Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01-06-20211 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2021 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on January 6, 2021. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners David Witte, Justin Markell, Michael Boo, Bryan Oakley and Julie Pointner. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Donovan Saba STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, HRA Manager Jim Barnes, Community Development Coordinator Matt Lupini and Deputy Parks and Recreation Director Barb Northway. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Ned Carroll and Jim Davis and Jason Kruell from Charles Cudd. Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Boo to approve the agenda. With All Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on December 2, 2020. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo and seconded by Commissioner Witte to approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Preliminary Plat and Variance for Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for “Valor Place” for property located at the NE corner of Fernbrook Lane and Rockford Road (2020095). Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked for clarification on the language within the report noting that it uses the terms “two family homes” and “twin homes”. He asked if those terms are synonymous. 2 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that to be true. Commissioner Witte stated that the parcel is referenced to being two different sizes (.61 and .62 acres) and asked for clarification. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the survey for the plat lists the property as .61 acres while Hennepin County has the parcel listed as .62 acres. He stated that the parcel is .61 acres based on the survey included in the preliminary plat. Commissioner Witte stated that this proposal would divide the parcel diagonally, which he has not seen before and asked if that a common type of lot split. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the diagonal lot is shown in order to meet the subdivision requirements and provide access to a public street. Commissioner Witte stated that if an L shaped driveway were used with two rectangular lots, it would be more standard and asked if that was discussed. Senior Planner Berglund noted that there is only a certain amount of street frontage along the cul-de-sac, therefore any other way to split the lot with access to 41st Avenue would result in additional variances. Community Development Director Juetten explained that the lot width is measured at the 25-foot setback from the street, so even if the orientation of the houses were rotated, the lot width would still be measured the same and would not be changed. Commissioner Oakley referenced the subdivision and zoning requirements, noting the minimum width and area as well as the necessary setbacks and asked for clarification. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the lot width measurement is taken at the minimum setback regardless of the placement of the home. Commissioner Oakley clarified that his comment does not necessarily apply to this project but noted that the minimum width seems to be a large number, especially in a zoning district that allows a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. He stated that if there was a rectangular lot, you could only have a tiny home with those requirements. He referenced the proposed driveway width shown on the plans and asked the width of the driveway as it enters the cul-de-sac. Senior Planner Berglund replied that it would appear to be about 15 feet or so in width at that point. Commissioner Oakley commented that both homes do not have the same access to the cul-de- sac. He stated that the northwesterly building would have an access easement from the other property in order to pull their vehicles in. He asked if a shared driveway would automatically come with the property or whether those are details the applicant would need to work out. 3 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Senior Planner Berglund replied that would be worked out through the homeowners’ association documents. Commissioner Markell asked if there is a need to subdivide the property and whether the HRA would remain the fee owner of the property, renting the units to tenants. Senior Planner Berglund replied that it is his understanding that the HRA would maintain ownership and if approved it would be two rental units. He stated that it is not necessarily a requirement to subdivide the property but the HRA has chosen to request to subdivide the property as that would setup additional options for the future. Commissioner Markell commented that the properties immediately east have a lot width of 52 feet and asked if those were constructed prior to the 1992 code requirement. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the 90-foot requirement is based on a two-family situation, therefore it includes both the units and the 52 feet widths of the properties meet the requirements. Chair Anderson commented that the only variance requested is for lot width. Senior Planner Berglund noted that staff received a number of correspondences which will become a part of the record and was included in the packet for the commission. Commissioner Markell asked if a variance would be needed if the HRA did not choose to subdivide the property and just erected the homes as proposed. Senior Planner Berglund replied that would be true as this is an existing lot of record and there are land use rights to the existing lot where an applicant could request an administrative permit to construct a two-family home on the lot. Commissioner Markell asked if the administrative permit would be subject to a public hearing. Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that an administrative permit would not require a public hearing or city council approval. Community Development Coordinator Lupini, spoke on behalf of the HRA and as the applicant, provided background information on the HRA, the programs that it offers, and its mission. He stated that this project came forward because of the interest to provide stable housing for veterans and their families. He stated that the Valor Place Homes would be rented to veterans and their families and would have funds dedicated for continued maintenance. He provided details on the proposed home features. He stated that the properties would be rented as it would allow the HRA to have more oversight on the property and would create an opportunity to provide affordable housing to veterans and their families. He stated that a neighborhood meeting was held in December and there has continued to be good communications with the neighboring property owners. He reviewed details of the proposed plat and stated that the lot was chosen to be split in this manner in order to make these homes a part of the neighborhood rather than isolating the western unit. He reviewed a landscaping plan and identified screening which would not only benefit the subject property but also the neighboring properties. He provided details on storm water management. 4 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked the location of the bike trail and any sidewalks. Community Development Coordinator Lupini identified the county trail that would be proposed for the south side of the property and the city trail along the west side of the property. Commissioner Markell commented that he appreciates the goal and purpose for the property but was not convinced that a subdivision would be needed to accomplish that goal. Community Development Coordinator Lupini stated that when this project came about, they were exploring the options of whether it would be operated as a rental or owner occupied rental and therefore the request was made to subdivide the property as that kept both options. He stated that at this time the plan is to maintain ownership and rent the properties but subdividing the property and being granted the variance at this time keeps that option open in the case that one or both of the units were desired to be sold in the future. Commissioner Markell asked if those options would be considered economic. Community Development Coordinator Lupini stated that the variance request is not for the economic opportunity of the HRA but to allow for future flexibility for the veterans noting that perhaps in the future a veteran is able to purchase one of the units. HRA Manager Barnes stated that this is a business decision that they are making in order to provide the most flexibility in order to offer these homes to the individuals at the right times in their lives. He noted that perhaps one of the veterans is able to purchase a home in the future and they would like to have that opportunity available. Community Development Juetten commented that this would protect the HRA and city council, should economic conditions change in the future and the decision is made to sell the units. Commissioner Markell asked if the property could be subdivided at that time. Community Development Juetten confirmed that could be brought forward in the future but staff felt it more appropriate to have that conversation now rather than pushing it down the road. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Tracy Crocker, 14115 41st Avenue N, who stated that they submitted written comments prior to the meeting. He stated that he supports veterans yet feels that this is a poorly conceived plan with many concerns. He was unsure how the project could proceed with many details missing. He expressed concern with the timeline as he has not been given a chance to complete due diligence, noting that he was first alerted to the project on December 7th, with the neighborhood meeting on December 17th. He did not feel he had adequate time to review the project details. He commented that the project’s request for a variance is not appropriate and the HRA should have been aware of that when it purchased the property. He stated that they are also concerned with the driveway access as it would remove two trees and be very close to the neighboring driveway. He stated that if the easement were not provided to CenturyLink, the property would have had adequate space for the driveway. He stated that if the lot were 5 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 configured in another manner, the lot could have a shared driveway access that could split to provide access to the two homes once on the property. He commented that this building would not look like anything else in the neighborhood and would not fit the standards that have been set. He stated that rental units are not consistent with owner occupied homes in this area. He stated that concrete information was not provided on the length of time each tenant would be in the space, noting that constant turnover would cause disturbance to the area. He stated that this is a much smaller property than the neighboring properties and commented that the existing townhomes have basements with larger square footage than what is proposed in this project. He stated that the conifer trees that would be removed for the driveway provide screening to the CenturyLink site. He stated that he would like to see a more comprehensive plan including details on tree preservation, noting that some of the trees on the site are not healthy trees. He commented that the two conifers that are proposed to be removed have root structures that are connected to two conifers that are proposed to remain and asked what would be done if those trees experience damage from the removal of the other trees. He commented on the screening this property currently provides that would be removed with this project. He provided background information on the current process for drainage and noted that he would be concerned that this would cause a drainage problem in the area. He stated