Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 10-06-20211 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2021 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on October 6, 2021. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Michael Boo, Justin Markell, Donovan Saba, David Witte, Julie Pointner, and Bryan Oakley. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STA FF PRESENT: Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Lori Sommers, and Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Boo to approve the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on September 15, 2021. (4.2) Variance to the rear-yard setback for a porch addition located at 14910 38th Avenue (Dusha and Dickerman – 2021065) Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Boo to approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Conditional Use Permit for a single-family home on the 3.8-acre parcel located southeast of 6th Avenue and Xenium Lane (Carlson Real Estate – 2021044) Senior Planner Drill provided an overview of the staff report. 2 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Commissioner Oakley asked if Hennepin County has reviewed the request. Senior Planner Drill responded that Hennepin County is in the process of reviewing the request and will provide their input prior to the council meeting. Commissioner Oakley asked how the right-of-way would be associated with the different roads, County Road 61 and Wedgewood, and 6th Avenue. He asked if the driveway lies within a right- of-way and whether that matters. Senior Planner Drill responded that the right-of-way abutting where the driveway would connect is Hennepin County public right-of-way for County Road 61. Other rights-of-way in the area are city public rights-of-way. Commissioner Oakley asked for more details on the turnaround, whether that would be a hammerhead or cul-de-sac. Senior Planner Drill responded that the distance from the end of the street to the curb for County Road 61 is about 45 feet, and therefore a standard-type cul-de-sac turn-around would not fit in that space without obtaining additional right-of-way from adjacent properties, which is not plan of the plan. He stated that the city may request that a public street easement be dedicated over a portion of the subject site as part of final platting, if a hammerhead turn-around is deemed to be workable. Commissioner Witte asked where the transition occurs from 50 feet to 35 feet on Wedgewood and where the change in the pavement width occurs. Senior Planner Drill identified the area where the Wedgwood Lane right-of-way decreases from 50 feet plus down to 33 feet. He commented that the road is narrower than the standard throughout. Commissioner Witte asked if the northerly section is an unimproved right-of-way as opposed to a fully-accepted street. Senior Planner Drill responded that is correct; it is what is referred to as a “paper” street – as is exists only on paper and has not been constructed. He stated that it is all right-of-way that could have public roadway but instead is proposed to have a driveway connect through it to the constructed portion of Wedgewood Lane. Commissioner Boo asked if the south end of the property would become unbuildable as it would lack access to any street. Senior Planner Drill responded that would be correct. He explained that if the lot line were adjusted, the southern area would not receive access onto the county road, and therefore would not be buildable but rather would just make the abutting lot to the south larger. Commissioner Boo asked if this would then prevent a situation where replatting is requested in the future to create additional lots. 3 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Senior Planner Drill responded that would be correct unless additional property was purchased to combine with that property to the south, such that improved public street access could be provided. Commissioner Witte asked if there was discussion for emergency vehicle access if this were to proceed given the width of the street and no cul-de-sac. Senior Planner Drill responded that there was a lot of discussion, but noted that there is not a lot that can be done to address this pre-existing condition. The city would work with the property owner and county when final plat comes forward to see if it’s possible to create some type of reasonable turn-around. He stated that he spoke with a number of residents in the area and noted that in the winter, the mail truck parks farther south and walks to deliver the mail. He stated that trash vehicles back out. He stated that a fire engine would also need to back out. Chair Anderson asked if there is a plan to widen the northern portion. Senior Planner Drill responded that there is no plan by the city to widen Wedgewood Lane. Chair Anderson asked if this application proposes additional street construction. Senior Planner Drill responded that no street construction is proposed, and additional right-of- way is not being requested from the two property owners on either side near the existing dead end of Wedgewood Lane. Commissioner Oakley stated that it appears there are a number of trees within the right-of-way that would need to be removed to create a driveway access. He stated that there are a number of trees on the southern portion that would go to another property and asked how that would impact the tree preservation requirement. Senior Planner Drill replied that this property is not subject to the tree preservation regulations. He stated that if tree preservation did apply, however, the application would likely still be well below the 50 percent removal threshold. He confirmed that there are trees within the right-of- way that would need to be removed to create the driveway. Commissioner Pointner asked for clarification on the property line near 6th Avenue. Senior Planner Drill responded that there is no plan to impact adjacent properties. He stated that the street currently ends roughly 45 feet from the County Road, therefore there is not much space to create a turn-around within that right-of-way. He would hope that several of the trees within the right-of-way that are close to the County Road 61/6th Avenue intersection could remain, as the driveway would not need to extend that far into the right-of-way. Commissioner Oakley asked what the typical diameter of a cul-de-sac is for Plymouth. Senior Planner Drill responded the standard is 90 feet of pavement; 45-foot radius. 