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.