING IN THE GARAGES, BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY INSTALLED UNLESS ASKED OR REQUESTED BY THE HOMEOWNER OR POTENTIAL BUYER.

THE. ANOTHER COMMON QUESTION THAT CAME UP FROM THE COMMISSION WAS PROPERTY LINE BUFFER UPDATES FROM BOTH THE EAST AND SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINES.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN UPDATED SITE PLAN TO SHOW WHAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED, WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF 52FT.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID REQUEST, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE PUD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND CODE, WHERE THE SETBACK BETWEEN TWO DISSIMILAR USES MUST BE TWICE THAT OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT.

52FT. SO THE APPLICANT IS COMPLYING WITH THAT.

WITH THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE, THE APPLICANT THEN NO LONGER NEEDS A RETAINING WALL ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

AND SO THEY'VE NOW ELECTED TO INSTALL VEGETATIVE SCREENING THROUGH THE FORM OF CONIFEROUS TREES.

AND THEN ON THE SOUTH USING DOGWOOD HEDGES FOR SCREENING TO THE SOUTH.

THIS DOES COMPLY WITH CITY CODE AND STAFF BELIEVES IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS LOOKING FOR.

AN ADD ON PACKET WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION YESTERDAY.

AND IN THIS THE APPLICANT DOES WRITE OUT WRITTEN PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION WITH THE EASTERN PROPERTY OWNER.

THIS IS TRELLIS WEDDING. I SHOULD MENTION SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE INCREASED SETBACK OF 52FT, THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTING TO HALTING WORK ON FRIDAYS AFTER 3 P.M.

AND THEN NO CONSTRUCTION ON SATURDAYS THROUGH MAY THROUGH OCTOBER IN 2026, AS WELL AS NOT STAGING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHIN 100FT OF THE

[00:10:05]

PROPERTY. SO PROVIDING A SITE BARRIER FROM SAP'S PERSPECTIVE, THEY'RE PROVIDING A ROBUST RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE UPDATING THAT STAGING PLAN THAT'S 100FT, CHANGING GRADING SCHEDULES, AND CHANGES TO THE OVERALL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR THAT FIRST BUILDING SEASON. AT THIS POINT, I DO WANT TO NOTE, AND I'LL POINT OUT LATER, TOO, THAT THERE IS ONE CONDITION UNDER THE PUD SECTION OF YOUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUMBER FOUR, WHICH REFERENCES THE OLD LANDSCAPE PLAN.

DEPENDING ON HOW THE CONVERSATION GOES TONIGHT, I WOULD RECOMMEND UPDATING THAT CONDITION.

THIS WAS CAUGHT AFTER THE PACKET HAD GONE OUT, SO I'LL POINT THAT OUT WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THAT SECTION.

THE APPLICANT ALSO PROVIDED AN UPDATED AMENITY.

THIS WAS A COMMENT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PRIOR TO THIS.

IT WAS SIMPLY JUST A TRAIL CONNECTION. NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING A SEATING AREA ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL IN THE NORTH WEST, AND THEN A ADDITIONAL MEDITATION AREA ON THE SOUTHEAST.

THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT SNOW STORAGE THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP. WHERE'S ALL THE SNOW GOING TO GO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT? THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE THIS PLAN.

THE REQUEST WAS B, THE REQUEST WAS THAT BE MADE PUBLIC AND AVAILABLE TO THE BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, WHO WE DID ACTUALLY HEAR FROM THIS MORNING VIA EMAIL.

AND THEY NOTED THEIR ONLY SUGGESTION TO THIS PLAN WAS THAT THEY INCORPORATE SMART SILTING PRACTICES.

OTHERWISE, OUR CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED IT AS WELL AND HAD NO CONCERNS.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO COMMENTS FROM OUR ADVISORY, ONE BEING THAT JUST A REMINDER THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO MOVE SNOW FROM PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND APPRECIATIVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS TAKING TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AHEAD OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT BEING CONSTRUCTED.

THAT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL. THERE WAS. I DO WANT TO NOTE WHILE I'M ON HERE WATERSHED ALSO DID JUST A GENERAL UPDATE.

THE WATERSHED DID TAKE A DID CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THE PROJECT.

BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED DID CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE PROJECT, I THINK A WEEK OR TWO AGO IN FEBRUARY. SO THEY'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS AND GIVEN IT THEIR CONDITIONAL BLESSING ON THIS. THE SECOND LAST COMMENT WAS JUST LIGHTING, JUST WHERE STREET LIGHTING GOING TO GO? IS IT GOING TO BE AN IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? THE, THE THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH XCEL ENERGY, NOTING THAT THE STREET LIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE DOWNCAST AND SHROUDED. THE ONLY AREA I WANT TO NOTE IS ON THE ENTRANCE, THERE IS A STREET LIGHT BEING PROPOSED HERE THAT IS GOING TO MINIMALLY BLEED SOME LIGHT INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THIS IS ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH A LIGHT AT ABERCROMBIE COURT WHERE THE SAME SITUATION IS HAPPENING.

