Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-05-20211 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 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 May 5, 2021. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Michael Boo, Julie Pointner, Justin Markell, Donovan Saba, David Witte, and Bryan Oakley. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planners Shawn Drill, Kip Berglund and Lori Sommers, Graduate Engineer Griffin Dempsey, and Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie. OTHERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum No comments. Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Saba to approve the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on April 21, 2021. Commissioner Witte requested to amend the minutes. On page 8, last paragraph, after “problematic and cause staking: add: “issues back into the intersection.” On page 12, after paragraph 5, insert “At this point in the meeting, Chair Anderson had technical problems and lost his connection to our Zoom meeting so Vice Chair Markell assumed leadership of the meeting.” Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Rezoning and Preliminary plat for 13 single-family lots at 5650 Vagabond Lane, Bald Eagle Builders, Inc. (2021009) 2 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Chair Anderson stated that the April 21, 2021 Public Hearing for this item was opened and continued to tonight’s meeting. Senior Planner Drill provided a review of the staff report. Commissioner Boo asked what discretion the commission would have to recommend a less dense zoning district. Senior Planner Drill responded that the comprehensive plan states that new developments should not be at RSF-1 and reviewed the lot standards for RSF-2. He stated that if the property were rezoned to RSF-2, all the properties within Carlson Woods would need to be RSF-2, it would be difficult to meet the density for the land use designation, and there would not be many lots created on some of the parcels. He stated that staff would recommend RSF-3 as that would best match what already exists in the area. Commissioner Boo asked if there would be other alternatives available if this were platted more comprehensively across all of the lots rather than in this piecemeal manner. Senior Planner Drill responded that if the properties all developed at once, staff would still support RSF-3 as that best matches the surrounding residential development. Commissioner Boo referenced the required drainage easement for the neighboring property to the north (5700 Vagabond Ln.) and asked if that is required because of increased runoff intensity. Senior Planner Drill responded that is correct due to increased runoff intensity. He said the drainage is currently spread across the north property in a sheet manner rather than concentrated through the ditch. Commissioner Oakley asked if any improvements would be needed in the northeast corner in the city right-of-way. Senior Planner Drill responded that the applicant will be reconstructing Troy Lane in that area, which will provide curb and gutter to what’s presently a rural section of roadway. He stated that they will also review the potential impact to the property to the north, as the drainage would be increasing through the easement and other potential improvements may be required. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the water would go into the ditch along Troy Lane and eventually cross to the west to a wetland complex. He stated that the intent would be to provide for a drainage easement, working with the 5700 Vagabond property owners, at their discretion as to how that could be accomplished. Chair Anderson asked if the drainage way would be along Troy Lane and also cross the property. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie replied that is correct and it would connect to the existing drainage way on the property to the west. 3 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Chair Anderson stated that the requirement would be for an easement to be obtained from the 5700 Vagabond property owners, with the negotiation to occur between the two parties but must be city approved. He asked if the easement must be received in order for the plat to proceed. Senior Planner Drill replied affirmatively. Chair Anderson asked if there would be any way to complete the plat without the easement. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the city worked with the applicant quite extensively to review alternatives, but the modeling was less than favorable to neighboring properties. Commissioner Pointner asked if there is a drainage problem in the area currently. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that staff has visited the 5700 Vagabond property numerous times in the past in response to drainage issues and complaints. Commissioner Witte asked for details on the requested road easement for a future potential street. Senior Planner Drill responded that the private street easement is 30 feet wide and that would be the same width the city would request for the public street easement. Commissioner Witte asked if the existing well and septic on the property would be removed and replaced with city sewer and water. Senior Planner Drill responded that the septic drain field and well would be sealed and capped and services would be extended to the existing home on the site. Commissioner Witte commented that if this were zoned RSF-3 it would appear all the lots would exceed the minimum requirements. Senior Planner responded that all lots would exceed the minimum lot area and the average lot width would exceed the standard but there are a few lots at the minimum width of 65 feet. Commissioner Markell asked the classification of Troy Lane. Senior Planner Drill replied that Troy Lane serves as a minor collector roadway. Commissioner Markell asked if the proposed distance between 56th Court and 56th Place North would meet the distance requirements. Senior Planner Drill responded that there would not be an issue with that proposed distance. Commissioner Markell stated that the preference would be to align egress and ingress. He asked what would be left for the property to the north if the road is installed at this location. 