4 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked if the city contemplated extending or improving this street or adding the turn-around. He stated that if this is approved, it would seem to force the city to do something it was not prepared to do. Senior Planner Drill responded that there would be no changes to the street. He stated that a number of years ago, this neighborhood was up for reconstruction which would have widened the street and added concrete curb and gutter, but the neighborhood submitted petition to the council to object to that project, so it never happened. He stated that perhaps an overlay would be completed routinely but would not be triggered by this proposal. He stated that this project would not cause the city to complete any work. He noted that the owner of the property would be responsible for the tree clearing and work to install the driveway. He stated that the property owner would also need to work with the city and county to see if it’s possible to create a hammerhead turn-around within their lot that could be dedicated for public use. Chair Anderson stated that this is an application for a conditional use permit and, therefore, there will be another opportunity for comment by the city council during the final plat process. Chair Anderson introduced Larry Olimb, representing Carlson Real Estate Company, the developer, who stated that the ultimate goal is to sell the property. He noted that there is value to the property if a home could be constructed. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Roger Mondale, 515 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that the last time he was before the city was when they requested trees at the end of Wedgewood. He stated that with a hammerhead, those trees would be removed. He stated that one of his concerns is that the area of the driveway has a grade change that would need to be addressed that would impact trees. He commented that he did not believe trash trucks would make it around that corner. He stated that the end road going to that area has a steep grade, therefore the mailman walks that portion and other large vehicles have gotten stuck. Chair Anderson introduced Ryan Haase, 525 Wedgwood Lane, Plymouth, who displayed a sketch showing where the driveway would go on the property. He asked if the county would ever expand the adjacent roadway to add an additional lane of traffic or turn lane, noting the proximity to the driveway location. He stated that the city’s comprehensive plan includes a bike lane and therefore showed another sketch with a turn lane and bike lane, again showing the proximity to the driveway. He asked if approving this request would prohibit the orderly expansion of the adjacent roadway. He asked if there would be any safety issue having a driveway that close in proximity. He asked if the county would be plowing snow from the roadway onto the driveway. Chair Anderson introduced Esther Haase, 525 Wedgwood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that it is her understanding that there would need to be some expansion of the roadway or curb in order to put a driveway in that location. She asked who would be responsible for that cost and for potential changes or moving of the storm drain. Chair Anderson introduced Richard Gotz, 415 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that his property is adjacent to the wetland which separates the northern and southern portions of the 5 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Carlson property. He stated that when he purchased his property in 1982, the wetland was designated as protected by the DNR and was shocked when a portion of that wetland was then filled to support the construction of the county road. He stated that the Carlsons planned to construct homes on the property, but access was denied by the county and therefore it was deemed as an inaccessible outlot. He did not see a reason to overturn that ruling as there is not sufficient space at the end of Wedgewood Lane to support a driveway. He stated that Plymouth has a reputation of having excellent parks, trails, and paths. He noted that Wedgewood Lane is narrow with no trails or sidewalks and therefore this strip of greenspace is the only amenity that this neighborhood has. He stated that the environment of the neighborhood would be harmed by the construction of a home as trees would be removed and wildlife would be impacted. He noted that construction would also impact the adjacent properties. He also commented that construction vehicles and materials would have difficulty accessing the site to construct the home. Chair Anderson introduced John Christiansen, 440 Vinewood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that he is present to speak of the woods on the lot. He provided details on the old growth trees that exist on the property. He commented that it would be great to protect the trees. Chair Anderson introduced Dwight Abrams, 330 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that he has been in the neighborhood for 44 years. He commented that the edge of Wedgewood Lane is all of what has been spoken of. He opposed building a house in that location and did not believe a home belongs in that area. He stated that he lives across the street and would not be directly impacted. He stated that the wetland area is a wildlife sanctuary, and the trees should be preserved. Chair Anderson introduced Roger Mondale, 515 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that the driveway would cause headlights to shine directly onto the road and into traffic, which he believed should be considered. Chair Anderson introduced Chad Fifield, 321 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth, who referenced the second criteria that must be considered for a conditional use permit. He commented that this request would not enhance or promote the general welfare. He stated that there have been comments about the trees and wildlife, noting that this is essentially a greenway with a diverse population of wildlife and birds. He stated that a home would remove about 50 percent of the trees on the site and asked the environmental impact that would have. He did not understand how deforesting what is left of the old growth forest in Plymouth would do anything other than endanger the public health. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Drill commented that most likely the area at the end of the road would be excavated to flatten that area for the driveway. He noted that perhaps retaining walls could be installed to save some of the trees in that area. He stated that Hennepin County will submit their comments but noted that there are currently no plans within their CIP to expand that County Road 61. Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie commented that drainage would need to be designed in a manner that does not cause impacts to adjacent properties or right-of-way. He noted 6 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 that those plans would be a part of final plat. He stated that they have not seen any long-range planning from hennepin county that would add another lane or turn lane. He stated that the city does have a trail planned at some point. He stated that the county does tend to throw their snow fairly far, so the risk would be of the property owner that snow may be pushed onto that property when the road is plowed. He stated that any road or catch basin improvements would be funded by the homeowner and would not be responsibility of the city or existing residents. Senior Planner Drill commented that there would clearly be tree removal to create a home pad site and driveway. He stated that this is privately owned property and not city owned property, noting that the city does not have an interest in acquiring the property as open space. He commented that neighbors enjoy the screening that the trees provide. He noted that staff would work with whoever ends up owning the property to attempt to save as many trees as possible and prevent the area from opening up views of the county road. Chair Anderson asked for clarification on how endangering public health is defined and how it would apply to this case. Senior Planner Drill responded that is a hard question to answer as it is somewhat subjective. He noted that, taken to the extreme, it could be argued that any development proposal would have environmental health impacts. He stated that this is privately owned property that could potentially have a home on it. He stated that the landowner has certain rights and did not believe it could be stated that there is a public health impact so great that one home could not be built. Commissioner Boo asked if there is such a thing as an inaccessible outlot. He asked the reasoning that this outlot was created rather than deeding the land to neighboring landowners. He asked what the owner of the property would have expected in terms of coming back to build on the outlot. Senior Planner Drill responded that he is unsure he has sufficient history to provide that answer. He noted that all of this land was part of one addition, and the county road cut through that, leaving this parcel on the east side which was platted as an outlot. He stated that outlots are primarily platted for future development and he has not heard this referred to as inaccessible or unbuildable. Commissioner Oakley stated that it was suggested that the council made a conscious decision to not allow development on this parcel previously and asked if there were any records supporting that. Senior Planner Drill responded that he did not find such information when reviewing the records. Chair Anderson stated that it was mentioned that the city could work with the future owner to minimize the impacts. He asked if the city would have teeth it could sink into that. He noted that this is guided and zoned as a residential lot and therefore there is no tree preservation requirement on the lot. Senior Planner Drill responded that conditions could be included that would be helpful to lessening any impacts, as long as the conditions have a nexus to what’s being proposed and are reasonable in offsetting any impacts. He stated that there could be a condition related to the width of the driveway or setback, as long as the conditions are rational and justifiable. 7 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Chair Anderson stated that most applications reviewed by the commission include the comments from the county. He asked if it would be premature for the commission to complete its review without the response of the county. Senior Planner Drill responded that he did not believe so. He stated that plats adjacent to a county road require county review, but such review is not required for a conditional use permit. He stated that the comments from the county for the conditional use permit would be advisory in nature. Commissioner Boo asked if the tree count would only be those north of the wetland or whether the owner of the property would count the trees south of the wetland as well. He asked the requirement for tree replacement and/or maintenance. Senior Planner Drill responded that the tree preservation ordinance does not apply to this property, therefore trees can be removed without a requirement for replacement. He did not believe trees south of the wetland would be removed. Chair Anderson stated that this is a conditional use permit for an existing outlot, which is unique. He stated that the property owners have vested rights and figured out that the property is adjacent to a right-of-way and therefore could be considered a buildable lot. He stated that he has comfort that the final plat will protect the neighborhood and ensure things are done properly. Commissioner Boo stated that it is a bit of a struggle attempting to figure out what the request is and what can or cannot be done. He stated that he would be inclined to support the application as it is a private property, buildable lot, with access to a street. He stated therefore the minimal requirements have been met. He stated that he believes that the commission should consider conditions related to preservation of trees, adjusting driveway requirements, and the location of the home on the site in order to maximize tree preservation. He stated that precise direction could not be given as there is not a plat to review at this time. He sated that he would like to minimize the impact on trees loss through modification of setback requirements and driveway requirements as appropriate. Chair Anderson introduced Mr. Chad Fifield, 321 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth, who