THIS ISN'T CONCERNED STAFF BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY. IT'S NOT BLEEDING INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND THAT PUBLIC PROPERTY IS A ROAD THAT WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED ON IN THE FUTURE.

LASTLY IS THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF PUDS AND HERE THE APPLICANT.

THE QUESTION WAS JUST FOR THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE OR EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AS WITH EVERY PED, YOU DO HAVE A PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THE VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING.

ESSENTIALLY, THE APPLICANT NOTES A NUMBER OF THINGS, SUCH AS PRESERVING 50% OF THE OPEN SPACE, PROTECTING THE WETLANDS WITH BUFFERS AND JUST NOT IMPACTING THE WETLANDS, INCORPORATION OF STORMWATER POND REQUIREMENTS AS LONG AS REUSE SYSTEM, INSTALLATION OF TREE SWALES, PRESERVING OR PROPOSING THE INCORPORATION OF MORE TREES PLANTED THAN IS REQUIRED BY CODE, AND THEN PROVIDING A MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMP PLAN, AND FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THAT LAST ONE FOR THE ABILITY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE DENSITY GUIDANCE DIRECTED BY THE COMP PLAN WHILE NAVIGATING WHAT IS ADMITTEDLY A STRINGENT AND HIGHLY SPECIFIC ZONING REGULATION IN OUR OWN ORDINANCE IS PRETTY PRETTY IMPORTANT THERE THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO GET THAT DONE THROUGH THE PUD.

AND DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH CODE AND ACHIEVES THE REQUIRED PUBLIC BENEFIT AMONG IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ITEMS NOTED.

ULTIMATELY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF BOTH THE PUD AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

AND WHEN WE GET TO THE DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS, I CAN POINT OUT THAT NUMBER FOUR OF PUD IS WHERE I WOULD RECOMMEND A CHANGE.

WITH THAT, I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. YOU DID A DID A BANG UP JOB THEN. SO WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

SO UNLESS THE DEVELOPER HAS ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY WISH TO ADD TO WHAT MR. GOOTNICK SAID, WE WOULD THEN TAKE IT TO BACK TO OUR CONVERSATION.

TAKE THE ITEM OFF THE TABLE. AND SEEING THAT THEY'RE NOT RUSHING TO THE RUSHING TO THE PODIUM THAT WE CAN COME ON, COME ON FORWARD. AND YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO PRESS THE BUTTON TO TURN THE TURN THE THING GREEN.

JASON MAGELLAN, LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT.

I'M HERE TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. AND ALSO THE THE BUILDER.

PULTE. PULTE HOMES IS HERE AS WELL FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE DURING THIS PROCESS.

GREAT. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE THE THE ITEM NOW BEFORE US. WE NEED SOME SORT OF A MOTION WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL FOR OUR CONVERSATION ON THIS ITEM.

[00:15:05]

WOULD YOU WANT BOTH AT ONCE OR INDIVIDUALLY? LET'S MAYBE IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO DO THEM SEPARATELY, BUT. BUT THE RESOLUTION, THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION PUTS THEM TOGETHER, PUSHES EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING. OKAY. THEN MAYBE WE JUST.

HOWEVER YOU'RE MOST COMFORTABLE, BUT I, I BECAUSE IT CAN PROBABLY GO EITHER WAY, AND THEY PROBABLY ARE ENOUGH DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER.

YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. I JUST MOTION TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS REQUIRED, THAT WILL DISCUSS AND PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE CONDITIONS.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND AND A SECOND? COMMISSIONER, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND ME INTERRUPTING, THE ONE ADDITION I WOULD MAKE IS CHANGE TO CONDITION NUMBER FOUR OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND JUST NOTING THAT THE SCREENING SHOULD BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED IN THE UPDATED PLANS WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. AND THAT SEEMS LIKE. SURE. YES. OKAY. SO THAT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT.

BUT STAFF WOULD HAVE THE PROPER TERM TEXT ON THAT.

SO WOULDN'T BE QUITE AS DESCRIPTIVE ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGES.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION ON THESE ON THIS ITEM.

ONE ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE REQUEST THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT 80TH, CONNECTING UP WITH ABERCROMBIE OR COURT OR WHATEVER IT IS.

AND IF I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF MATERIALS AND MR. GOPNIK'S DISCUSSION PROPERLY A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA FROM THE CITY ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, BUT THERE'S NO FUNDING. SO AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CITY ASKED THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE THE FUNDING FOR THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AS PART OF THE PUD APPROVAL.

