Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 10-18-2023Planning Commission 1 of 1 October 18, 2023 CITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA Regular Planning Commission October 18, 2023, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC FORUM—Individuals may address the Commission about any item not contained on the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the Forum. If the full 15 minutes are not needed for the Forum, the Commission will continue with the agenda. The Commission will take no official action on items discussed at the Forum, with the exception of referral to staff for future reports. 3. APPROVE AGENDA —Planning Commission members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The Commission will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. 4. CONSENT AGENDA —These items are considered to be routine and enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. 4.1 Approve September 20, 2023 minutes Draft Minutes 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approve variance request for 1530 Weston Ln N (2023067 - Jon Green) Planning Report Application and Narrative Site Plan Neighbor Letter Surveys Resolution 7. ADJOURNMENT 1 Regular Planning Commission October 18, 2023 Agenda Number:4.1 To:Planning Commission Prepared by:Chloe McGuire, Planning and Development Manager Reviewed by:Grant Fernelius, Community and Economic Development Director File No: 1. Applicant: 2. Proposal: 3. Location: 4. Guiding: 5. Zoning: 6. School District: 7. Review Deadline: 8. Description: 2 9. Attachments: Draft Minutes 3 1 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2023 Chair Boo 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 September 20, 2023. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Boo, Bill Wixon, Neha Markanda, Jennifer Jerulle, and Josh Fowler COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Marc Anderson and Julie Olson STAFF PRESENT: Planning and Development Manager Chloe McGuire, Senior Planner Lori Sommers, Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie OTHERS PRESENT: Chair Boo led the Pledge of Allegiance. Call to Order Public Forum Mike Lewis, 4565 Glacier Lane, spoke regarding the proposed Eagle Brook Church development expressing concern for traffic. He commented that once a temporary church becomes a permanent church, it typically experiences significant growth which adds to concern. He commented that Corcoran had denied Eagle Brook Church at a very similar location in that community and stated that one of the concerns was traffic, noting an estimated 3,000 vehicles anticipated each Sunday. Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Jerulle, and seconded by Commissioner Wixon, 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 6, 2023. Motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, and seconded by Commissioner Jerulle, to approve the consent agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings 4 2 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 (5.1) Review proposal for senior condominium building at 18035 Old Rockford Rd (2023042 - DJR Architecture) Planning and Development Manager McGuire presented the staff report. Commissioner Jerulle asked if the increased building height was because the building would need to start at a higher level due to flooding concerns. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that she was unsure but noted that the developer also wanted to have an increased number of units. She noted that the applicant could provide additional details. She noted that the density would be within the allowed range for the site. Commissioner Jerulle referenced the apartment building near this site and asked if that also has a variance. Commissioner Wixon asked and received confirmation that there would only be one pickleball court. He noted that noise can be an issue but was not concerned with one court. Commissioner Markanda asked if there would be a significant increase in traffic anticipated. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie replied that the anticipated traffic is well within the capacity of the roadway. Commissioner Markanda asked if any of the units would be allowed for rental, or whether they must be owner occupied. Chair Boo asked if the pickleball court would be limited to only resident use. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that it would be intended for resident use and did not anticipate that members of the public would visit this site for that purpose. Chair Boo asked whether there would be rooftop mechanical units for the building. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that there would be rooftop units that would be located as close to the middle as possible, and screening would be required as well. Chair Boo introduced Mr. Hitchcock, representing the applicant, who identified the building encroachment into the setback noting that it is minimal. He commented that they were able to develop a design that is above the water table, therefore flooding should not be a concern. Chair Boo introduced Ben Ptacek, DJR Architecture, who confirmed that they would meet the screening requirements of the city related to the rooftop equipment. Chair Boo opened the public hearing. There were no comments. 5 3 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 Chair Boo closed the public hearing. Chair Boo noted that this item was presented as a discussion item some time ago and therefore the increase in height was not a surprise and this appears to be a good fit for the property and area. He commented that this is consistent with the concept that was previously presented. Planning and Development Manager McGuire commented that the nearby apartment building has a similar height of 44 feet but did not see a variance required at the time that building was approved. Motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, and seconded by Commissioner Markanda, to recommend approval of the project consistent with staff recommendations. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. New Business (6.1) Site plan and variances to construct a financial institution with drive-through and associated site changes (HTG Architects - 2023051) Senior Planner Sommers presented the staff report. Commissioner Jerulle commented that although the bypass lane is lacking in a certain area, it appears there would still be room for a fire truck. Senior Planner Sommers replied that although the width does not meet the standard, there would be enough room for a fire truck to get through or for a vehicle to go around if the driver decided to get out of the line. Chair Boo asked if the fire department and building department reviews a variance to a safety requirement. Senior Planner Sommers confirmed that staff has reviewed this and does not have an issue as presented. Chair Boo introduced Pat McCann, representing the applicant, who stated that the bank is excited to be a part of this community and convert a problematic site into something great. Chair Boo introduced Josh Longo, HTG Architects, who commented that staff has been excellent throughout this process, and it has been a collaborative effort. Chair Boo commented that this will be a good addition to the community. He understood the need for the signage because of the location along the curve and therefore that makes sense. Commissioner Wixon commented that he visited the property today and seconded the comments that this will be an improvement to this site. 6 4 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 Motion was made by Commissioner Jerulle, and seconded by Commissioner Markanda, to recommend approval of the site plan and variance as recommended. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (6.2) Review variance request for increased impervious surface at 9600 17th Ave NW (2023056 - Tom Li) Planning and Development Manager McGuire presented the staff report. Commissioner Wixon commented that he does not understand the purpose of the rain barrel and where that water would go after it fills. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that the rain barrel would collect water and would be intended to be used for irrigation purposes. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie commented that during heavy rain fall the barrel would fill and overflow. He commented that the idea is to offset the additional impervious with stormwater management and this would be a form of stormwater management. Commissioner Wixon noted the statement in the staff report which states that a 250-gallon rain barrel would have a capacity of 750 gallons and asked for clarification. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie replied that he would defer to the applicant noting that perhaps three barrels would equate to 750 gallons. Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification on the timeline of the project, whether the shed was approved at any point. Planning and Development Manager McGuire provided a history of the property going back to 1999. She commented that the shed was not approved by staff but noted that a shed under 200 square feet does not require a permit. She commented that the first complaint about the shed was received in June of 2023. Commissioner Markanda asked if neighboring homes have sheds and went through an approval process for those. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that sheds over 200 square feet require a building permit, while those under that threshold do not. She noted that while most of the properties in this area exceed the maximum impervious lot coverage, they were grandfathered in for that therefore circumstances would depend upon all those circumstances. Chair Boo commented that the issue is not whether or not this requires a building permit, but whether any further building would increase the permitted impervious lot coverage. Planning and Development Manager McGuire confirmed that to be true. She noted that the homeowners proposed the home to be constructed at the 35 percent maximum impervious surface, therefore any impervious improvements would require action by the city council. 7 5 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 Commissioner Wixon asked if a shed on blocks with dirt underneath would be considered an exception because it does not have a concrete foundation. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that would still be considered the same, as a structure and/or roofline would be qualified as impervious surface. She stated that the DNR implements the shoreland rules which the city then adopts. Chair Boo introduced Tom Li, applicant, who stated that it is the dream of their family to have an environmentally friendly home that looks great. He commented that during the COVID pandemic they experienced delays due to labor and material shortages. He apologized for the inconvenience this caused as they do not have experience with the building industry. He commented that his family was glad to improve the aesthetic and value of the property with the construction of their new home. He commented that the shed is eight by eight and in his review of city code, the shed did not require a permit. He stated that he did not see the regulation required to the impervious surface. He noted that the previous home had much more impervious surface and even with the shed, they are well below that. He noted that the shed provides him with a place to store his garden tools and other items. He noted that many homes in the neighborhood have sheds and therefore this is not out of character for the area. He stated that they are requesting a variance for the backyard shed to remain. He noted that when they proposed construction of the home, they proposed an impervious surface of 35 percent when the maximum of the property was at 48 percent. He stated that this request would be reasonable as they are still well under the previous impervious calculation of the property. He noted that the shed assists with keeping the backyard clean and neat. He provided details on his gardens and how the rain barrels work to collect water that is used for the gardens. He noted that he has two barrels and would add a third. He asked the commission to approve the variance request to