Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-02-2010Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan Robinson, Erik Aamoth and Marc Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Gordon Petrash and Scott Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Senness, Senior Planner Marie Darling, Senior Planner Joshua Doty, City Engineer Bob Moberg and Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the June 2, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 19, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the May 19, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS PARTNERSHIP (2010037) Chair Davis introduced the request by Community Connections Partnership for a conditional use permit for an adult day care for property located at 3431 State Highway 169. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Mary Anderson, representing Community Connections Partnership. Ms. Anderson gave an overview of her organization. She added that they are interested in expanding their services and would like to stay in the Plymouth area to provide these services to the elderly or disabled in the community. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 2 Commissioner Kobussen asked if individuals stay there all day. Ms. Anderson replied that not everyone stays all day as it depends on what their needs are. She said that families who are supporting their elderly parent may need someone for the whole day or they may just want a couple of hours. She said the majority of individuals would probably come for four to six hours. Commissioner Kobussen asked if there would be any parking issues if everyone came and left at the same time. Ms. Anderson replied that they would be transported by someone else so the existing parking spaces would be adequate. Chair Davis asked if all their clients are regular clients or if they would take drop -ins. Ms. Anderson replied that they would be people who have been referred to them. She said that they are paid by medical assistance and other prearranged funding contracted through Hennepin County. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Commissioner Kobussen said that there was a perfectly legitimate reason to grant the conditional use permit. He said there was no reason to have the building sitting empty. He said it looked like a good use for it and it would not create a hardship in the neighborhood. He said obviously, we could use this service in Plymouth and he would vote in support of this request. MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the request by Community Connections Partnership for a conditional use permit for an adult day care for property located at 3431 State Highway 169. Chair Davis said that he agreed with Commissioner Kobussen that this was a good idea, a good place for it and it is good to have more services in Plymouth. He said that he would also vote in support of this request. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. INSPEC, INC. (2010023) Chair Davis introduced the request by Inspec, Inc. for a site plan amendment to expand the north and east parking lots and to construct a parent/child staging area at Birchview Elementary School for property located at 425 Ranchview Lane North. Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Aamoth asked why this application is not subject to the city tree preservation ordinance. Senior Planner Doty replied that applications that are subject to the tree preservation requirements are applications that involve a subdivision or platting of land and this request does not have that application with it so it is not subject to tree preservation. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 3 Commissioner Anderson asked for the impervious surface coverage before and after the proposed addition to the parking lot. Senior Planner Doty replied that number was not readily available. He added that this site is not within a shoreland district so it is not a requirement that it be under a certain level of impervious coverage. Commissioner Anderson said that coverage was generally pretty low so it probably would not be an issue. Commissioner Kobussen asked if the eastern parking lot is used for buses to drop off and pick up and whether they let the parents into that area. Senior Planner Doty replied that presently the school uses the easterly drive for a bus staging area and the proposal under this plan is for that practice to continue. He said that when the buses aren't there, the area is used for parking but when the buses are there, it is impossible to use those parking spaces until the buses leave. Commissioner Kobussen said that he just wanted to make sure that the parent drop off couldn't be placed in that parking lot and mix the uses and that is the reason why they are proposing the separate parent/child staging area. Senior Planner Doty said that the applicant could best address their proposal as they had gone through a number of plan revisions. Commissioner Kobussen added that 5th Avenue North is narrow there and doesn't allow very well for traffic. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Joe Matson, representing Wayzata Public Schools. Mr. Matson said that it is important to them to be good neighbors and that they appreciate their neighbors. He said that they also have the responsibility to students, staff and parents to provide a safe environment. He said that a trend has developed over the years where more people are driving children to school. He said that the school district has had to adapt to this increased traffic flow and they have done that at several of their schools. He said Birchview was one of the last to be addressed. He said that they have very similar drop off loops at both Greenwood and Oakwood and they are functioning very well. He said that they hope to accomplish three goals with this project. He said that they hope to improve safety, to improve congestion on 5th Avenue and to improve congestion in the 5th Avenue parking lot. Mr. Matson said that they feel that the parent/child staging area would greatly improve safety. He said that it would allow students to jump out of the car onto the sidewalk and get into school. He added that they would paint a yellow safety stripe on the sidewalk. Mr. Matson said that by allowing more vehicles to leave 5th Avenue and get into the staging area, it should help the congestion on 5th Avenue. He said that it would also improve the traffic flow and it would be a more efficient system for parents to pick up their children and leave fairly quickly. Mr. Matson said that by expanding the parking lot, they would also relieve congestion by being in compliance with drive aisles, size of parking stalls and by increasing the number of parking stalls. He added that it was a tough site to work with and that they had several drafts. He said that they settled on this one because it was similar to the system being used at the two other schools where it works well. