Loading...
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.