that HOA documents have not been presented and asked what would be expected of the tenants. He commented that residents in this area take pride in their properties and would want to ensure that would continue to this property. He stated that a budget has not been presented for the ongoing maintenance needs, which causes concern. He did not feel that the example projects included in the case were comparable to this situation. He commented that the seniors that live in these townhomes have worked and selected these homes for retirement and did not believe this project would fit into this area. He stated that if a variance is necessary to make this project work, perhaps only one single family home be constructed for rental on this property. Chair Anderson introduced Mary Restrepo, 14105 41st Avenue N, who commented that she has been a real estate agent in this area for the past 20 years and provided her perspective on the impact that this project could have on the existing neighborhood in writing which was included in the packet. She stated that she is concerned with the proposal as the lot is too small for what is shown on the preliminary plat. She stated that a variance has been requested to achieve this plan and believes that the variance focuses on economic factors. She believed that a shared driveway and lot split in an east to west manner would appease more people in the neighborhood and would be more beneficial for everyone. She encouraged the city to look at a different position on the lot that would have less impact on the neighboring properties and seems to impose. She commented that this proposal also does not work well with the city’s tree preservation policy as the removal of the two trees will probably cause two additional trees to be damaged. She stated that there is a perceived negative impact on property values and safety. She stated that the proposed structure does not blend with the existing homes and townhomes. She commented that Charles Cudd is a luxury home builder, and this structure will stand out in the existing neighborhood. She stated that both of the existing HOA’s have architectural design committees that prevent something like this from being built as it does not fit with the neighboring homes aesthetically. She stated that they would like something more consistent, with consistent square footage and consistent building materials. She stated that it is interesting that CenturyLink is willing to give its blessing without being flexible on the easement and also with the condition that they be given future consideration for their property. She stated that familial status cannot be a discriminating factor and therefore the project cannot be advertised for veterans and their families. She stated that she was asked as to whether their HOA would accept another property, 6 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 noting that their HOA has stringent requirements for rental properties. She did not believe that it would make sense for a new property to join an established 25-year-old association. She stated that she had an interested client that wanted to purchase the subject property to build a twin home but was told that the city already purchased the property with the intention to move forward with the plan. She stated that she and her association did not receive communication that the property was purchased, and the project has moved rapidly since that time. She commented that questions from the residents have been responded to in a vague manner. She stated that she finds the responses of the city offensive as related to this project. She stated that there are studies that prove that existing established property values are impacted by the addition of affordable housing. She stated that information about the builder and type of home to be built are vague and inconsistent. She stated that an example project is still under construction and will be owner occupied, so that is not comparable while the other is a custom home site with owner occupied units. She stated that the quality and amenities of those homes cannot be compared to this project. She stated that they would like to see the buildings owned and managed by the HRA and noted that maintenance plans will need to be provided in writing. She stated that they would also want to see rental requirements and lease details, highlighting some elements of the lease that she would want to see included. She stated that there is a concern with the drainage that currently accumulates in backyards in this area and the possibility that additional runoff could come from this property. She stated that many of the concerns thus far have been discredited by staff with information that does not apply to this project/situation. She stated that this process has established a process of distrust for the city and this project. Chair Anderson introduced Dave Wanous, 4155 Dallas Lane N, who agreed with the comments of the previous speakers. He stated that he provided a mock plat driving with a different orientation as discussed with a driveway that comes along the CenturyLink property line and submitted that to the city earlier today. He stated that he is curious to the easement process, noting that this would ask for a 23 percent variance. He asked how common it is for the city to allow that type of variance in other development. He asked if it would be possible to have the front of the unit appear to fit more the existing neighborhood using brick, stone, stucco, hardy plank, or similar materials rather than vinyl siding. Chair Anderson introduced Peter Kuretsky, 4165 Dallas Lane N, who commented that while this neighborhood is single family, it is not 100 percent owner occupied as there are rental homes in the neighborhood. He stated that the townhomes have attempted to present themselves as a senior development but there have been families with children in the neighborhood. He commented that this proposal would be a wonderful use of the property. He commented that the homeowners that own the townhomes should have bought the subject property if they wanted control of the property. He stated that while many people say they support veterans, their words and actions contradict that. He stated that he supports veterans, believes this would be a good use of the property and that the value and design of the home would be a great addition and in line with the neighborhood. Chair Anderson introduced Linda Haugland, 4170 Dallas Lane N, who referenced the elevation view which was shared by the HRA. She stated that it makes it appear that it is a straight shot from the cul-de-sac to the homes, but in actuality there would be a ten-foot rise to get to the twin homes. 