Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 02-01-2017PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, February 1, 2017 WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. OATH OF OFFICE - Kira Vanderlan 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the January 18, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Michael Steinhauser. Approve a variance to the rear yard setback for an addition for property located at 10610 54th Avenue. (2016102) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Creekside Plymouth LLC. Rezoning and preliminary plat for "Creekside Woods Phase II" for property located at 17125 and 17135 Old Rockford Road. (2016098) (Continue the public hearing to the February 15, 2016 meeting.) 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Ricardo and Cynthia Armijo. Variances to allow a carport in the front yard for property located at 1035 West Medicine Lake Drive. (2016100) 9. ADJOURNMENT Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting i5A, January 18, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Donovan Saba, Jim Kovach, Julie Witt, Bryan Oakley, and David Witte MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barb Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill OTHERS PRESENT: Council Member Ned Carroll 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Witt, to approve the January 18, 2107 Planning Commission Agenda, Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 4, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Witte, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the consent agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CREEKSIDE PLYMOUTH, LLC (2016098) Acting Chair Anderson introduced the request by Creekside Plymouth LLC for a rezoning and preliminary plat for "Creekside Woods Phase II" for property located at 17125 and 17135 Old Rockford Road. Planning Manager Thomson stated that the applicant is working on revisions to the plat and has requested that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on this matter and continue it to the February 1, 2017 meeting. Proposed Minutes 1 of 5 Meeting of January 18, 2017 Acting Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and continued it to the February 1, 2017 ; meeting. B. CIVIL SITE GROUP (2016088) Acting Chair Anderson introduced the request by Civil Site Group for a PUD general plan for a memory care home and retail building and preliminary plat for "Crossroads Commons Second Addition" for property located south of the Highway 55 frontage road, between West Medicine Lake Drive and County Road 73. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked the height of the entrance monument or what the maximum height would be. Senior Planner Drill replied that the maximum for a freestanding sign is 36 feet but believed that the applicant's monument sign would be eight to ten feet. Commissioner Witte referenced a small area on the site plan near a property line and asked if that would be an issue. Senior Planner Drill replied that it is not an issue. Commissioner Saba asked if there is currently a similar service road or whether there is currently no access to the site. Senior Planner Drill noted that when the service road was constructed, the three curb cuts serving this site were constructed and therefore are already in place. Commissioner Oakley asked if this request would impact a previous driveway access that was granted through The Waters senior living request. Senior Planner Drill replied that the request would not have any impact on that access. Acting Chair Anderson asked if a portion of the proposed lot is used for parking by the neighboring property. Senior Planner Drill replied that when The Waters building was constructed there was an easement received from the neighboring property owner to construct parking. He stated that the proposed memory care can provide sufficient parking without that area. Acting Chair Anderson asked if there will be additional screening because of the decreased setback to the frontage road. Senior Planner Drill provided details on the landscaping proposed in the area where the setback would be decreased. Proposed Minutes 2 of 5 Meeting of January 18, 2017 Planning Manager Thomson noted that there are commercial properties across Highway 55, and therefore the lesser setback is less of an issue in this case. Acting Chair Anderson stated that typically the city likes to see stacking for ten vehicles in the drive aisle and noted that the retail building would only have nine spaces. He asked if that would be a problem, and if the city knows the intended use for the building. Senior Planner Drill replied that staff has been told that the intent is for the use with the drive through to be a coffee tenant and advised that the applicant can provide additional details. Acting Chair Anderson asked if the architecture is the same for the back of the building and for all sides. Senior Planner Drill replied that the front and back of the building have a high degree of architectural design, with a bit less detail on the smaller sides of the building. Acting Chair Anderson introduced Patrick Sarvar, the applicant and Elizabeth Wright, representing Moments (the senior care facility), who stated that they are in agreement with staff on all but one item. He stated that a potential coffee tenant would like the opportunity to use a pylon sign, similar to McDonald's. Acting Chair Anderson asked what signage was originally proposed for the site. Senior Planner Drill stated that the original proposal for this site included a sign that would be shared between the two lots and was a 36 -foot high pylon sign. He stated that the latest application simply stated the intent for a monument sign with no more details. He stated that any C-2 property would be allowed to have a pylon sign up to 36 feet in height and therefore could be allowed under the PUD. Mr. Sarvar stated that he would like to propose a pylon sign. Planning Manager Thomson noted that the monument sign height was not specified in the proposed resolution and could be further detailed. Mr. Sarvar stated that they are looking forward to being a part of the Plymouth community and have been pleased with the process with staff thus far. Acting Chair Anderson asked for details on the condition relating to landscaping and confirmed that the applicant also agreed with that condition. Commissioner Witt stated that she did not see any area for truck deliveries for linens and food and asked where those vehicles would come into the site. Mr. Sarvar replied that the trucks are coming in through the front drive area. He explained that memory care has a light parking use and therefore the deliveries can use the regular parking and come through the front door. Proposed Minutes 3 of 5 Meeting of January 18, 2017 Commissioner Witt stated that there were two different types of care listed in the applicant's narrative and asked for clarification. Ms. Wright stated that Moments wants