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 4 Commissioner Aamoth asked if this was the first opportunity that the public had a chance to weigh in on the proposed parent/child staging area. Mr. Matson replied that there were informal meetings. Chair Davis asked if there would be any way to prevent people from parking in the drop off area during nonschool hours. Mr. Matson replied that they would not encourage it but that they would not want to say there could be no parking during nonschool hours as it would be additional parking for evening users to use. Chair Davis asked if it would be wide enough for two cars to traverse the circle. Mr. Matson replied that it was designed for that. Chair Davis introduced Terry Ray, 15610 5th Avenue North. Mr. Ray said that they had originally looked at a plan that had bus traffic going on 5th Avenue and now this plan encourages and promotes having the common car traffic into that drive area. He said that his concern is not so much about where students get dropped off on school property but it's the result of it. He said that they are concerned with what happens with that street. He said that bus traffic comes in twice a day and there is going to be some congestion but it can be dealt with. He said that with this plan, there is more traffic. He said that it is heavily congested in the mornings and afternoons and they are dealing with hundreds of unprofessional drivers. He said that they have all benefitted from living across from the school and they don't want to be bad neighbors. Mr. Ray said the school district has tried to address the onstreet parking issue with this plan with no parking on the south side. He said that this was the first winter that he didn't have to replace his lawn because he had placed fence posts along his curb. He said that parking should be on the side of the school rather than on the residence side. Mr. Ray said that the issue with this proposed drive and drop off section is that even though parents now choose to drop their kids off, they park on 5th Avenue and walk their children to the door. He said the street is jammed no matter what. He said that in short, they would prefer bus traffic to public traffic on that street during peak times. Mr. Ray asked how much wear and tear the public traffic would put on their brand new street. He said that what happens at other schools doesn't have to happen at theirs. He said one idea would be to take the school side of 5th Avenue that's not woods and include a 45 -degree, diagonal parking lot up and down 5th Avenue. He said that would increase parking, plus it would get rid of no parking on the one side of the street. Chair Davis introduced Jennifer Peterson, 500 Ranchview Lane North. Ms. Peterson said they negotiate that crossing of 5th Avenue every day. She said that she sees many near misses with children walking on the road with buses and cars coming and going. She said that while she fully supports what the school district is trying to do, the parking should be on the south side of 5th Avenue to clear up the other side of the road so children would be getting out of the cars on the safe side of the road and not have to cross the road. She said they should reconfigure the parking area so that the turnaround that is there is used and have parking further in the back. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 5 Ms. Peterson said that she would also like to see sidewalks along 5th Avenue going down and along Ranchview Lane. She said that if they could encourage parents and children to walk to school, it would also cut down congestion on 5th Avenue. She said that she encouraged this request but to give careful thought to other opportunities for trails to go along 5th Avenue and Ranchview Lane to keep the children off the roads. Planning Manager Senness asked that if the neighborhood wished to have no parking on the north side of 5th Avenue, how many residents would have to support a petition. City Engineer Moberg said that they could accept a petition from only one resident but that the City Council would want an understanding that there is a clear majority of residents supporting that. Chair Davis clarified for the audience that if the school district submits the petition for no parking, there would be no parking on the south side of 5th Avenue. He said that if the residents of 5th Avenue that live on the north side of the street submit the petition, there would be no parking on the north side. Planning Manager Senness added that the residents could talk to the City Engineer about how to go about bringing that petition to the City Council. Mr. Matson clarified that they would gladly withdraw their petition if the residents wanted no parking on the north side. Mr. Matson said that their concern for a parent drop off area is that 5th Avenue is quite narrow for buses making that corner. He said that with the parking lot there, there would still be quite a number of vehicles. He said that it was their goal to separate the car traffic from bus traffic and keeping access on separate streets was their best view to do that. City Engineer Moberg said that with regards to vehicle usage of the roadways, most formulas that are looked at in terms of traffic loading assign much heavier values to buses and trucks than they do to automobiles. He said that the amount of wear and tear provided by a single semi - truck is equivalent to the wear and tear provided by 25 to 30 vehicles. He said that