Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 12-06-2006Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting December 6, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Holmes, Commissioners Karl Neset, Melissa Musliner, E. J. Clyman, Kathleen Murdock and Frank Weir MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Sarah Anderson STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Senness, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Marie Darling 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 Chair Holmes announced that item 5B is to be removed from the Consent Agenda and become item 7A. MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Murdock, to approve the amended December 6, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Musliner, to approve the November 15, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. KATHY AND DOUG BURKETT (2006101) MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Musliner, to approve variances to the ordinary high water level (OHWL) and bluff setbacks to allow an addition for property located at 14820 13th Place North. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. NEW BUSINESS Al. RVC HOMES/LOCH DEVELOPMENT (2006107) Chair Holmes introduced the request by RVC Homes/Loch Development for rear yard setback variances to allow construction of a deck with stairway for each building within the Plymouth Office Plaza development for property located south of Old Rockford Road at 45th Avenue North. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the November 28, 2006 staff report. He added a correction and clarification to the staff report that City building staff did identify the building code issue regarding exiting during the building permit review. He said the approved building plans do show the required fire protection for the interior stairwells. Senior Planner Drill also noted that condition 4B of the resolution requires two stairways for Buildings B and C, in order to meet distance requirements in compliance with the building code. Commissioner Clyman asked if there are permitted uses in Buildings B and C that would allow for people to be there on weekends or at night. Senior Planner Drill said that they are office buildings and there is no prohibition. He said that generally the offices wouldn't be open for business at those times but someone could be in the building doing extra work. Commissioner Clyman asked if they know who is going to be in those buildings. Senior Planner Drill said that he is not aware that the developer has named any tenants yet. Commissioner Weir said that one of the concerns mentioned in the resident's letter is that by adding the balconies and stairways at the rear of buildings, it changes the dynamics of the buildings. He asked if it were possible for the doors to be for emergency exit only and, therefore, not allow people to go out on the balcony to smoke or stand. Senior Planner Drill said that the sole purpose of the balconies and stairwells is to provide emergency egress from the building and staff would need to check with the Building Official to see if that would be allowable. Chair Holmes introduced the applicant, Greg Bordon, architect representing the applicant. Mr. Bordon said that this is an exit requirement and it is so narrow that you can't put a chair out there. He said the home on the south side of the property has quite extensive landscaping with very large trees that effectively screens the building. He said they don't feel this is a detriment, but thinks it is an asset to the development. He said it adds some interest to the back fagade. Commissioner Clyman asked if they would be agreeable to what Commissioner Weir suggested in having the doors to the balconies be for emergency exits only. Mr. Bordon Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 3 said essentially that's what they are. He said that it is a possibility to add an alarm, but that's a pretty expensive option to do electronically. He said they would not want to restrict that access if someone were to want to step outside for fresh air on a nice day. Commissioner Musliner asked about the discrepancy between the plans and what has been built there without the proper egress. Mr. Bordon said he was not involved in the design process. He said what was built was not built according to the building code and to the way the building code would describe firewalls that enclose that stairway. He said that is the crux of the problem and to correct that involves modifying all the floor joists and the roof at quite a big expense. He said the suggestion by the Building Department was that perhaps exit balconies could be installed to resolve the problem. Commissioner Musliner asked if they would consider putting a back hallway and then one staircase leading out so that it would be internal rather than external. Mr. Bordon said that he was not sure as they have already had two tenants drop out because of the delays of the project and didn't think they had sold any of the units yet. He said that would certainly take away square footage and lower the sales price. He said that he wouldn't recommend that. Chair Holmes introduced Joe Rupar, 18140 State Highway 55. Mr. Rupar said that Buildings B and C are right by his property and asked if there is any chance that a privacy fence could be put up. He said this project has been a major problem. He said the first contractors that did the excavating went broke and it had to all be redone. He said after that, they came back and did more dirt work, then quit for awhile and now there is this problem with the fire escapes. He said he is not against the fire escapes, but didn't understand how a contractor could be putting up a building and not be able to see that there are fire escapes in the blueprint. He asked how all these problems occurred. He said the first contractor damaged over $4,000 worth of his property and then in the process, they ruined his sewer system so that he got into it with the City of Plymouth and the Pollution Control Agency. He said there wasn't anything wrong with his sewer system but they damaged it and he fixed it at his expense. He said now he has all these expenses because of the fact that the people doing these projects are doing their jobs poorly. Commissioner Clyman asked if he is specifically asking for help for screening. Mr. Rupar said he is against how they bungled this whole project as it has been going on over three and a half years. He said he has to pay for water and sewer when he sells, and in the mean time he is out thousands of dollars for repair work that someone else damaged. Planning Manager Senness asked when construction started on the site. Mr. Rupar said it was April 2003. Planning Manager Senness said that was before the project was approved. Senior Planner Drill added he thought that Mr. Rupar was referring to a separate utility project that brought the sewer through the wetland, because this project was not approved until in 2004. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 4 Planning Manager Senness asked Mr. Bordon to address the question on how it was possible that the plans weren't followed. Mr. Bordon said the original plans submitted to the City for review did not include these balconies or second exits. He said the building code interpretation at the time they submitted the plans only needed one exit out of the second floor. He said that upon discovery of the construction problem, that stair would not qualify as a code approved exit, so they are trying to provide two exits. He said that at this time, they just submitted these drawings adding the exit balcony and stair. Planning Manager Senness said that the City has a plan set that has a note indicating that the stairwells would be constructed per the code. Mr. Bordon said the original plans only showed one exit out of the second floor, which was allowed by code. Planning Manager Senness said that was correct because the interior stairwells would have been constructed in such a fashion to allow that. Mr. Bordon concurred, but stated they were not built that way. Planning Manager Senness asked how that happened. Mr. Bordon said that he did not know but thought it might have been from the switch from the uniform building code to the international building code. Chair Holmes clarified that to resolve that issue and to follow the original plans is an expensive proposition and involves rebuilding a portion of the buildings and, henceforth, staff came forward with the concept of the balcony and the stairway to provide an acceptable safety egress from the building. Mr. Bordon said that was correct and the interior stair will still be there. Chair Holmes asked about the damage to Mr. Rupar and how that relates to this property. Planning Manager Senness asked Mr. Rupar if the septic system damage occurred as part of the utility project or as part of the office construction. Mr. Rupar said it occurred as part of the utility project. Chair Holmes said that is not part of what they are reviewing and suggested that Mr. Rupar take this up with whoever managed the utility project. Chair Holmes said that for this discussion, the two items are not related. Chair Holmes introduced Mrs. Pat Rupar, 18140 State Highway 55. Mrs. Rupar said that she doesn't agree that their property is heavily wooded. She said they have about three pine trees in the back and two of which were large ones that were destroyed by the previous project. She said that in between their house and the neighbor's house there is a row of evergreens, but in back there is only one large maple and an elm on the side with a couple small, straggly evergreens near the rear. She said now that balconies and people are going to be in the back, she thinks they should be entitled to a privacy fence along their property to screen them. Mr. Bordon said that in the development plan they are providing a lot more landscaping along that border as well as a rain garden. Mr. Bordon showed pictures of Mr. Rupar's house taken from the office property. He said an 8 -foot fence would not alter the view from the second floor of the two lots involved, and there are maintenance issues with a fence. He said the developer is willing to put more landscaping in that would grow taller than an 8 foot fence. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 5 Chair Holmes said that may be more viable than a fence that only gives 8 feet and he would recommend larger trees, more mature trees, that give that 10-12 foot height right from the start. Mr. Bordon said the landscape plan currently calls for 6 -foot evergreens along there. Chair Holmes said he would direct to request the developer to increase the size of the trees to build an immediate natural buffer sooner and faster and look at 10-12 foot, or even larger trees, that can be put in the location now at not significantly more cost. Mr. Bordon said the owner is willing to do that if the Planning Commission so requests. Commissioner Neset said to stipulate what kind of trees to ensure screening year round. Commissioner Clyman asked if Mr. and Mrs. Rupar were agreeable to that. Mrs. Rupar said she was not sure because evergreens don't grow that well in wet areas. She said there is a swale down into the rain garden and their evergreens are on higher ground. Commissioner Clyman asked if she agrees with the concept of more screening rather than a fence being a better solution. Mrs. Rupar said she prefers a fence now that there is going to be activity there. She said she still questions how this ever got through the City as there should have been a framing inspection. Planning Manager Senness said there are framing inspections. She said that when this was identified, it was an unrelated inspection that occurred prior to a framing inspection. Chair Holmes said the Rupars have the option to put up a fence if they so choose. He said his position is that improved landscaping provides a better buffer than putting up a fence that ultimately requires maintenance on the part of the landlord. Commissioner Neset said that none of these trees should be less than 12 feet in height as another 4 feet would provide more screening. He also suggested that the developer find trees that would do well in the soil conditions present on the site. MOTION by Commissioner Weir, seconded by Commissioner Neset, to approve rear yard setback variances to allow construction of a deck with stairway for each building within the Plymouth Office Plaza development for property located south of Old Rockford Road at 45th Avenue North with the understanding that a tree buffer of evergreen trees of 12 feet in height subject to approval of the City Forester. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Chair Holmes announced that the December 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting can be canceled. MOTION by Chair Holmes, without objection, to approve the cancellation of the December 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 6 Planning Manager Senness reviewed the 2007 Planning Commission meeting schedule. MOTION by Commissioner Murdock, seconded by Commissioner Weir, to approve the 2007 Planning Commission meeting schedule. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. Chair Holmes wished to express a thank you to those whose terms end and said that he has enjoyed working with everyone. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Holmes, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m.