SO I THINK IT WOULD ALSO GO TOWARD THE CONCEPT THAT A PUD NEEDS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN BENEFITS BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. ARE YOU THINKING? JUST STRIPING AND SUCH.

SOMETIMES THERE'S FLASHING LIGHTS, BUT YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING THAT MEETS THE CITY ENGINEERING'S OKAY.

CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. COULD WE ADD THAT AS NUMBER SIX FOR OUR PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS? AND WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING AGREEABLE TO YOU? I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 20 SOME YEARS. I THINK THE AMOUNT OF WALKABILITY THAT OCCURS THERE, THE TRAFFIC ISN'T OVERWHELMING ON THAT STREET, BUT THERE'S ENOUGH WHERE I'D WANT SOMETHING THAT'S STRIPED, THAT THERE IS SOME VISIBILITY TO WHAT THIS IS GOING ON. SO I WOULD ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT.

OKAY. SO AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT AS THE SECOND? YEP. I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. OKAY. SO WE'RE ADDING THEN CONDITION NUMBER SIX.

WE'VE GOT THAT RECORDED FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME GRATUITOUS COMMENTS.

THERE'S NOTHING GRATUITOUS. GO AHEAD. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

SO PARTICULARLY IN LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING LAST MONTH, AND THEN IN THE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US WITH THE YOU KNOW, AS ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS I WANT TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KICK OFF WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED, TEN, I GUESS TEN YEARS AGO OR SO, THIS PARTICULAR AREA WAS SLATED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE RETAIN THE OPEN FEELING THE OR, YOU KNOW, THE RURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STILLWATER AREA. THE TIME TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS IS WHEN WE DISCUSS THE COMP PLAN AND WE HAVE GOT ANOTHER COMP PLAN EXERCISE BEFORE US. AND GUIDING THE WAY OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPS IS THE APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION AT THE COMP PLAN TIME.

NOT NOW. WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT A A PROPOSAL THAT MEETS THE PLAN THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED,

[00:20:02]

THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS HAD ON THE BOOKS FOR, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST TEN YEARS OR SO.

THUS CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. SO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THAT MOTION CARRIES. SO CONGRATULATIONS.

WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE UP IS CASE CD 2020 6-002, A VARIANCE

[3. Case No. CD2026-002: Variance Request to Lot Coverage to Install a Swimming Pool at 3339 Pioneer Place – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

REQUEST FOR LOT COVERAGE TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 3339 PIONEER PLACE.

MR. MINUTE. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

WE'LL BE EXPLORING TWO VARIANCES THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST BEFORE US IS IN THE LIBERTY NEIGHBORHOOD AT 333 NINE PIONEER PLACE.

THE VARIANCE IS DUE TO A REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE 25% LOT COVERAGE STANDARD IN PLACE FOR THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. THIS HOME IS ZONED TR TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL, WHICH HAS NO LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM. THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US TODAY.

RATHER, IT IS THE FACT THAT THIS HOME IS WITHIN 1000FT OF A DNR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKE, WHICH IS LONG LAKE.

SO DUE TO THAT PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE, THERE'S A 25% LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM.

THE PROPOSED WORK WOULD ADD A NEW POOL AND ASSOCIATED DECK IN THE REAR YARD AND BRING THE LOT COVERAGE UP BY JUST OVER 10% FROM 21.82 TO 32.11%. IT INCLUDES AN INFILTRATION TRENCH DESIGNED TO MITIGATE ALL RUNOFF BEYOND THAT CODE MAXIMUM OF 25%. IF THE ADDRESS LOOKED FAMILIAR, IT'S BECAUSE IF YOU JUST FLIP THE LAST TWO DIGITS, WE GET THREE, THREE NINE, THREE PIONEER PLACE, WHICH HAD A POOL INSTALLED BY THE SAME CONTRACTOR IN 2024 FOLLOWING A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE YOU ALL AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WAS OVERTURNED BY COUNCIL.

ULTIMATELY, THAT POOL WAS CONSTRUCTED. AND WHILE WE'LL GET INTO IT WHEN DISCUSSING COMMUNITY CHARACTER, THERE ARE AT LEAST 14 POOLS IN THE VICINITY OF OR WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION.

AS FOR THE SITE MAP, WE'RE IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE LIBERTY ON THE LAKE SUBDIVISION.

HERE IS OUR SITE PLAN. YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE POOL AND OTHER OUTDOOR IMPROVEMENTS WILL AFFECT OR WILL SITE THEMSELVES. ON THE LOT. AND HERE IS A MORE ENGINEERED DEPICTION OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

NOW, AS FOR WHY WE AS STAFF ARE NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AT THIS TIME, IT COMES DOWN TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST WHEN WE ARE ASKED TO EVALUATE THESE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS A REASONABLE USE FOR THE DISTRICT.