allow the shed to remain. Planning and Development Manager McGuire noted an email received on this matter that was submitted into the record and provided to the commission as well. Chair Boo introduced Brit Peterson and Jonathon Peterson, 9530 17th Avenue N, commented that the subject property lost the grandfathered right when the home plans were approved. She stated that neighbors have endured five years of construction and numerous violations by the applicant. She commented that the resident parks on the street and has a trailer parked at the home. She noted that the resident planted eight trees on park property. She stated that the shed does not look great and they are ready for the applicant to get his yard cleaned up and be done. She believed that with the concrete driveway, the impervious surface is at 48 percent. Chair Boo noted that the emailed comment was in opposition of the request. He asked for clarification on the notion of grandfathering and how it relates to the timing of this application. Planning and Development Manager McGuire displayed a photo of the shed as it currently exists, compared to the sketch. She commented that Mr. Li is very educated on the city code and precedent of variance cases. She reviewed the two ways in which properties can lose their lawful, nonconforming status (commonly referred to as grandfathered rights). She commented that the property has clearly lost its grandfathered rights. She recognized that the applicant made 8 6 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 a large reduction in impervious surface compared to the previous site condition. She stated that after 2018 the allowed impervious surface for the site was the approved 35.3 percent. Commissioner Wixon commented that it looks like the home fills up the lot much more than 35 percent on the aerial photos and asked how that was approved. Planning and Development Manager McGuire acknowledged that the home looks full when looking at the site. She commented that staff does have the survey and it does comply with the 35.3 percent impervious. She noted that the aerial view shows the eaves and overhangs which extend past the walls. Commissioner Wixon noted that he often walks past the home, and it is beautiful. Commissioner Fowler referenced a survey from 2015 which shows the setbacks and noted that the shed appears to be within the rear yard setback. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that the shed does meet the required setback. Commissioner Fowler asked if a portion of impervious surface on the site could be removed to offset the shed. Planning and Development Manager McGuire confirmed that could be done. She noted that concrete could be removed and replaced with permeable pavement. Commissioner Jerulle asked if a shed could be placed under the deck. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that a typical deck does not count towards impervious surface but if there were a patio or shed under the second story deck, that would count towards impervious surface. Chair Boo commented that he drove past the house, and it is a very nice home. He appreciates the work the applicant has put into their home and property. He commented that he did not see how this could be approved as the property already exceeds the maximum allowed impervious surface which was negotiated. He did not believe there is sufficient justification to approve the variance and noted the opposition within the neighborhood, therefore he was inclined to deny the variance request. Commissioner Fowler agreed and commented that while he understands that there was more hardcover on the original site, the 35.3 percent was agreed to for this site. He noted that a permeable walkway could replace the existing hardcover to allow the shed to remain in place. Commissioner Markanda commented that she appreciates and empathizes with the work the applicant has put into the property. She stated that she does not find a fair and equitable way to approve this request and therefore cannot support the request. 9 7 Proposed Minutes September 20, 2023 Motion was made by Chair Boo, and seconded by Commissioner Jerulle, to recommend denial of the proposed variance for increased impervious surface at 9600 17th Avenue NW. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Adjournment Chair Boo adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. 10 Regular Planning Commission October 18, 2023 Agenda Number:6.1 To:Planning Commission Prepared by:Chloe McGuire, Planning and Development Manager Reviewed by:Grant Fernelius, Community and Economic Development Director File No:2023067 1. Applicant: Jon Green 2. Proposal: 9.2-foot variance to the required 15-foot side yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to the existing attached garage. 3. Location: 1530 Weston Ln N 4. Guiding: LA-1 5. Zoning: RSF-1 6. School District: Wayzata (284) 7. Review Deadline: January 21, 2024 8. Description: 9.2-foot variance to the required 15-foot side yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to the existing attached garage. 11 9. Attachments: Planning Report Application and Narrative Site Plan Neighbor Letter Surveys Resolution 12 Planning Commission Report Information JON K. GREEN, A VARIANCE, 1530 WESTON LANE N INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a 9.2-foot variance to the required 15-foot side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing attached garage, for the property located at 1530 Weston Lane for the property located at 1530 Weston Lane N. Notice of this public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet. A copy of the notification area map is attached. CONTEXT: The property (1530 Weston Lane N.) is guided LA-1 and is zoned RSF-1 Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North Single Family Residential LA-1 RSF-1 East (Across Vicksburg Lane N) Single Family Residential LA-2 PUD South Single Family Residential LA-1 RSF-1 West Single Family Residential LA-1 RSF-1 13 2023067 Page 2 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 9.2-foot variance to the required 15-foot side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing attached garage, for the property located at 1530 Weston Lane. The proposed garage addition would be located 5.8 feet from the side property line on the north side of the home Natural Characteristics of Site The site is located in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether the proposal meets the standards for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards for a variance. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The site is occupied by a single family home with an attached one-car garage on the north side of the home. The applicant is proposing a 364 square foot addition to the 308 square foot existing attached garage to accommodate the parking of two cars within the garage. The RSF-1 zoning district standards require a 15-foot side yard setback for an attached garage. The existing garage meets this setback requirement as it is 20 feet from the side property line on the north side of the home. The addition to the garage is proposed to be setback 5.8 feet from the property line, requiring the approval of a variance to allow for construction in this location. The applicant has submitted a narrative that details his argument for the approval of a variance in this location. He indicates that the only other option for adding on to the garage would be to add square footage onto the rear of the attached garage. If this were to occur, his options for accessing the second garage stall via a paved driveway are limited by the site layout and there are grade changes in the rear yard that would make this difficult. The rear of the property abuts Vicksburg Lane and a driveway would not be permitted from the road. A tandem stall garage is not a desirable option. To access a garage in the rear yard, a driveway would have to take up front yard area and side yard area on the south side of the site. Because building a slab on grade garage in the rear of the home would be more expensive than adding on to the existing garage, economics are not a factor in this request. The applicant has submitted a letter from the adjacent property owner to the north who is in support of the application. Staff reviewed the request according to the standards listed in section 21030 of the zoning ordinance and has made the following findings: 14 2023067 Page 3 1. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: a. The request is reasonable and the property would be used in a reasonable manner; and b. The request is due to circumstances not created by the landowners; and c. The variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. 3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations but rather, the variance is requested to make improvements to the home/garage to make it more usable for the current occupants. 4. The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. Most other homes have a two-stall garage. 5. The requested variance, and its resulting construction project, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. 6. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties and allow the homeowners to improve the livability of the home and to provide usable space. RECOMMENDATION: Community and Economic Development Department staff recommends approval of the variance at 1530 Weston Lane N. If new information is brought forward at the public hearing, staff may alter or reconsider its recommendation. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2023- RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR JOHN K. GREEN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1530 WESTON LANE N (2023 067) WHEREAS Jon K. Green has requested the approval of a 9.2-foot side yard setback variance to allow for a 364 square foot addition to the attached garage at 1530 Weston Lane N.; and WHEREAS, property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 4, Zinal Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Jon K. Green for a 9.2-foot side yard setback variance to allow for a 364 square foot addition to the attached garage at 1530 Weston Lane N., subject to the following findings: 1. The requested variance is hereby approved in accordance with the application received by the City on September 20, 2023, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. The requested tributary stream variance is approved with the findings that all applicable variance standards would be met. Specifically, a. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. b. The applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: i. The request is reasonable, and the property would be used in a reasonable manner; and ii. The request is due to circumstances not created by the landowners; and iii. The variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. c. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations but rather, the variance is requested to make improvements to the home/garage to make it more usable for the current occupants. d. The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. Most other homes have a two-stall garage. 28 Resolution 2023- File 2023067 Page 2 e. The requested variance, and its resulting construction project, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties and allow the homeowners to improve the livability of the home and to provide usable space. 3. A building permit is required prior to the commencement of the project. 4. The permit is subject to all applicable building and fire codes, and to all city regulations and ordinances. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 5. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicants have commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicants, with the consent of the property owner, have received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 21030.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. APPROVED by the City Council on this ___th day of _____, 2023. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on ______, 2023, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the city this ________day of ___________________, _________. __________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 29