7 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Chair Anderson introduced Michelle Soderberg, 16235 9th Avenue, Chair of the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority, stated that this project would allow the HRA to have the ability to turn a vacant lot into affordable workforce housing which would meet the goal to provide affordable housing. She stated that the HRA currently manages two senior housing buildings along with many single-family homes that are rented. She stated that the HRA completes the maintenance necessary to ensure the assets continue to hold their value with budgeted funds for that purpose. She stated that if issues arise there are multiple ways in which neighboring residents could reach out to city staff or the HRA. She appreciated that the change from a vacant lot to a developed property is a change for the neighbors. She stated that this request meets all requirements with the exception of lot frontage. She stated that this is not a case of placing a development on an inadequate sized lot, noting that the lots are actually much larger than required. She stated that she has driven by this vacant lot for more than ten years and the HRA feels that this is a plan to develop this property in a manner which would be consistent with the existing neighborhood. She asked that the commission approve the variance request. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Berglund identified the two conifers that were mentioned, as well as the two conifers to the south. He stated that the conifers proposed to be removed were unfortunately planted in the right-of-way and if the proposal were approved, the conifers would be removed. He stated that there are conditions within the proposed resolution that would require fencing and other measures to protect the other two conifers to the south. He stated that there are not a lot of trees on the property and the minimum landscaping requirements would be met through this proposal. He displayed the proposed grading plan, indicated the path in which drainage would be directed, noting that it would not be directed towards adjacent properties and would instead be directed to a storm water pipe on the property and to the storm water system. He stated that if a new layout were shown for a driveway and the lot line orientation was changed to a north/south, that would require an additional variance as there would be a new lot that would not gain its frontage from a public street. He stated that the city zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance do not dictate whether a property is to be owner occupied or rental and therefore is not part of this review. Community Development Director Juetten referenced the comment for a 23 percent variance and whether there are many of those in the city. He commented that every variance request is unique. He noted that many of the older lots tend to be 55 to 60 feet wide and require a similar type of variance to allow a home to be built on the lot if the existing home is removed. Community Development Coordinator Lupini echoed the comment that the commission is not tasked with the issue of rental versus ownership. He explained that the HRA would like to continue to have ownership over the property and would not want to financially burden the veterans and families that live in these homes with those maintenance costs. He stated that property values were a topic of interest during the neighborhood meeting and the research they have done shows that absent a concentration of affordable housing in an established neighborhood, if the housing is well maintained it does not have a negative impact on property values. He commented that the HRA feels that the twin homes would fit aesthetically with the twin homes to the east as well as with the single-family homes. He noted that there are rentals in the neighboring associations and therefore a rental would not be out of place in this area. 8 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Jason Kruell, Charles Cudd, stated that they plan to do a great job and will be proud of the product they deliver. He commented that the pitch of the roof is necessary to provide that upper- level space. He stated that they have had very positive feedback with the vinyl siding that they have used in the past, using the example of Medina Highlands. He did not think that the roof pitch would be overwhelming and feels that this product would fit well into the neighborhood. Community Development Coordinator Lupini commented that they have reviewed the Plymouth Oaks HOA documents to determine what might be incorporated into their lease. He stated that until they have preliminary planning approval and funding is finalized, it would not be an efficient use of staff time to prepare those documents. He noted that lease documents for the senior buildings were shared as those are available but because this project is not yet approved, the lease documents have not yet been prepared. HRA Manager Barnes referenced the comment made towards fair housing and protected classes. He stated that it is their hope to provide assistance to veterans and their families, but they do understand fair housing guidelines and will follow those. He stated that