HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 09-02-2009Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
September 2, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Terry Jaffoni, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Gordon
Petrash, Erik Aamoth and Marc Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair James Davis and Commissioner Scott Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Senness, Senior Planner Marie Darling, Senior
Planner Josh Doty, Public Works Director Doran Cote, Park and Recreation Director Eric Blank
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 Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the
September 2, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the
August 19, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. STONE SOURCE (2009040)
Vice Chair Jaffoni introduced the request by Stone Source for a conditional use permit and
variance to allow accessory retail sales in a wholesale showroom in excess of 5,000 square feet
for property located at 15831 State Highway 55.
Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. She added that following the action
on a recent rezoning request initiated by the City as part of the zoning ordinance/comprehensive
plan reconciliation, the City Council would consider rezoning this subject property to C2. She
said that under C2 zoning, this particular applicant would not be able to expand their business.
She said that staff is forwarding this item for action in advance of that rezoning so that the
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2, 2009
Page 2
property owner and the tenant may continue their business as a legally nonconforming use until
such time as redevelopment occurs.
Vice Chair Jaffoni introduced the applicant, Lenny Lane, representing Stone Source. Mr. Lane
stated that he did not have anything further to add to the staff report.
Vice Chair Jaffoni continued the public hearing from the August 19, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item.
Commissioner Aamoth asked what the original purpose of the ordinance was to limit the amount
of retail space allowed in industrial areas. Senior Planner Darling said that retail space is limited
in industrial areas to keep industrial areas for industrial purposes. She said that industrial areas
are frequently an attractive location for retail uses because rents are typically lower. She said
that once a retail use moves in to the industrial district, it tends to increase the price of properties
and that tends to price out the very businesses and opportunities that were originally guided and
zoned for. She added that parking becomes an issue in industrial areas as well.
Mr. Lane responded to Vice Chair Jaffoni that they are currently doing some fabrication work on
site and that they would like to expand that activity. Vice Chair Jaffoni asked if there is any dust
or noise associated with that activity. Mr. Lane said that there is both dust and noise and that the
dust is controlled by using water. He said that they have taken classes with OSHA to learn how
to minimize and control the dust as well.
Vice Chair Jaffoni asked if there would be an increase in the number of employees as part of the
expansion and how many more employees would be required initially. Mr. Lane said that they
would employ two or three people to do fabricating during the day and that number would
increase, based on the amount of production generated.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the
request by Stone Source for a conditional use permit and variance to allow accessory retail sales
in a wholesale showroom in excess of 5,000 square feet for property located at 15831 State
Highway 55. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously.
B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2009042)
Vice Chair Jaffoni introduced the request by the City of Plymouth to adopt the 2010-2014
Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Public Works Director Cote gave an overview of the staff report. He summarized the projects
and funding by department.
Commissioner Petrash asked if increases in funding are due primarily to changes in scope or
refinements of estimates. Public Works Director Cote said that most of those are changes in
scope.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2, 2009
Page 3
Commissioner Anderson said that there are numerous funding sources (federal, state, county,
etc.). He asked how much of the $172 million total would come out of the City's budget and
how much would be paid by taxpayers. Public Works Director Cote said that the general fund
items, which come from the tax levy, total $257,000. He said that traditional funding sources for
capital improvements are out of City funds, which includes internal funds, and are about $17
million. He added that park funds are about $12 million, utility funds are about $26 million
including the water resources fund) and street replacement fund, which is a dedicated fund,
would be another $23 million.
Commissioner Aamoth asked where funding for the central equipment fund comes from. Public
Works Director Cote said that the central equipment fund is an internal service fund that is
charged back to other departments.
Public Works Director Cote responded to Commissioner Aamoth that most of the items in place
in the CIP have been extended because of current economic conditions, so funding would be less
as compared to past years.