4 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Senior Planner Drill responded that ultimately if one developer could come in and assemble all the properties, there could be an alignment that would line up that street and maximize the lot potential for all parcels regardless of the lot lines. He identified potential locations for public streets. Commissioner Markell asked if this application is predicated upon an easement agreement between this property owner and the owner of 5700 Vagabond to the north. He stated that there appears to be a letter to the city from the owner of 5700 Vagabond stating that they oppose this development. Senior Planner Drill replied that both statements are correct. Commissioner Markell asked if this review would then seem premature given that the easement is necessary, and that property owner to the north seems to oppose this development. Chair Anderson commented that this property is adjacent to a city street that has utilities stubbed. He stated that the city is then obligated to process the application with appropriate conditions, whether or not the conditions could be met. Commissioner Witte referenced the volume of runoff and commented that seems to be increasing with the added hard surface. He asked if this would comply with the city’s runoff requirements. Senior Planner Drill responded that the rate of runoff would not increase, although the volume may because of the steadier stream. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie described the path drainage would take and the necessity for the easement to cover the path the drainage would flow to the wetland complex. Chair Anderson stated that it would be the same rate, but the runoff would be concentrated rather than sheet flow. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the runoff rate would be slightly less than the existing condition overall. Chair Anderson introduced the applicant, Jason Hohn of Bald Eagle Builders. Mr. Hohn stated that they designed a project that meets all the city requirements and did not request variances or a PUD. He stated that this development would match the existing development in this area. He stated that they believe that their development meets or exceeds all requirements. He stated that they also researched other alternatives for drainage that were not feasible. He stated that this method would continue to bring the water in the same manner it has gone for years. He stated that there is a lesser rate of flow for the water, and they cannot continue to sheet drain the water, which locks in this route. He stated that they do not agree that an easement should be required from a neighbor that they cannot control. He stated that this is the same path water currently takes to reach the wetland and they cannot control whether the neighbor allows the easement. Chair Anderson introduced Thomas Herkenhoff, Larson engineering, representing the applicant. Mr. Herkenhoff confirmed that they put quite a bit of effort into reviewing alternatives for drainage. He stated that the contours of the property show that most of the water makes it to the 5 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 drainage ditch, whether from this property or the neighboring property. He stated that this would continue to send the water in the same manner it currently travels, and they are even reducing the rate. He stated that development must not increase the runoff onto neighboring properties, but water can continue to flow at the same rate or less and an easement should not be required. He stated that they are reducing the rate of runoff and not changing the path it currently flows, therefore an easement should not be required. Applicant Jason Hohn added that to place this condition upon them seems unreasonable as it does not appear within city code. Chair Anderson introduced Glen Carlson, 5650 Vagabond Lane N, current owner of property proposed for development. Mr. Carlson stated that he heard the comment that there have been drainage issues on the 5700 Vagabond property. He stated that he has never been aware of any drainage issues at 5700 Vagabond and he has lived on the 5650 Vagabond property since 1993. He stated that during that time there have been many changes throughout Plymouth. He noted that two adjacent property owners sold their property to Pulte and do not want him to sell his property to a developer. He stated that the difference is that he plans to move and does not plan to buy back his property once it has been developed. He stated that the builder and developer has done everything asked in order to meet the requirements within code. He stated that at his age he is no longer able to keep up with the demands of his home that once worked well for his family of six. He stated that his home is now too large for two people and they want to move to something more appropriate. He asked the commission to approve the development as it meets all the requirements of the city code. He stated that there is already a driveway on Troy Lane to the neighboring property to the north, which he was not noticed about. He stated that is the only property that has direct access to Troy Lane. He stated that his developer has been working with city staff for the past two years with constant ups and downs which has been frustrating. He stated that his neighbors do not want him to move, and he is feeling trapped. Commissioner Markell asked the developer the amount of time and effort that has been put into negotiating the easement and the status of those negotiations. Mr. Hohn responded that they only found out about the easement requirement a few weeks ago. He stated that he has reached out to the 5700 Vagabond property owner but that property owner does not want the project. He was unsure why an easement should be required as this is the same path the drainage currently follows. He stated that this would box them in and state that the Carlsons cannot develop their property. He stated that if he were changing the flow of the drainage or increasing the rate, he could understand the requirement, but they are reducing the rate and not changing the direction water currently flows. Commissioner Markell asked the likelihood that an easement could be obtained, whether it is believed to be needed or not. Mr. Hohn responded that he is unsure. He asked the commission to put themselves in the position of the 5700 Vagabond property owner and whether they would grant an easement for a project they do not want to see move forward. He stated that most likely a property owner that does not want homes in their backyard will not grant an easement. 