Mr. Ray was correct in that 5th Avenue was reconstructed in 2005. He said that the city standard for residential streets is to design those streets to a 7 -ton design, so it has quite a long pavement life. Planning Manager Senness asked if there were any plans to add additional sidewalks along 5th Avenue and Ranchview Lane. City Engineer Moberg replied that as part of the Safe Routes to School program and in addition to the sidewalk that is being proposed along the south side of 5th Avenue from the cul-de-sac over to the proposed turnaround, they are also looking at extending a north/south sidewalk from 5th Avenue down to 3rd Avenue along the westerly portion of school property. He said there is nothing proposed along Ranchview Lane. Mr. Matson said that the primary reason for the proposed placement of the parent/child drop off area is the direct access to the main doors. He said that the existing sidewalk from the main entrance would allow direct access to the turnaround. City Engineer Moberg said that if diagonal parking on 5th Avenue were to be considered, it would need to be oriented so that it would work with eastbound traffic on 5th Avenue. He said Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 6 for any vehicles to use that, they would have to travel the entire length of 5th Avenue, turn around in the cul-de-sac and come back to use it or else face some very dangerous maneuvers of somebody trying to swing around into a 45 -degree parking installed along the street. He said that would not be something that would be supported very easily. Chair Davis said that the sidewalk on 5th Avenue from the turnaround to the cul-de-sac seems to be a place for parents to drop off their children and not even bother with the turnaround. He said that would muddle traffic and the intent is to get them into the turnaround. Commissioner Anderson asked how the number of stalls in the drop off area was determined. Mr. Matson responded that they do not foresee a problem in the mornings as parents drive in to drop off their student and drive right out. He said that some do park and walk into the building and that they would encourage them to use the parking lot. He said that the drop off area would be for them to stay in their cars during the critical times of school start and dismissal and wait for their student to come out and keep it moving. He said that at dismissal time in the evenings, they do back up. He said that they felt 18 vehicles are what could safely get in that area. He said that they do not know the exact number of cars that get staged there and that they do presently back up onto 5th Avenue. He said that they are trying to get more parents into the site. He added that they would work with parents and encourage them to use that drop off area as intended. Commissioner Kobussen asked how busy they anticipate the parking lot to get during the school day and if it is used in the evenings. Mr. Matson replied that during the day, it is pretty full and parking spills out into the street. He added that there are 66 existing stalls. Senior Planner Doty added that there would be 12 new parking spaces added with the proposal, which would bring the amount of parking into conformance with the zoning ordinance standards at the exact minimum. Commissioner Aamoth asked what other standards were to be looked at for this project besides parking, lighting, stormwater runoff and tree removal. Senior Planner Doty replied that there are parking setbacks and drive aisle setbacks. He added that traffic is part of the review. Chair Davis said that he would vote in support of this request because it is an attempt to get vehicle traffic organized. He said that it would not bring more traffic but it would make it safer for the children. Commissioner Anderson said that the additional parking would help out. He said that it may not be perfect but it certainly is a great effort that the school district is putting forward. He said that the school district would be willing to withdraw their petition for no parking on the south side of 5th Avenue and let the residents apply for no parking on the north side of the street. He said that was a great gesture and he would vote in support of this request. Commissioner Kobussen said that he did not see how any other plans could work better than what was submitted. He said that there should definitely be a requirement for no parking on one Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 7 side of the street and that should go to the City Council. He said that his only other concern was if enrollment was to go up or down and that would determine the traffic situation. Mr. Matson confirmed for Chair Davis that there is a before -school program at this school. Commissioner Aamoth said that this did not seem like an ideal solution but the project did seem to comply with the ordinance and the comprehensive plan. He said that he is hopeful that the school district would continue to find additional ways to work with the residents. Commissioner Robinson said that this is an attempt to address an existing problem and obviously it is not an ideal solution. He added that it was very nice to see the school district working with the residents. He said that everything meets the standards of the ordinance and that he would vote in support of this request. MOTION by Commissioner Robinson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the request by Inspec, Inc. for a site plan amendment to expand the north and east parking lots and to construct a parent/child staging area at Birchview Elementary School for property located at 425 Ranchview Lane North. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. STEVE AND ROBERTA DAHL (2010036) Chair Davis introduced the request by Steve and Roberta Dahl for a variance to a rear -yard setback for a patio for the property located at 5545 Ximines Lane North. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Senior Planner Darling noted that a letter had been received and added to the public record. Commissioner Kobussen said that there appeared to be a violation of the setback on the south side of the lot as well and asked if two variances would be needed. Senior Planner Darling replied that she had talked to the applicant and if this request were to be approved for the rear - yard variance, the applicant would be willing to move the patio further north or reduce its size in order to stay six feet from the adjacent property. Senior Planner Darling confirmed for Chair Davis that the rear -yard setback is the west side of the property. Commissioner Kobussen asked which way the water would drain from the property. Senior Planner Darling replied that there was no information on drainage at this time. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Steve Dahl, 5545 Ximines Lane North. Mr. Dahl said that the purpose of this project was to create an area for their children to safely play. He said that the larger patio area would be for their children to be able to shoot baskets. He said that the reason for the size of 19 feet is to be able to shoot a free throw, which is the minimum distance for basketball. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Dahl said that on the drainage issue, the patio would be level from side to side and have a 1% slope so the water would run off the back end. He said that there is currently drain tile installed there (like a French drain) so it filters through rock into the tubing and it drains off to the one side to fill a rain garden area where flowers, trees and plants get water that comes off that patio area. He said that there is also drain tile on the south side but there would not be any water draining towards the south as that would be just water that would come down the hill and from the other owner's property. He said that would drain off into the swamp land. Mr. Dahl said that they feel that there is a hardship because of the minimum size required to use that patio area for their enjoyment. He said that if they were to have it in their front yard, it would be unsafe with balls running out into the street due to the slope of the driveway. He said other issues then would be that to use that they would have to park their cars in the street and then there would be limited visibility. Mr. Dahl said that in the beginning of this project, it was originally to re -landscape their yard and others in the subdivision were also doing it. He said their property was originally represented to be further back by the previous landscaping that was there since the home was built. He said that once they found out that their property markers indicated that the existing landscaping, which appeared to be their property, was not their property, he reduced the size of this project to the minimum (which is the free throw line). He said that by leveling out their yard, it ends up being lower than the neighbors to the south so there is reduced runoff to their property. He said that before that their yard was like the neighbor's yard, which was high in the middle and then it would flow off to the sides and towards the back. He said that now it is level so the back yard runs off to the west into the swamp land, so 28 feet of runoff that would have gone over to the property on the south is redirected. He said that there would be more of a hardship for them to reduce that to get it within the six-foot easement because it eliminates the purpose for basketball. He said that it would provide a nice, safe area for their children to play with friends and to sharpen up their basketball skills. Mr. Dahl said that the unique circumstance is that being that their lot is a smaller lot, they lose that 10 or 12 feet in the back of their property and that's where the variance comes in. He said that if it were a normal size lot, they would be able to fit the patio in but because of the smaller size lot, there is less area on the rear of the property. Mr. Dahl said that as far as neighborhood impact, they have taken steps with the drain tile to minimize all aspects of where the water runs off. He said that the slope of the back yard has been put to a minimum standard of I% so the speed of the water running off would not create a gully effect. He said that it minimizes erosion with a slow pace of water running off the west of the property and there is a 20 -foot buffer with sand to the west to soak up a lot of water, as well as plantings similar to a rain garden on the north side. Commissioner Kobussen asked if they had considered turning the basketball court the other way and have it longer but narrower. Mr. Dahl replied that he had contemplated that but the other half of the yard has pine trees and he is in the process of putting in a waterfall. He said that due Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 9 to the topography on the north side of the yard, the grade drops quicker from the front of the house to the back. He said that for that reason, he did not choose to put it in on that side. He said the center and focus of the house and the deck area seems to be the most desirable place to put it so that parents, friends and family can enjoy the deck and oversee the kids playing in the back yard. Mr. Dahl said that another point in their favor was the drainage and utility easement. He said that there aren't any utilities located there and that there is sand between the patio and the trail that absorbs water runoff rather quickly. He said that the impact should be minimal. He said that the drain tile would catch that water and then in a harder rain, whatever gets over the drain tile would rapidly be absorbed into the sand better than if it were clay soil. Chair Davis introduced Geri Erickson, 5515 Ximines Lane North. Ms. Erickson said that she is against this request. She said that this project has created an eyesore for the entire neighborhood for four years and there has been a pile of mud in the Dahl's back yard. She said that they have the same back yard as everybody else (same width, same slope) and she doesn't see any need to change the elevation or slope of backyard. She said now they are hearing that it would be a basketball court that would take up pretty much the entire back yard. She said that if she lived next to the property that she would not want a basketball court right up to the property line and added that she doesn't find that it's necessary. Chair Davis introduced Susan Dugan, 5535 Ximines