Vice Chair Jaffoni opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair Jaffoni introduced Brooke Kent, 545 Niagara Lane North. Ms. Kent said that she is
concerned about CIP project number 11 -ST -001, 2011 Street Reconstruction. She said that her
neighborhood would be affected by the proposed Circle Park road reconstruction project. She
said that this project was originally tabled by the City Council this past April. She said that as a
neighborhood, they continue to be concerned about the economic feasibility, scope and timing of
this project. She said that 88 percent of the residents in the neighborhood were against the
project in April given the proposed cost and scope as put before them then. She said that the
bids, as they came back in the spring, represented only a 3.8% decrease from the initial range
quoted by the City before the economy declined. She said that she knows all of the items in the
CIP are not written in stone and will go before a public process before any firm action is taken
but that she wanted the Planning Commission to note the concerns about the cost and feasibility
of this project.
Vice Chair Jaffoni closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the cost for this project is based on bids received or on
anticipated bids. Public Works Director Cote said that the estimates in the CIP are engineering
estimates and are not based on the bids received. He added that there had been some
irregularities in the bids that were received last April and that's the reason City Council rejected
bids at that time.
Public Works Director Cote responded to Commissioner Anderson that this project would be
rebid in 2011 if the City Council goes forward with it. He said that this is a project that would be
specially assessed and there is a process that has to be gone through before the City Council
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2, 2009
Page 4
decides whether or not to go out for bids. He said that there would be neighborhood meetings
and that the City Council would hold a formal public hearing.
Public Works Director Cote responded to Commissioner Aamoth that if an estimate for a project
were to be too high, the funding would go back to the source. He said that if funding was from
an outside source, the funds would simply not be sent to us.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, recommending that
the 2010-2014 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) go to City Council with approval by the
Planning Commission. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. JAMES AND JEANNE ROLFS (2009043)
Vice Chair Jaffoni introduced the request by James and Jeanne Rolfs for a variance to allow a
three -season porch addition for property located at 18920 37th Place North.
Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. He noted the receipt of additional
correspondence that has been added to the public record.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the aerial photo or the survey represents the accurate setbacks.
Senior Planner Doty said that the aerial photo does not reflect accurate property lines. He said
that the survey would be the accurate document to follow for looking at setbacks.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the deck stairs on the site plan do not appear to match the
deck stairs on the survey and asked if the stairs need to meet a setback. Senior Planner Doty said
that the deck stairway would extend out further than the deck and that the deck stairway would
have to meet the same setback as a deck, which is minimum of six feet from the side or rear
property line. He added that in the proposed resolution, there is a condition that the applicant
would have to prove that the deck and related stairway meet the six-foot required setback before
they could proceed with the deck.
Senior Planner Doty confirmed for Commissioner Kobussen that the rear setback stated in the
staff report should read 25 feet and not 35 feet. Commissioner Kobussen asked who owns and
maintains the pathway and if the utilities are located in the front or in the rear of the home.
Senior Planner Doty said that the Homeowners Association owns and maintains the path as part
of the development. He said that the applicant stated that the utilities are located in the front of
their home.
Commissioner Aamoth asked if the correspondence received had expressed concerns or if they
were in support of the proposal. Senior Planner Doty said that the staff report included a letter
stating reservations about issuing a variance but recognizing that some variance might be
appropriate. He said that the second letter received was in support of the variance request.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2, 2009
Page 5
Commissioner Petrash asked if the Homeowners Association would have to approve the
proposed addition. Senior Planner Doty said that approval was required and that the approval
documentation had been received.
Vice Chair Jaffoni asked if this would set precedent or if there were other homes in the
neighborhood that have porches. Senior Planner Doty said that no variance approval is
precedent setting. He said that there are unique situations within the development and within the
city, and that each variance request would be looked at on its own merit.