it could be a possibility that unrelated individuals could live in the unit. He stated that the length of the lease was mentioned, noting that you never know how long you will be at any home situation. He stated that the goal is to achieve stable housing for tenants and residents in all their homes. He stated that they begin with a 12-month lease and then move month to month. He explained that the goal is to provide a step up for veterans through this process, helping them get to a stable position where they could then move on to the next phase of their life. Community Development Director Juetten commented that the public comments will be a part of the record that will move on to the city council and noted that the questions that were asked have been answered. Chair Anderson provided an overview of the scope of the planning commission noting that the discussion should focus on the preliminary plat and the variance. Commissioner Oakley stated that there has been some suggestion that the orientation of the home could be shifted one way or the other, but the appropriate orientation does seem to be as proposed. He stated that there has been question as to whether there should be a lot split, noting that he does see value in completing the lot split now in order to anticipate possible future use in the future rather than pushing that down the road. He stated that he will be supporting the request as presented by the HRA and staff as this would be a good use for a piece of property that is in a difficult place to develop. He commented that he is glad the city has an active HRA and is proud to live in a community which supports veterans in this fashion. Commissioner Boo stated he will also be supporting the resolution for many of the reasons expressed by Commissioner Oakley. He commented that this is a good proposal for an awkward lot and also agrees with the lot split at this time. Commissioner Witte stated he is also in agreement with the comments made by the previous two members of the commission. He commended the neighbors and believed that many of their concerns should be addressed by the city council and HRA. He stated that he personally would 9 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 look at reorientation of the lot but understands that they are trying to make these homes part of the community by orientating them to the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Pointner stated she will also be supporting the request and appreciates all the effort that has gone into this process by the HRA, staff and residents that have provided input. . She commented that this would be an excellent use of an awkward property. Commissioner Markell stated he supports the project and purpose but does not support the variance request for the reason that he does not believe that the variance standards are met by this request. He did not believe that a subdivision of the property is the minimum action needed and the practical goal to provide housing for veterans could be provided without the lot split. Chair Anderson stated that the property rises from the cul-de-sac, noting that he is unsure that he has seen the grading plan and asked staff for details. Community Development Juetten replied that with any building site, a builder will need to complete a certificate of survey and they will look at how the house sits on the lot. He stated that if they can lower the property and use some of that material to create a berm, they would do that. He stated that will done as part of the final plat and certificate of survey. Chair Anderson asked about the easement, stating that it is his understanding that was vacated and went back to the original contributor which was CenturyLink and is fee property. Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that the easement shown was taken as part of the CenturyLink property from which it originated. Chair Anderson referenced the comments made by the neighborhood and appreciated that the neighbors are attempting to obtain as much similarity and control as they can but commented that the neighbors do not own the property and do not have that control. He stated that he would have liked to see a drawing that showed if the split were more north and south but acknowledged that would create additional variances. He stated that the reason for the variance is because of the cul-de-sac and this is a creative situation that works. He commented that the lots are not too small as they are more than twice the minimum size. He commented that the HRA has done a good job in putting together this proposal. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to recommend approval of the resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and Variance for Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for “Valor Place” for property located at the NE corner of Fernbrook Lane and Rockford Road (2020095). The vote passed 5 votes in favor and one vote against, Commissioner Markell voted against. New Business (6.1) Site Plan Amendment for Exterior Lighting Upgrades at West Medicine Lake Park/ 1920 W. Medicine Lake Drive, City of Plymouth (2020101) Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the staff report. 10 Approved Minutes January 6, 2021 Deputy Parks and Recreation Director Northway provided details on the dimming feature that would be used for the lights and the program that would be used to regulate the times at which the lights dim. She stated that there would be a two-foot setback from the curb that would provide space for car bumpers to go over the curb and not disturb the base of the lights. Chair Anderson commented that he was impressed by the technology. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Witte to recommend approval of the resolution approving the Site Plan Amendment for Exterior Lighting Upgrades for West Medicine lake Park 1920 W. Medicine Lake Drive, City of Plymouth (2020101). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.