NOT ONLY IS A POOL FAIRLY STANDARD IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE IT WOULD. IT WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO POINT THREE.

SEEING AS THOUGH THERE ARE MANY OTHER POOLS OF SIMILAR SIZE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IF ANYTHING, THE FACT THAT THIS INCLUDES AN ENGINEERED MITIGATION IDENTICAL TO THAT WHICH COUNCIL APPROVED FOR ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS DOWN THE STREET IN 2024, LEADS US TO BELIEVE THAT THE ENVIRONMENT WILL LIKELY NOT BE UNDULY IMPACTED.

HOWEVER, THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A WAY THAT WE AS STAFF CAN JUSTIFY POINT NUMBER TWO HERE THAT THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER IS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.

ULTIMATELY, THE DESIRE TO HAVE A POOL IS NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS FAR AS IT RELATES TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW SURROUNDING VARIANCES. IF YOU ARE TO APPROVE THE POOL THIS EVENING THROUGH THIS VARIANCE, THEN WE WOULD RECOMMEND THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT THE POOL AND DECK ACCORDING TO ALL PERTINENT BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, AND THAT THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT AND ENSURE THE MAINTENANCE OF THE INFILTRATION TRENCH WITH A VOLUME AT OR EXCEEDING 983FT² OF CAPACITY.

THOUGH THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING TO INCREASE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BY, I BELIEVE, 1400 FEET, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT. 983FT IS THE EXCESS OVER THE 25% LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM WITHIN

[00:25:03]

THE SHORELAND OVERLAY? HOWEVER THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU PC 2020 601 IS IT CONTAINS FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST HAS NOT BEEN MET.

SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020 601 WITH FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR THE VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

I NOW STAND FOR QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY. GREAT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? ANYTHING YOU WISH TO ADD? COME ON. FORWARD TO THE TO THE PODIUM.

NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE PRESS THE BUTTON TO GET THE GREEN TO TURN ON.

OKAY, THERE WE GO. THANKS, EVERYBODY. THIS IS MY FIRST ONE OF THESE.

IT'S BEEN GOOD TO WORK WITH JOHNNY, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THREE THINGS TO NAME AND ADDRESS.

OH, YEAH. I'M SORRY. MY FIRST ONE, MY NAME IS ANDY NOEL.

ADDRESS IS 3339 PIONEER PLACE. AND I'M COMING OFF THE HIGH OF RECEIVING A FAKE EMAIL FROM THE FROM THE COMMISSIONER APPROVING THE PROJECT. SO, DID YOU GUYS HEAR ABOUT THAT? NO. YEAH. YEAH. WE WE GOT ONE AT 330 IN THE MORNING.

SOMEBODY GOT ON PUBLIC RECORDS AND ACTUALLY CREATED AN APPROVAL WITH AN INVOICE WHERE YOU GUYS WANTED TO GET PAID FOR BEING APPROVED.

SO I GOT IN TOUCH WITH JOHNNY, AND IT HAD MR. DEBARGE'S NAME AND SIGNATURE ON IT AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF.

YEAH, IT WAS REALLY CONVINCING. VERY CONVINCING.

SO IN ANY EVENT IT'S LIKE $33,479. YEAH. SO. YEAH.

SO JOHNNY'S LIKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, BUT WE USUALLY DON'T GET PAID LIKE THAT, SO BUT THERE'S JUST THREE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT. THIS HAS BEEN A LIFELONG DREAM FOR MY WIFE, WHICH PUTS A LOT OF PRESSURE ON ME TO TRY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

WE EXPLORED IT FIRST A FEW YEARS AGO AND LEARNED ABOUT THE OBSTACLES, YOU KNOW, WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE KIND OF HAD HAD RESOLVED TO, TO JUST DEAL WITH IT AND MAYBE MOVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEN WE SAW THE NEIGHBORS PUT IN THE POOL AND WE WERE BUOYED AGAIN.

SO WE FIGURED, WELL, IF THEY CAN DO IT, WE CAN DO IT TOO.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE STARTING THIS PROCESS. THE SECOND POINT AND I REALIZE IT'S PROBABLY APPLES AND ORANGES TO YOU ALL, BUT AS I SAT HERE AND WATCHED THE BRIXTON PLAN, I'M SITTING HERE GOING, IF THEY'RE APPROVING THAT, THIS IS LIKE A DROP IN THE BUCKET. SO WE'RE TAKING STEPS TO MITIGATE I THINK I'VE GOT MY CONTRACTOR HERE, MARSHAL. LORDY, FROM PERFORMANCE POOLS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF THE LOT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BETTER IF THIS PROJECT IS DONE WITH THE RUNOFF ISSUE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND THEN THE THIRD POINT WAS I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE COMMISSION'S OTHER DECISIONS, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO DECKS. AND I FOUND LIKE THREE WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS WHERE THERE WERE DECKS APPROVED.