Vice Chair Jaffoni introduced the applicant, James Rolfs. Mr. Rolfs said that rear setbacks are
specific to create a buffer between living areas. He said that the staff report stated that the
closest living area would be 148 feet away, so that's not an issue. He said that the issue seems to
be whether or not the proximity to the path is reasonable. He said that the stairway drawings
were given to him by the contractor for use with the variance application but that they would not
be the final plans. He said that they would make sure that the six-foot setback would be met. He
said that the stairway would be closer to the edge of the deck and not jut out as far as shown. He
provided aerial views showing setbacks around the neighborhood. He said that given the other
scenarios of paths in their neighborhood, he feels that 16 feet to the path is reasonable. He said
that he understands his neighbor's concern and is trying to address that as best he can. Mr. Rolfs
said that they have looked at two alternative porch plans off the back of their garage; however,
those options only provide natural light to two sides of the porch. He said that without the
variance, they could still build a deck of that size because of the setbacks for decks. He asked
why the setbacks in proximity of paths would be treated differently for side lots than rear lots.
Commissioner Anderson asked where the location of the path is in relationship to the rear
property line. Mr. Rolfs said that he measured and found that the path is approximately two to
two and one-half feet from the property line. He said that the path would be roughly 16 to 18
feet from the corner. Senior Planner Doty added that the estimate in the staff report was slightly
conservative and was measured based on the aerial photo.
Commissioner Kobussen said that the issue is the 25 -foot setback. He said that he had been
through the neighborhood and noticed that many homes have porches. He said that the other
homes did not come close to the 25 -foot setback because their lots are bigger. He said that since
this is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood, there wouldn't be much of a back yard after
building an addition. He said that it concerns him that they would be building out to the end of
the lot and that it would not be reasonable along the path compared to how other homes in the
neighborhood are set. Senior Planner Doty confirmed for Commissioner Kobussen that any
roofed addition would be considered part of the house and that is why the side setback is 10 feet
for the porch. He added that decks are the exception.
Vice Chair Jaffoni said that since the porch and deck addition stick out quite far into the yard, if
it would be possible to build a smaller porch that would require a variance for something less.
Mr. Rolfs said that he would consider a 12 -foot deep porch. He said that rooms smaller than that
are hard to furnish.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2, 2009
Page 6
Commissioner Anderson said that this is a small lot with a very strange location of the home on
the lot. He said that if it had been a vacant lot with new construction, the home would be located
closer to the road and rotated. He said that this is a hardship situation because of the location of
the home.
MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the
request by James and Jeanne Rolfs for a variance to allow a three -season porch addition for
property located at 18920 37th Place North.
Commissioner Kobussen said that his concern is putting a porch that far alongside the path
would destroy the whole appearance of the neighborhood. He said that the current owner may
not do anything but we don't know what the next owner would do. He said that a lot of homes in
the neighborhood have built a porch and deck and then have enclosed the area underneath and
that really sticks out and becomes an eyesore.
Commissioner Aamoth said that since the Homeowners Association had approved the addition
and that it's a good reflection of where the neighborhood is coming from, he would vote in
support of this request.
Vice Chair Jaffoni asked if it had been the Homeowners Association who had approved the
addition or if it had been approved by the architectural committee. Mr. Rolfs said that the
Homeowners Association board appoints an architectural control committee. He said that to
enclose the bottom of the porch would require additional approval. He added that since the path
is not part of a city trail system, there is not a lot of traffic back there.
Vice Chair Jaffoni said that when this neighborhood was developed, it had a 35 -foot setback in
the front yard and that's why the home was placed there originally. She said that when Mr. Rolfs
purchased the home in 2002, he would have understood the limitations of what could be done on
the property given the zoning regulations as far as required setbacks, etc. She said that she
agreed with Commissioner Kobussen that it would be out of character to have that size porch
sticking out, so she would vote against this request.
Roll Call Vote. 3 Ayes (Vice Chair Jaffoni and Commissioner Kobussen voted Nay).
MOTION approved.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Vice Chair Jaffoni, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.