6 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Commissioner Oakley asked staff for additional input on the nature of the drainage and problems that have been expressed by the adjacent property owner. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that staff has been out to 5700 Vagabond discussing the drainage complaints and the path drainage takes from Troy across the driveway and property. He stated that during heavy rains the access to the driveway can be cutoff because there is not a culvert in that area. He stated that the easement would allow the connection for all the drainage easements to the pond, as the city is responsible for the maintenance of the pond. Commissioner Markell asked for input from staff related to the statement that the developer was only recently made aware of the easement requirement. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the discussions with the applicants have gone on for a few months related to drainage design. He stated that staff raised the concerns expressed tonight which led to reviewing alternatives. He stated that once those alternatives were found to not be viable the drainage plans reverted back to this plan. Commissioner Pointner asked if the alternative is not viable or not doable. She asked if there is an alternative that could be done. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the drainage alternative is not recommended as it would adversely impact the homes on the east side of Troy Lane. Mr. Hohn stated that if the 5700 Vagabond property is aware of the drainage problem and placed a driveway in too high, that property owner could have solved their drainage issue by installing a culvert under their driveway. Chair Anderson introduced Jess Midura, 5700 Vagabond Lane N, who stated that they purchased their home 11 years ago and the city has changed over the past 35 years. She recognized that they have benefited from the development. She stated that their family does not have a general objection to the development of Plymouth or their neighborhood. She thanked city staff for their willingness to help them understand the multiple stages of development. She stated that their primary concern is the drainage impact to the property and with tree removal and screening. She was concerned that the drainage would significantly change with the addition of 13 homes. She stated that she does agree with the requirement for a drainage easement to be obtained from her property. She stated that she would like the ability to complete an independent hydrology study to determine the impacts to her property. She stated that she only recently learned that the location of the survey line and believes that significant damage would be done to the root system of the line of trees and buckthorn she previously believed to be on her property or along the property line. She stated that there could be a potential need to hire an independent arborist. She stated that she is unclear as to the role that maps, tree inventory and calculations are complete and accurate. She asked that the applicant reconsider moving forward with the preliminary plat. She asked that the commission exercise its discretion related to zoning in order to request the applicant to revise their plan in order to limit impacts to adjacent properties. She asked if the changed location of the lot line to be one/near the hedge and tree line would change any recommendations from staff. She asked the city’s role in reviewing the completeness and accuracy of the plans before grading begins. 7 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Chair Anderson introduced Wayne Willenberg, 5555 Vagabond Lane N, who stated that he has been asked to speak in representation of four other homeowners on Vagabond Lane to make the commission aware that they do not have objections to the request. He stated that times have changed and so should the neighborhood. He commented on the small amount of land left for development in Plymouth and believed that this is the time to make better use of the land within this development. He asked the commission to support the request. Chair Anderson introduced Jay Nelson, 5755 Vagabond Lane N, who stated that he would like to speak about blight in the Troy Ridge neighborhood and provided different examples. He stated that the city has the right to ask property owners to clean up their properties. He stated that the character of the neighborhood is a relaxed rural subdivision with homes setback onto their lots. He stated that the Pulte Homes concept is very different with homes lining up proud against the interior street. He stated that it is a mistake to place these two dramatically different concepts into the same area. He stated that there are compliance issues with the subdivision request. He stated that per city code, Vagabond Lane should be improved as it is substandard. He expressed additional concerns with Vagabond Lane. He stated that the current drainage pattern will no longer be acceptable. He asked if the five acre lots identified would be the only remaining members of the Troy Ridge HOA and whether they would continue to be responsible for the maintenance for Vagabond Lane. Commissioner Markell commented that resident comments are supposed to be limited to five minutes. Mr. Nelson commented that he requested 20 minutes. Chair Anderson stated that request was made to staff, but the commission has the ability to limit a presentation to five minutes. Mr. Nelson commented that there are opportunities that could be missed by narrowing one’s vision and not allowing thought beyond tiny parameters. Chair Anderson commented that he would provide Mr. Nelson with two more minutes to finish his presentation. Mr. Nelson commented that he does not believe his comments are being heard. He stated that he would like to speak to the future of Troy Ridge Estates, which would become a patchwork development with stranded properties and no way to maintain them. He stated that if this request is approved it will be the end of Troy Ridge Estates. He stated that houses in this development range up to $1,000,000 and the land cost for a developer would not be able to compare to that. He stated that the neighborhood is blighted and without proper planning the area will become more blighted. He stated that this development would open the door to more questions for the overall development. He stated that he requested 20 minutes to make his presentation. Chair Anderson stated that he would provide Mr. Nelson with two minutes. Mr. Nelson commented that two minutes would not be enough to speak to the serious history and future of Troy Ridge Estates. He stated that Troy Ridge Estates and the Baer Farm would offer real opportunity and referenced the Ford Plant development. 