stated that he is not comfortable with the answer related to the question he posed related to public health. He stated that he would like to see the data showing that this would not have an impact on public health. Senior Planner Drill reiterated that any impact on public health regarding the proposal would be subjective. He said he’s not sure how building a home in this location would impact someone’s health. He stated that the city has never gone into that level of analysis of a home impacting the public health. Commissioner Oakley asked if building a landfill in that location could have an impact on public health. Senior Planner Drill responded that would be an example of something that could impact public health of nearby residents. He stated that the property is not zoned for that type of development, 8 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 and typically public health is protected through zoning. The subject site is zoned RSF-1 for a single-family home. Commissioner Oakley stated that the request is for a single-family home, which he also lives in, and therefore did not believe that would impact public health. He referenced the requirement language which states that this would promote or enhance public health. Senior Planner Drill responded that this would create a home in the city for a new family to live in and would provide use of the land. Commissioner Markell stated that he also supports the application as Commissioner Boo stated but is less inclined to support additional tree preservation requirements. He stated that typically a property owner would not want to remove more trees than necessary. He stated that he would be worried about imposing a tree preservation or tree maximization condition on this conditional use permit as that could have implications on future conditional use permit requests. He stated that he would support the application as proposed without adding additional conditions. Commissioner Witte stated that the issue raised by a resident is a worthy one, but he is unsure that this is the particular time or case to engage in that discussion. He stated that perhaps that be handled through separate discussion. He stated that he would like to see two conditions added: the applicant provide an easement for an acceptable turnaround to the city, and the driveway width be limited to 16 or 18 feet going back to the building setback line. He asked if staff would find those conditions reasonable. Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie responded that he would caution against a maximum width because this is a sharp 90-degree angle, and the driveway may need to be wider to accommodate vehicles as they reach the turnaround. He cautioned against limited the engineer that will be designing that turnaround. Commissioner Oakley stated that the request is for a conditional use permit and therefore it would be expected that conditions be added for the use. He agreed that there does not seem to be a reason that this request could reasonably be denied, but he would like to see some conditions on the future use, mostly related to tree preservation. He stated that one condition would be that the request meet the current regulations for new development related to tree preservation. He stated that requirement did not exist in city code when the property was platted, but it does exist and applies to new development at this time. Commissioner Pointner stated that if the bottom half of the property were left alone, that would seem to meet the tree preservation requirement. Senior Planner Drill responded that it may be fairly easy to show that the request would comply with the tree ordinance if it applied. He stated that the problem is that the current owner, Carlson Real Estate, is not aware of what the future buyer will desire as a home type. He stated that the current property owner would like to obtain the conditional use permit at this time before selling the property. Commissioner Markell asked if the owner of the property could clear cut the property without approval from the city. 9 Approved Minutes October 6, 2021 Senior Planner Drill responded that is correct, the property owner could remove all the trees on the property at this time if they wanted to because they own the site. Chair Anderson stated that the tree preservation ordinance would allow for removal of 50 percent of the trees and therefore putting that requirement on the property is not going to impact the property if the trees on the southern portion all remain. Commissioner Oakley stated that he still believes that it would provide benefit to include that requirement. He stated that if the southern portion is not going to be part of this lot, he did not believe that should count towards tree preservation. Commissioner Boo stated that this discussion reinforces the comment that Commissioner Markell stated earlier related to the difficulty in adding that type of condition. He stated that it is difficult to provide that input without having the plat, which the commission will not see. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo, and seconded by Commissioner Pointner, to recommend approval of the request for a conditional use permit for a single-family home on 3.8- acre parcel located southeast of 6th Avenue and Xenium Lane, subject to the conditions in the supporting resolution as amended Carlson Real Estate – 2021044). Commissioner Oakley offered a friendly amendment to include the city’s tree preservation requirements for any plans that come forward for final plat. Commissioner Boo rejected the amendment. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.2) Request for Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for property located at 4430 Vicksburg Lane (Charles Cudd Co. – 2021046) Chair Anderson stated that the request is to table this request indefinitely. Senior Planner Drill stated that the public hearing would need to be closed and the matter could then be tabled indefinitely. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Markell, to close the public hearing and continue the request for rezoning and preliminary plat for 17 single-family lots, for property located at 4430 Vicksburg Lane indefinitely (Charles Cudd Co. – 2021046). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. General Business Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:31 pm.