AND AT LEAST ONE WAS IN MAY OF 2025 WHERE THERE WAS LIKE A 2.56% INCREASE IN THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THE DECK WAS IMPROVED. YOU GUYS DESCRIBED IT AS MODEST IN SIZE, AND NONETHELESS, IT WENT OVER THE 25%, AND THAT ONE WAS APPROVED WITH NO MITIGATION.

SO I FEEL LIKE WITH THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE OBVIOUSLY A GREAT A GREAT IMPROVEMENT FOR THE HOUSE, A GREAT LOOK FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE PLACE LOOK BETTER IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF THE YARD IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BETTER THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE HOPING TO MOVE FORWARD. AND I'LL LET MARSHALL DESCRIBE IT IN ANY MORE DETAIL AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TOO. OKAY. GREAT.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THANKS.

GREAT. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. WELL, MY NAME IS MARSHALL LORDI WITH PERFORMANCE POOLS.

AND YEAH, JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR ONTO WHAT WHAT ANDY SAID HERE.

JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT AS HE SAID THIS, YOU KNOW, THE MITIGATION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME, YOU KNOW, INFILTRATION, TRENCH AND STYLE, AS JOHNNY MENTIONED, THAT HAS BEEN DONE AT THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS JUST MANY OTHER PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STATE IN THE, IN THE METRO THAT WE'VE SEEN.

AND THAT HAS BEEN A SUCCESSFUL WITH THIS PARTICULAR INFILTRATION PLAN.

ALSO JUST TO REITERATE THAT IT IT IS GOING BEYOND WHAT'S NEEDED.

I KNOW JOHNNY MENTIONED ON THE POWERPOINT THERE THAT 983FT² OF INFILTRATION WAS WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED.

AND WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY, AS ANDY MENTIONED,

[00:30:06]

IN A BETTER SPOT THAN IT ACTUALLY IS CURRENTLY WITH REGARDS TO RUNOFF.

I'M ALSO REMOVING A TREE BY WHERE THE INFILTRATION TRENCH IS SUPPOSED TO GO.

THAT WILL ALSO HELP US GRADE THAT THAT PROPERTY BACK THERE, SO THAT THERE CAN BE MORE WATER THAT ENTERS THAT INFILTRATION TRENCH.

AND THEN WE'LL AGAIN LIMIT THE RUNOFF TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

SO SO AGAIN, IN ADDITION TO WHAT ANDY SAID ABOUT YOU KNOW, THE, THE RENEWED KIND OF DREAM OF HAVING THIS POOL AND SEEING WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE ABLE TO DO AND SEEING HOW THAT YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN TERMS OF THE PLAN THAT WE HAD IN PLACE.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS THAT IS THE THE MAIN REASON WHY WE WOULD PROPOSE, OBVIOUSLY, TO HAVE THIS PROJECT DONE AND BE ABLE TO HAVE YOU KNOW, A HOMEOWNER BE ABLE TO REALIZE HIS DREAM OF HAVING A POOL.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR FOR THE APPLICANT? SO THE ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE WITH THE INFILTRATION TRENCH.

WHAT'S THE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE ON THAT? YEAH.

SO THERE THERE REALLY IS NOT MUCH OF A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE ON THAT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE AS YOU CAN SEE. I MEAN, I HAVE DOCUMENTS HERE THAT I CAN SHARE IF NEEDED.

IN TERMS OF THE THE CUBIC VOLUME OF FILTRATION THAT IS BASED ON AN AVERAGE RAINFALL OF 1.1IN.

AND SO WITH. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT AS WATER FLOWS ACROSS THE GROUND, IT PICKS UP DIRT THAT IS IN OTHER PARTS. AND AS IT COMES TO THAT TRENCH, THAT DIRT FALLS INTO THE TRENCH.

HOW DOES THAT DIRT GET OUT OF THE TRENCH THEN? BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IT'LL JUST FILL UP WITH DIRT.

SO HOW DOES THAT DIRT GET OUT OF YOUR INFILTRATION TRENCH? YEAH. SO WELL, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE DRAINAGE UNDERNEATH THAT TRENCH.

THAT IS THEN GOING TO FILTER THAT THAT DIRT OUT.

SO IT DROPS ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM AND GOES THROUGH ALL OF THE ROCKS AND EVERYTHING AND COMES OUT THE BOTTOM. AND THEN WHERE DOES IT GO? YEAH.

SO THEN IT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BE PIPED OUT TO THE, TO THE LOWEST GRADE.