Lane North. Ms. Dugan said the last thing they wanted to do was create more tension than what already exists. She said there have been ongoing issues with the Dahls that have not been resolved. She said that the Dahls have been disrespectful of their property line and when they tried to communicate with them, they were very unresponsive. She said that they had originally tried years ago to put in a sport court and that they had dug their asphalt driveway up and buried it in their back yard. She said that there is now an elevation problem and after a heavy rain, they have a sink hole in their back yard because of the difference. She said that they are in disagreement with this variance being accepted and hope that they resolve the issues that are there now before putting in something else. Chair Davis asked if they live to the north or to the south of this property. Ms. Dugan replied that they live to the south. Chair Davis introduced Marsha Stolt, 5465 Yorktown Lane North, representing Harrison Hills Homeowners Association. Ms. Stolt said that there is a dispute with this property dating back to December 2006. She said that the homeowners association board is responsible for enforcing the covenants that run with the property and one of the covenants is that the members of the association are required to get permission from the board to build any significant structure and they would also be required to get permission from the city. Ms. Stolt said that in September 2006, the Dahls had begun constructing a retaining wall approximately 20 feet onto common property. She said that their property slopes downwards onto a trail. She said that they were constructing a low retaining wall very close to the trail at the Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 10 bottom of the property. She said that they had backfilled that with dirt to create a level back yard in place of the slope that had existed. She said that they understood from neighbors that asphalt had been used and a lot of dirt brought in to create this level area. She said that the board had objected and told them this had not been approved and would not be approved and asked that the retaining wall be removed and that the property be restored to its original elevation and slope. Ms. Stolt said that there have been many meetings over the past 3 1/2 years and none of them resulted in a resolution and they ended up in court. She said the court order required the Dahls to remove all of the fill, gravel, asphalt and anything else that had been brought into the yard that had not been there originally. She said they are required to restore the elevation and the slope to match the property to the south. She said that they were also ordered to install black dirt and then sod and restore the appearance of the yard to its original state. She said that this was all to be done by December 31 st but that because of the weather, they were granted an extension under certain conditions. She said that they have not complied with the court order to restore the property by the extended deadline of May 1. She said that it is still an eyesore and it has created drainage problems for the property owners to the south. Ms. Stolt said that at this point, the homeowners association's intent is to enforce compliance with the court order. She said they have hired a contractor (scheduled for June 10) to restore the property and to do any repairs to the trail. Ms. Stolt said that the other issue is that installing a basketball court would require board approval, even if the elevation and drainage weren't an issue, and they would need to discuss and review the proposal but she feels that would not be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood. Planning Manager Senness said that frequently in the City of Plymouth, homeowners association requirements and approvals are needed before someone can make an improvement. She said that review is outside of the city process. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Planning Manager Senness and added to that is the fact that there is a court action for fill that was added on the homeowners association land that is not our issue. He said that our issue is strictly looking at the variance and if there is a hardship associated to extend a patio into the setback. Commissioner Kobussen said that his concern is that there are zoning laws that require a six-foot setback for drainage for a purpose. He said that the purpose is to keep the water from going off into the neighbor's yards and the way this has been built up, it will create a drainage problem. He said that the way the back of the lot drops to the path, the water will run off down the hill and it will wash it out. He said for that reason alone, it would need a six-foot setback so that the water doesn't drain off the property. He said that he would not vote for approval of this variance request. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2010 Page 11 Commissioner Anderson said that he agreed with Commissioner Kobussen. He said that even if nothing was located in the drainage and utility easement now, it could create a problem later on if something were to be built in those easements. He said that was another reason why he would not vote in support of this application. Commissioner Aamoth said that the city tries to accommodate residents to do things for their families. He said that the idea was interesting but that the Planning Commission's purpose is to see if requests meet all city requirements and this request doesn't. He said that there is not a unique hardship and he would vote against this request. Commissioner Robinson said that he would not vote in support of this variance request. He said that it does not meet the rear -yard setback requirement and it would not meet the southern setback as well. He said that they could still have a very large concrete patio area but that there is no apparent hardship for the proposed project. MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to deny the request by Steve and Roberta Dahl for a variance to a rear -yard setback for a patio for the property located at 5545 Ximines Lane North. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.