8 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Chair Anderson ended Mr. Nelson’s presentation. Chair Anderson introduced Debra Larson, 5600 Vagabond Lane N, who stated that she is not opposed to the development. She stated that 5650 Vagabond is a property within the HOA and is encumbered by roadway and utility easements. She requested that a condition be added stating that the applicant and any developers purchasing the property be required to provide a quit claim deed to the HOA to release any rights the property would have to the easement for the private road to ensure that the new property owner could not encumber the rights of the other properties to develop in the future. She referenced Lot 6, the existing home, and stated that she believes that Lot 6 would remain a member of the HOA and be responsible for any assessments for Vagabond Lane if the existing driveway remains. Chair Anderson introduced Traci Krause, 5405 Vagabond Lane N, who stated that she is not against development and is not for development, but supports a fair comprehensive, non-ad hoc development strategy that considers the welfare of all neighbors in the area. She stated that allowing the rezoning of a single plot in the middle of the neighborhood would significantly alter the character of the area. She stated that this seems to be in disagreement with the comprehensive plan. She believed that a larger thoughtful development would be the better approach. She stated that this development would only benefit one property owner when there are many property owners interested in development. She stated that the adjacent property owner wanted to be included in this development but was excluded due to the ad hoc, noncomprehensive nature of this plan. She stated that the city is creating islands of high-density development next to historically restricted property, which will make it more difficult for those that want to develop their property and for those that desire to stay. She asked if the city would prefer to see a 50 plus acre development in this neighborhood which would benefit more properties rather than the proposal to build 12 homes in the middle of an existing neighborhood. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Chair Anderson asked if the city has the responsibility to complete a master plan of an area without the property owners bringing forward a request to the city. Senior Planner Drill responded that a property owner has the right to make an application to the city and if that application complies with the ordinance requirements, the city does not have much discretion to deny the request. He stated that this area is not identified as a study area within the comprehensive plan and therefore the city cannot dictate to neighbors that they would have to be a part of a master plan. Chair Anderson stated that a property owner has the right to make an application, if the requirements of code are met, the city has the obligation to review that request. He stated that a developer can speak with multiple property owners in attempt to create a larger development, but that does not appear to have happened in this instance. Senior Planner Drill stated that this proposal does meet the requirements of city code. He stated that when the staff report was written it was thought by all parties that the buckthorn hedge row and significant trees were on the neighboring property to the north (5700 Vagabond Ln.) but now that the lot line has been marked on the ground, it was discovered that a portion of the buckthorn 9 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 hedgerow is on the subject property (5650 Vagabond Ln.). He stated that a few significant trees straddle the lot line and therefore the property owners would need to work together to determine if those trees should remain or be removed. He stated that there have been some changes to the plan, which impacted the tree calculations based on feedback received from city staff noting that is fairly typical. He stated that ultimately the accuracy of the survey will be reviewed by the City Forester prior to issuance of a grading permit. He stated that the applicant would need to comply with the city’s tree preservation ordinance. Community Development Director Juetten stated that staff could send code enforcement out to review the properties mentioned by Mr. Nelson. He stated that staff does not believe that the private street issues brought forward by Mr. Nelson are accurate as they would have also applied to Mr. Nelson’s property that was sold to Pulte and replatted. He stated that the only way in which urban/suburban design could be done is if every property owner agrees and clearly, with the outstanding lawsuit, all 15 property owners do not agree to sit down and develop together. He stated that one property owner has hired someone to complete a master plan, but that does not follow existing property lines and not all properties are willing to sell. He stated that as wonderful as it would be for all 15 property owners to come together and develop, that is not the reality, and the property owners are suing each other over development. He stated that the city does not have the authority to require a quit claim deed as that would need to be done on a private level. He agreed that Lot 6 would continue be a part of the association and be liable for their share of improvements to the private drive as that lot is proposed to keep its existing access. He stated that the City does not have the authority to stop applications if the property has public street access and access to utilities. Chair Anderson stated that many times there are streets stubbed in for future areas to provide connection to the next property when it develops. He noted that in this instance there is a cul-de- sac which would appear to create a landlock issue for those to the west of this property on Vagabond. He asked if there should be a stub street to provide future capability for connection. Senior Planner Drill responded that originally the developer looked to stub a road to the private drive, but staff does not want to introduce traffic from this development onto the private drive. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie stated that the private drive creates challenges for continuity of the streets. He stated that this plan would provide utility access extensions in two locations which would allow for future development to occur. Commissioner Markell stated that if the road were stubbed into Vagabond, he would be unsure as to whom else would use the road. Senior Planner Drill responded that although he does not believe outside traffic would use that, it is a private road, and the city could put itself in legal trouble with those that would oppose the connection of a public road with a private road. Commissioner Markell stated that if there is not some planning it would appear that every property will come forward for development with a cul-de-sac. He stated that he understands that there was discussion between staff and the applicant about connecting to Vagabond but legally that was found to not be the right choice. 10 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Chair Anderson stated that he is not requesting connection to Vagabond but simply right-of-way stubbed in that would provide accessibility in the future. Commissioner Markell asked if the presumption by staff is that the east/west private drive would be the future connection to Vagabond if this area were developed in a more master fashion. Senior Planner Drill responded that ideally Troy Lane would come through and 54th Avenue would connect to Peony. He was unsure that stubbing a street into one of those areas above the subject site would provide benefit as they are unsure if/when those properties would develop. Commissioner Markell asked how Troy Lane would come to 54th Avenue if all the properties are developed in a piecemeal fashion. Senior Planner Drill responded that when a specific property develops, the city would obtain right-of-way to swing the road through and make that connection. Commissioner Witte asked if the City has ever stepped back and taken a larger view of the area, determining that it would be better to have an overall plan rather than allowing piecemeal development. Senior Planner Drill responded that is not the position of the city. Commissioner Witte asked if the city has ever exercised its condemnation authority to acquire drainage easements that are required but not granted by a property owner. Senior Planner Drill responded that in general the city has not gotten involved in that type of action. Commissioner Witte asked if the entire five acres would be encumbered by the convenance of the HOA, rather than just Lot 6. Community Development Director Juetten stated that issue came forward when the two properties to the northwest were platted. He stated that Pulte went through a process and it was determined that the new lots were not obligated to pay for the private road improvements. Senior Planner Drill stated that Pulte provided quit claim deeds for the new lots, releasing their rights to the private road. Community Development Director Juetten asked the Chair if he was open to allowing a speaker that was placed under the developer’s team for the public hearing the ability to speak. Chair Anderson introduced Fred Stelter, representing the developer, who stated that currently the water flow begins at the corner of 56th and Vagabond, flowing through the ditch and continuing north on Troy. He stated that there is a tremendous area of water flowing and possibly creating issues on 5700 Vagabond Lane. He stated that the proposal would treat the stormwater from the 5650 property and would also divert the water coming from the north and then treating it and releasing it. He stated that the treatment of the water through the stormwater would be a benefit to the overall area. He stated that the flow from the pond is doing more than managing water 11 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 from the 5650 property. He stated that he has been a resident of Plymouth for 35 years and has developed properties in Plymouth. He noted that this request meets the requirements of the city code and should be approved. Chair Anderson asked if the pond is handling more water than the water from 5650 Vagabond Lane. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the plan accommodates water from this property as well as the water that drains to the property. Chair Anderson stated that it is difficult for him to say no to an application that meets all the requirements. He stated that it is unfortunate to have five-acre parcels coming forward for development rather than a master plan for the area, but the city has to react to plans as they come forward. He stated that he agrees that a drainage easement is necessary. He stated that the statement that this is the same water draining to the same wetland is not necessarily true, as there will be more runoff from the hardcover. He stated that there will be significant changes to the water pattern by treating the water in the stormwater pond, therefore the runoff will be concentrated. Commissioner Witte stated that he agrees with the comments from Chair Anderson. He stated that the precedent was set when other lots were subdivided. He stated that this request meets the requirements and provides lots in excess of the minimum standards. He stated that he will support this request. Commissioner Boo stated that he also has concerns with development of this nature and the differences of the existing properties. He stated that even if there is hope that all properties would want to develop together, that is not always possible. He stated that he would support the development as proposed for the reasoning already stated. He stated that he is concerned that the development would be contingent upon the willingness of the neighbor to the north to provide the easement, as the request meets the requirements of the city. He believed that the condition places the developer in a difficult position. Commissioner Markell stated that he also agrees that this application merits approval. He stated that he is glad to know that a reasonable condition encumbers the opportunity for development. He does