AND THEN ESSENTIALLY IT WILL FILTER OUT THAT WAY BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE EXPERIENCE THAT I THINK A LOT OF CITIES HAVE WHEN THEY DO THESE TYPES OF THINGS IS THAT WHEN THEY BUILD WEIRS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK EVERY FIVE YEARS OR SO AND EMPTY THEM OUT AND, AND PULL A LOT OF THAT SLUDGE OUT OF THERE. I THINK WE'VE GOT CITY ENGINEERS HERE ON OUR ON THE COMMISSION WHO CAN ATTEST TO THAT, THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S 4 OR 5 YEARS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND RECLEAN ALL THESE THINGS DEPENDING UPON THE PLACEMENT AND WHAT IT'S FLOWING.

YEAH. THANK YOU. DEPENDING UPON THE PLACEMENT, WHAT IT'S FLOWING THROUGH. A LOT OF TIMES, SOME OF THAT FILTRATION MEDIA HAS TO BE REPLACED OVER TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT.

IT'S NOT A NO, BUT IT'S NOT A NO MAINTENANCE.

IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A NO MAINTENANCE. NO. AND AND AS A HOMEOWNER, I MEAN, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY COMMIT TO DOING THAT.

I MEAN, THE POOL IS A HIGH MAINTENANCE ITEM TO BEGIN WITH.

SO WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND IF THERE'S MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRENCH WE CAN WE CAN OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. OKAY. OKAY. BUT THAT'S YOU KNOW, I THINK I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TELLING THE HOMEOWNERS THAT THESE TRENCHES ARE NO MAINTENANCE, OKAY? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THAT'S A YOU KNOW, IT WAS A THING THAT CAME UP THE LAST TIME THAT WE CAME THROUGH AS WELL.

WE ASKED ABOUT WHAT WAS THE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE. AND AT THAT POINT YOU WERE ALSO SAYING THESE TRENCHES ARE NO MAINTENANCE, WHICH SOUNDS GREAT TO A HOMEOWNER. THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO WANT THEM IF THEY'RE NO MAINTENANCE, BUT THEY ARE NOT NO MAINTENANCE. AND THEY NEED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, PROPER CARE TAKEN ON THEM IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE INSTALLING THESE THINGS.

SURE, SURE. BECAUSE BECAUSE THAT'S THAT GIVES ME THE PROBLEM.

20 YEARS FROM NOW, IT GETS FULL OF DIRT. AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY SORT OF A, ANY SORT OF A SYSTEM FOR DEALING WITH THE RAINWATER BECAUSE IT'S JUST IT'S JUST DIRT.

SURE. YEAH, I WOULD I WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT IN TERMS OF THE WAY WE CAN PHRASE THAT OR THE WAY WE CAN YOU KNOW, RELAY THAT TO, TO THE HOMEOWNERS. I STILL WOULD SAY THAT YOU KNOW, THE TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS IN TERMS OF INSTALLING THESE TRENCHES HAS, YOU KNOW, IT STILL STANDS. AND AGAIN, THAT'S I REALIZE THAT WE'RE ONLY TALKING WITHIN THE CITY OF STILLWATER, BUT, I MEAN, WE CAN POINT TO MANY OTHER CITIES THAT WE'VE INSTALLED THIS IN, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN FROM THE CITY OF EDINA AND THEIR ENGINEERS AND YOU KNOW, AND THEIR PLANS, WHICH THEN WERE ABLE TO GET APPROVALS, YOU KNOW, IN CITIES LIKE APPLE VALLEY, PLYMOUTH, YOU KNOW, MANY OTHER CITIES THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH. SO WE DO FEEL THAT THIS IS THIS DOES HAVE YOU KNOW,

[00:35:03]

PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF A SUCCESSFUL PLAN IN TERMS OF MITIGATING THIS RUNOFF, RIGHT? NO, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT IS A GREAT MECHANISM.

ABSOLUTELY. WE CERTAINLY ADVOCATE FOR THAT. IT'S JUST THE FRAMING IT AS A NO MAINTENANCE FEATURE.

OKAY. YEAH, JUST JUST SOME CLARITY ON THERE OVER THE YEARS.

IT'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT. BUT NO, WE WOULD CERTAINLY ADVOCATE FOR PEOPLE TO USE THOSE.

OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO. OKAY. GREAT. THANKS. AND WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. ANYONE AT ALL? SEEING NO ONE MOVING FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? YOU MOST CERTAINLY CAN. CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY ON WHERE WE STAND ON HOW WE VIEW MITIGATION EFFORTS TO MITIGATE THE IMPERVIOUS STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE.

PARDON ME, COMMISSIONER NORTH, WOULD YOU MIND REPHRASING THAT SO I CAN BEST ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, THAT WAS THAT WAS A LOT OF WORDS AND NOT MUCH MEANING, SO I UNDERSTAND.

SO IN THE PAST WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE MITIGATION EFFORTS.

YES. AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD OFFSET THE IMPERVIOUS SPACE STANDARDS.

CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY ON WHERE WE STAND IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WHAT ACTION WE'VE TAKEN AND HAVE WE SOLIDIFIED? A DEFINITION OF THESE MITIGATION EFFORTS WILL ALLOW TO OFFSET 5% OR WHATEVER IT IS.

COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE NOT YET BROUGHT FORWARD NOR ARE WE YET READY TO BRING FORWARD THE CODIFICATION OF INFILTRATION MEASURES INTO OUR CODE, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO AREAS WITHIN THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT.

OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELAND, WE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FOR SOME REASONABLE INFILTRATION MITIGATIONS, BUT IT'S BEEN COMMUNICATED TO US FROM THE WATERSHED THAT THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF EXCESS WATER STORAGE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT AS FAR AS OUR POLICY GOES WE ARE TREATING ALL INFILTRATION APPLICATION OR ALL VARIANCES THAT REQUIRE A LOT COVERAGE. EXCEEDANCE. WE'RE TREATING THEM THE SAME.

WE'RE ASKING THAT EVERYBODY PROVIDE A CITY ENGINEER APPROVED MITIGATION STRATEGY BACK TO THE CODE MAXIMUM.

OR AT LEAST THAT'S BEEN POLICY SINCE I BEGAN THIS WITH YOU ALL LAST YEAR.

LOCATION AGNOSTIC. OUR RECOMMENDATION, IF WERE TO APPROVE, WOULD BE TO HAVE THE CITY ENGINEER APPROVE A MITIGATION STRATEGY BACK TO 25%, WHICH WOULD BE THE CODE MAX. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING, AND THIS HAS BEEN JUST PART OF KIND OF OUR DISCUSSION, THE OTHER PIECE OF IT THAT QUITE OFTEN IS, IS THAT WE HAVE KIND OF THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE THE SECOND STORY DECK DOORS AND THOSE I THINK HAVE BEEN THE ONES WE'VE ALSO BEEN SAYING, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE LEEWAY ON THIS BECAUSE AND, YOU KNOW, LET'S DEAL WITH IT THROUGH MITIGATION VERSUS ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THOSE ARE REALLY BACKED INTO A CORNER.

THAT'S. YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY ON THIS THING AS WELL.

THE PLACES WE'RE ALLOWING THE MITIGATION ARE KIND OF FOR THE SECOND STORY DECK FLOORS.

YES. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, THAT LARGELY WAS THE CASE OF 2025, THE YEAR OF THE DECK VARIANCE.

WE DID SEE ONE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WAS SIMILARLY IN A WESTERN STILLWATER PUD IN MILLBROOK LAST YEAR THAT CAME FROM 2825 WHITE PINE WAY.

THE APPLICANT WAS CARL NELSON. AND WHILE THAT APPLICANT SOUGHT TO DO SOMETHING HIGHLY SIMILAR EVEN THOUGH THAT LOT COVERAGE PROPOSAL WAS UP TO 44%, AND TODAY WE'RE FACING 32% OF LOT COVERAGE WE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID DENY THAT VARIANCE. IT WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY COUNCIL OVERTURNED THE DENIAL ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS FULLY MITIGATING BACK TO THE CODE MAXIMUM. AND THIS APPLICANT THIS EVENING.

ANDY NOEL HAS PROPOSED THE EDINA TRENCH AS THE INFILTRATION TECHNIQUE.

[00:40:03]

BUT WE'VE ALSO SEEN APPROVALS THROUGH CITY ENGINEER APPROVED RAIN GARDENS.

A RAIN GARDEN WAS THE TECHNIQUE INSTALLED LAST YEAR.

BUT WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, MORE RECENTLY, 3393 PIONEER PLACE WAS THE SAME TRENCH PROPOSED THIS EVENING.

SO WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. IN LARGE PART BECAUSE NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE QUANDARY, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE VERY, A GOOD PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, BUT NONETHELESS, I THINK OUR HANDS ARE TIED.

AND I AGREE WITH STAFF THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TEST HAS NOT BEEN MET.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? MY MIND IS ALONG THE SAME LINE THAT THAT THREE PART TEST IS WHAT WE ARE BOUND TO.

AND IF WE'RE MISSING ONE OF THE STEPS, THEN WE WOULD.

IS THAT A SECOND AND THEN SOME. YEAH. SO I'M SECONDING THAT WITH COMMENTS.

YOU CAN MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. THERE YOU GO. YEAH I GOT TO GET THE BUSINESS PIECE OF THIS DONE AND RUNNING A TIGHT SHIP TONIGHT.

OH, MAN. YOU'RE SUCH A STICKLER HERE. YEAH. MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

SO. OKAY. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DENIAL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YOU KNOW, JUST REAL QUICK, I'LL SAY I APPRECIATE THE MITIGATION EFFORTS.