not believe it is the city or staff that has put the developer in a position where approval is needed for the neighbor, as sometimes the land speaks for itself. He stated that no one is precluded from selling the land, but perhaps precluded from selling it for the top development value. He stated that if this proposed development requires an easement, that is what is required, and it would behoove the applicant to work it out or develop another plan. He stated that he also wishes this area could be master planned, as it is one of the last undeveloped areas, but apparently that is too large of a goal. Commissioner Oakley stated he echoed the comments of Commissioner Markell with the exception that this is not an undeveloped area. He stated that this area is developed with five acre lots and there have been similar instances in the past where neighbors could not cooperate on a plan for development. He stated that eventually remaining property owners worked together to plan the remainder of the development and perhaps that will also occur here. He stated that he supports the request with the recommended conditions. 12 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Commissioner Pointner stated that she agrees with the statements from Commissioner Boo. She hoped that tonight some better discussions could happen between neighbors. She stated that it seems that one person is holding up the others. Motion was made by Commissioner Markell and seconded by Commissioner Witte to recommend approval of rezoning and preliminary plat for 13 single-family lots at 5650 Vagabond Lane for Bald Eagle Builders, Inc. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.2) Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment for a childcare center at 9905 45th Avenue, Lil’ Explores (2021022) Senior Planner Drill provided a review of the staff report Commissioner Markell asked if the idea for a 5,000 square foot gym is typical for this type of use. Senior Planner Drill responded that it is typical to have an indoor play area because of Minnesota weather. He stated that the indoor play area is typically not this large but because of the large building, the applicant is able to provide a larger space. Chair Anderson introduced, Jeremy Spaude, the applicant, who stated that this is a great building, and they are excited. He stated that in another location where they converted a building they added a 7,500 square foot gym with turf and other play space. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Chair Anderson stated that it is great to see additional business development and another daycare facility for the community. Motion was made by Commissioner Markell and seconded by Commissioner Oakley to recommend approval of a conditional use permit and site plan for a childcare center at 9905 45th Avenue, Lil’ Explorers. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.3) Conditional Use Permit for an indoor commercial recreation use for the property located at 3905 Annapolis Lane, Mulligan’s Indoor Golf (2021024). Senior Planner Sommers provided a review of the staff report. Commissioner Boo asked if the developer or property owner would need to add parking through restriping if additional parking is necessary. He asked if there would be additional parking available through restriping while still meeting the requirements for stall size. 13 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Senior Planner Sommers responded that there are a few locations where additional parking spaces could be added on the site. Commissioner Witte stated that in a commercial building there is an owner, manager, and tenant. He recognized that the tenant does not have control over the parking and asked if the owner would need to be part of the application or whether a letter would be required from the owner stating that additional parking would be created if determined by the city if needed. Senior Planner Sommers responded that the property manager and owner are a part of the application. Commissioner Witte stated that conditions two and four seem to be inconsistent related to parking and asked if number two should be qualified by stating, “except for the total parking for the building”. Senior Planner Sommers responded that language could be added. Commissioner Witte stated that the applicant’s narrative stated that alcohol sales will be incidental to the bays. He asked if a condition could be added stating that bay rental would be needed for the sale of alcohol. Senior Planner Sommers responded that could be added as a condition, if desired, but noted that the applicant would still need to go through the liquor license process. Commissioner Markell asked for details on limited sale of food and alcohol. Senior Planner Sommers responded that it is her understanding that there would be snacks and beer but noted that the applicant could address that item. Chair Anderson had technology issues with Zoom, so Vice Chair Markell assumed the Chair role. Vice Chair Markell introduced, Matthew Schroeder, 12467 54th Avenue N, the applicant who stated that they are planning to have concession stand type food at this time and there are no plans for hard liquor, only beer and seltzers. He stated that they are finalizing the lease and will take possession of the space on July 1st, hoping to open by October 1st. He commented that there is not much build out needed and therefore they should remain on track to open by October 1st. He stated that this is a seasonal business and do not anticipate being busy during the summer months. He stated that they also do not anticipate large amounts of traffic during the daytime hours when the other businesses would use more parking. He stated that if parking is an issue, he could limit the number of bay rentals during those daytime hours. Vice Chair Markell opened the public hearing. Vice Chair Markell closed the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to recommend approval the resolution, as amended adding “except for the total number of 14 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 parking stalls” to condition number 2, approving of a conditional use permit for an indoor commercial recreation use for the property located at 3905 Annapolis Lane, Mulligan’s Indoor Golf. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. New Business (6.1) Site Plan Amendment to allow the construction of 1,300 ground mounted solar panels on property located at 1145 Shenandoah Lane (2021012) Commissioner Markell recused himself from this item because he is the legal representative for the applicant. Chair Anderson rejoined the meeting and resumed leadership. Senior Planner Sommers provided a review of the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked the difference between administrative plan modification and site plan amendment. Senior Planner Sommers responded that an administrative modification would be limited to a modification of ten percent or less of a property. She stated that if the project abuts residential development, then it would not qualify for an administrative modification and would go through the commission. Commissioner Witte asked for clarification on the applicants and whether the city is an applicant. Senior Planner Sommers confirmed that the city is not an applicant on this project. Commissioner Witte asked if there could be a condition that there be nonglare glass panels as represented. Senior Planner Sommers responded that the submitted plans are referenced in the approval and specify the use of nonglare glass. Commissioner Oakley referenced the concern expressed by a resident related to tree removal and asked for additional details. Senior Planner Sommers responded that there are no trees impacted by this project. Chair Anderson introduced, Eric Hansen, the applicant, who stated that he has been in the solar industry for 14 years and his firm responded to an RFP through the state for Hennepin County. He stated that they have been working with the county to refine the plans for the past several months to bring the application to this point and is available for any questions the commission may have. Commissioner Witte referenced the proposed size and asked for additional details on the power that would be generated over one year. 15 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Mr. Hansen responded that each kilowatt would generate 1,200 kilowatt hours per year, which would equate to 600,000 kilowatt hours per year. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Oakley to recommend approval of the site plan amendment to allow the construction of 1,300 ground mounted solar panels on property located at 1145 Shenandoah Lane. Commissioner Boo added that there are few opportunities to have such an impactful project brought into the city in such a clean way. He was impressed with the proposal and glad to see it moving ahead. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (6.2) Variance to the side yard setback for a home addition at 425 Pineview Lane North (2021011). Senior Planner Berglund provided a review of the staff report. Commissioner Markell asked if the variance request is for the area identified in yellow. Senior Planner Berglund replied that is true. Commissioner Markell asked if this is a matter of new business because of the concern raised by one or more adjacent neighbors. Senior Planner Berglund replied that this could have been approved through a minor variance process if there would not have been any opposition from the neighbors. He stated that comments in opposition to the request were received, which triggered a review by the commission and ultimate decision by the city council. Chair Anderson introduced, Rochelle Dotzenrod, 425 Pineview Lane N, the applicant, who stated that they have lived in the home for 11 years and have two children. She stated that they love their neighborhood and want to stay in the community, but they are outgrowing their home. She stated that this addition would allow them additional space in their home and to remain in the neighborhood. She stated that they attempted to design the most streamlined option. She stated that this addition would be a master bedroom and they would also want to protect privacy. She stated that they have cleaned up their property to remove invasive species (buckthorn) and would continue to improve landscaping. She stated that they have reviewed alternative options but did not feel that fit as well into the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Oakley stated that one of the justifications for the addition location was related to the inside circulation of the home. He asked for additional details. Ms. Dotzenrod responded that the new addition would be added to an existing hallway. She explained that the home is a split level, therefore a different level of the home is located on the other side of the hallway. 16 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked if the orientation of the roofline was a concern and reason for the design of the addition. Ms. Dotzenrod responded that she was unsure. Commissioner Witte stated that one of the neighbors expressed concern with privacy. He noted a window proposed near the bathtub and asked if it was considered to place that window higher. Ms. Dotzenrod replied that the bedroom window is set high. She noted that they attempted to find a balance with the light they let through. She commented that they would like to have natural light but would also use blinds, as they do on all their other windows. She stated that was the only location for a window in the bathroom and would also allow for crosswind in the home. Commissioner Oakley asked if there is a landscaping plan or thought as to what they plan to do. Ms. Dotzenrod responded that they hoped to have the plans in place at this time, but contractors are very busy. She stated that they hope to have the landscaping in place this fall or early next spring. She stated that six trees were removed on their property and some on the neighboring property due to oak wilt and they hope to plant a hedge line to provide more privacy. Mr. Chistenssen stated that they loved their wooded lot but had to remove the trees because of disease. Ms. Dotzenrod stated that they have worked with the city forester each time to ensure removal was needed and take any other proactive measures. Commissioner Markell asked if the residents enjoy living in Plymouth. Mr. Christenssen responded that they do enjoy living in Plymouth and have looked at other areas that would allow their children to stay at the same school but could not find any options, therefore decided that adding onto their home would provide them with the option to remain. Commissioner Markell stated that the applicants have sat through 3.5 hours of a meeting to request a variance to allow them to invest in their home and remain in the community. He thanked the applicants for their commitment to the city and commented that he will be supporting this request. Chair Anderson introduced Patrick Kinney, 421 Pineview Lane N, who stated that he objects to the proposed variance noting that his property is directly to the south. He commented that the applicants submitted a rebuttal to his letter. He stated that the applicants stated that they planted trees in their front yard and noted that those were planted near the road and not between the homes. He recognized that the applicant has removed buckthorn from their property which left it fairly bare. He stated that he has also removed buckthorn in a different manner which allowed native plants to grow in that place and still allowed for a vegetative buffer. He stated that the proposed addition would move the structure closer to his home. He stated that Mr. Christenssen is in front of his property quite a bit for long periods of time while taking his dog outside to use the bathroom which is an invasion of privacy. He stated that he does not have windows on the northside of his home but the windows on the addition would face his home, further reducing his 17 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 privacy. He stated that he purchased his home because of the privacy it provided. He stated that his concerns for privacy are real and asked that the commission consider those in its review of the application. He referenced the 15-foot setback requirement of the city and stated that the lot of the applicant is adequate in size to support an addition. He stated that the applicant is proposing to build the addition in the area of the lot that has the least amount of space. He commented that the addition could be moved to conform with the setback requirements. He asked why other options are not being reviewed for the other areas of the property where there is more space for an addition. He stated that the homes on the other side of the applicant’s home are further from the applicant’s home and would have additional space between units. He stated that none of the homes on this side of the street have variances and previous variances would not set precedent for this request. He asked that other alternatives be considered that would not require a variance. Commissioner Markell stated that from his perspective this is a reasonable request from a family that wants to stay in the neighborhood. Commissioner Oakley stated that he disagrees. He stated that he would have no problem recommending approval if all the neighbors agreed. He stated that the nearest neighbor has a right to expect the city to enforce setbacks when they are the property most impacted. He hoped that there would be another alternative that could be explored by the applicant. He stated that he does not believe that the variance requested is the least impactful way in which to use the property. Commissioner Boo stated that the process provides the opportunity for the neighbor to voice their concern, however when reviewing this layout and the practicality of design, the only alternative would be for the applicant to move the addition further to the west. He stated that would increase the visual encroachment to the neighboring property. He did not believe that would be a fair tradeoff as the result would be worse than the proposed solution. He believed the proposal to be reasonable. He stated that he is sympathetic to the neighbor to the south, the alternative would be even more of an intrusion. Commissioner Pointner stated that she agrees with the comments made thus far. She stated that this is less than four feet of deviation from the required setback and there would be opposition from the neighbor regardless as there would be windows in the same location. She stated that if the addition were moved four feet, there would still be windows and a new structure. Commissioner Witte referenced the mention in the staff report which stated other homes in the area are closer than the 15-foot setback and asked if those homes are on both sides of the road. Senior Planner Berglund commented that the homes with reduced setbacks are all on the east side of Pineview Lane. He stated that those homes were constructed under different standards but do not currently meet the standards of the zoning district in which they exist. Commissioner Witte commented that it appears Mr. Kinney’s garage is closer to the lot line than 15 feet. 18 Approved Minutes May 5, 2021 Community Development Director Juetten responded that the east corner of the house is under 15 feet from the north property line and therefore does not meet the current zoning requirement. He stated that the house could have been better centered on the lot. Ms. Dotzenrod stated that they also noticed that the garage of the Kinney property is ten to 12 feet from the property line and therefore does not meet the setback. Mr. Kinney asked if that information could be confirmed by city staff. Community Development Director Juetten responded that on the survey he has that was submitted with the building permit the setback states 14.8 feet, plus or minus. He stated that there may be different information somewhere else, but city staff does not go out to survey property. Motion by Commissioner Markell and second Commissioner Boo to recommend approval of a variance to the side yard setback for a home addition for property located at 425 Pineview Lane North (2021011) subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Commissioner Oakley asked if the survey was signed by a registered surveyor. Community Development Director Juetten responded that the survey he has is signed by a licensed surveyor. Commissioner Saba stated that he will support the request. He stated that when you make an improvement on an existing home there are a lot of things to consider including existing layout and constrictions and other views. He appreciated the comments from the neighbor. Commissioner Oakley stated that he will also support the variance. He commented that people should be treated equitably and there is a legal nonconforming lot adjacent to this lot which therefore would support the variance request. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Chair Anderson Adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m.