AND, AND I THINK THAT'S A REAL COMMENT, BY THE WAY, I'M ALSO IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT.

MY WIFE HAS WANTED A POOL FOR YEARS. SO I, I FEEL YOUR PAIN.

HAVING SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE BENEFITS TO LIVING IN OR NEAR WATERSHED DISTRICT.

AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME WITH THAT BENEFIT.

SO I ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND I THINK WHAT JOHNNY WAS ALLUDING TO, WHICH IS THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO HOW MUCH VARIATION THERE IS ALLOWED THERE. SO I WILL ALSO AGREE WITH THE MOTION AND THE THE SECOND AS WELL.

THE LAST THING I'LL JUST SAY, AND THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT ALL TO THE APPLICANT, BUT I THINK THIS IS JUST ANOTHER REMINDER THAT PRECEDENT MATTERS.

AND YOU TEND TO HAVE AN ACCUMULATING EFFECT OF PRECEDENT.

BUT I'LL LEAVE MY COMMENTS AT THAT. AND I'LL JUST ECHO THE SENTIMENTS, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY EMPATHIZE WITH YOU. I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH IN THERE.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN WE HAVE TO PROVE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT JUST THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION LENS.

AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT A VARIANCE, WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE TO DO A CASE BY CASE BASIS ON THAT.

YEAH. AND I WOULD JUST ECHO WHAT EVERYONE HAS KIND OF SAID THAT WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, OUR HANDS ARE TIED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT ON THIS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T THIS THIS LOT DOESN'T RISE TO ANY SORT OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE.

YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF OTHER HOMES THAT THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THAT SHORELINE OVERLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.

AND SO I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU LOVE YOUR HOME AND YOU LOVE THE LOCATION OF IT AND WHATNOT, BUT THAT MAY BE THE, YOU KNOW, THE THAT ENDS UP POSSIBLY BEING THE SOLUTION IS MOVING ACROSS THE STREET OR DOWN THE BLOCK SO THAT YOU'RE OUT OF THE SHORELINE OVERLAY. AND THEN THIS WOULD COMPLETELY BE ALLOWED.

SO BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE OPTION TO BE ABLE TO, TO APPROVE THIS HERE TONIGHT.

SO WITH THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR DENIAL, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. AND THOSE OPPOSED. SO THAT MOTION CARRIES.

CHAIR, IF I MAY NOTE, FOR THIS APPLICANT AS WELL AS OUR NEXT ONE SINCE THIS THESE ARE BOTH VARIANCE CASES.

I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE REMINDED OF BOTH APPLICANTS THAT IN THE CASE OF A DENIAL, YOU HAVE TEN DAYS TO FILE AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION. AT WHICH POINT IT WILL BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL.

WHERE THEY WILL MAKE A RULING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTED IN ERROR.

SO YOU HAVE TEN DAYS TO FILE AN APPEAL WITH ME. THANK YOU.

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

WISH YOU LUCK IN THAT. ANOTHER. YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOU YOUR MONEY BACK NOW FOR THE FOR THAT APPROVAL.

THAT'S A WIN FOR ME. YEAH, RIGHT. SO SO WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.

[4. Case No. CD2026-003: Variance Request to the Front Yard Setback for Construction of a Covered Stoop at 2504 Croixwood Blvd. – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

CASE 2026 003 VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE FRONT YARD.

SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED STOOP AT 2504 CROY WOOD BOULEVARD, MR..

[00:45:03]

MANHATTAN. THANK YOU. CHAIR. JUMPING RIGHT IN.

WE ARE OVER IN THE CROY WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD. 2504 CROY WOOD BOULEVARD.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE RA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US IS NOT A CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOME ITSELF, BUT RATHER TO PROVIDE A COVERED BUT UNENCLOSED ENTRANCE TO THE EXISTING FRONT DOOR.

WE'RE BUILDING A COVERED STOOP HERE. SO THE ASK IS A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE.

TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE COMFORT IN THE FUNCTION AND USE OF THAT FRONT DOOR.

HERE'S OUR SITE MAP, LOCATED OVER IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER.

AND NOW WE ARE PROVIDED WITH SOME ELEVATIONS.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE TAKING THE EXISTING HOME AND SEEKING TO BUILD TWO COLUMNS THAT SUPPORT PILLARS HOLDING UP A COVERED. ROOF MASS IN FRONT OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING HOME WOULD BE OR THE ROOF LINE WOULD EXTEND OUT EIGHT FEET, WHICH WOULD BRING US TO 25FT FROM THE EXISTING 25FT, WHEREAS WE'RE LIMITED TO 30. IN THE RAS DISTRICT, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING HOME SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITIONS, AND THIS IS AN INSPIRATION PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.