to be able to care for all levels of dementia and fully understands that residents will start the phases of passing on, and there will be hospice care providers brought in to care for those residents during that transition time. She stated that they know their limitations for care and would not be providing the higher levels of care themselves or as a focus of the facility. Acting Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Commissioner Oakley stated that about half of this request had come through in the past, and the commission struggled with a decision because there was nothing planned for the westerly portion of the site. He stated that has now been resolved, and it appears the applicant has done a good job complying with the majority of the underlying zoning regulations even under the PUD. He stated that he would support this as presented, adding the option for a pylon sign. Acting Chair Anderson asked if there were concerns from the letter submitted into the record. Planning Manager Thomson noted that the concerns regarding lighting and the level of sound from the speaker associated with the drive-through will be addressed through ordinance regulations. She stated that the hours of operation were also noted and explained that the uses will not be operating 24 hours per day. Mr. Sarvar stated that the preliminary discussions with the coffee user focused on the morning hours. He stated that if the coffee user were to go away, they would want to ensure the restrictions would not interfere. He stated that 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seems to be a reasonable time restriction for hours of operation. Commissioner Kovach asked if there is an identified second tenant. Mr. Sarvar stated that there is space for two retail tenants but they have only had discussions with the coffee tenant for the drive-through space. Commissioner Witte stated that the remaining parcel will be wetland and asked what would govern that as the PUD would only govern the land. Senior Planner Drill replied that the entire property is within the PUD, noting that the wetland is included within the proposed lot lines and could not be filled and built upon. He provided a larger view of the entire PUD. MOTION by Commissioner Witt, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the request by Civil Site Group for a PUD general plan for a memory care home and retail building and preliminary plat for "Crossroads Commons Second Addition" for property located south of the Highway 55 frontage road, between West Medicine Lake Drive and County Road 73, with a Proposed Minutes 4 of 5 Meeting of January 18, 2017 friendly amendment from Commissioner Oakley adding a condition to set the hours for the retail building at 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Acting Chair Anderson introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a determination of conformity of the tax increment financing plan for redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall with the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan. Economic Development Manager Parr gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Witt stated that a previous developer looked at this site, and there was no comment that it was a difficult site to develop or that the site could not be developed without TIF. She asked what caused the change in thought. Economic Development Manager Parr stated that she cannot speak to the first request but advised that this applicant has done due diligence and therefore knows more about the condition of the site. She stated that this application also goes above and beyond in multiple ways, and the applicant has made further quality improvements at the request of staff that would not be provided through a typical application. Commissioner Witt asked how the net result will be determined in ten years if this site is wildly successful. She asked on the flip side, how would the net result be determined if the site is not successful. Economic Development Manager Parr stated that staff and the third party financial advisors look very closely to ensure that the baseline of the tax value would at least be maintained. She stated that things that have been promised will have to be provided or the developer would not receive any on-going TIF payments. Acting Chair Anderson stated that the commission is not reviewing any dollar amounts or TIF and is simply reviewing specific elements of the development (soil, demolition, infrastructure) to determine if they comply with the comprehensive plan. He stated that the commission held a public hearing at their last meeting to review the site plan and recommended approval as they felt that the request met the comprehensive plan. MOTION by Commissioner Kovach, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the Planning Commission resolution finding that the modification to the development program for Development District No. 7 and a tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-9 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Acting Chair Anderson, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 P.M. Proposed Minutes 5 of 5 Meeting of January 18, 2017 Agenda Number File 2016102 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO: Plymouth Planning Commission FROM: Marie Darling, Senior Planner (509-5457) through Barbara Thomson Planning Manager MEETING DATE: February 1, 2017 APPLICANT: Michael Steinhauser PROPOSAL: Variance to the wear -yard setback for an addition LOCATION: 1061054 1h Ave. N. GUIDING: LA -2 (living area 2) ZONING: RSF-2 (single family detached 2) REVIEW DEADLINE: May 6, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a setback variance to allow an addition to the home in the rear yard. The new addition would be 17.7 feet from the property line where the zoning ordinance: requires 25 feet. Notice of the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. A copy of the notification area snap is attached. 2016102 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Natural Characteristics of Site The lot is located in the Shingle Creek watershed, but it is not located in a shoreland or floodplain management overlay district. There are two medium -quality wetlands on the property, one on the north side of the home and one on the south side. The site contains mature trees, but the request is not subject to tree preservation. Previous Actions Affecting Site The subject lot was created in 1995 as part of The Ponds at Bass Creek 2nd Addition subdivision. The home was built in 1996. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not 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 applicant is in the process of remodeling their home and would like to add an approximately 11 -foot by 12 -foot master bath addition adjacent to the northwest corner of the home. The new addition would be 17.7 feet from the west property line. Section 21065 of the zoning ordinance defines the rear lot line as the boundary of the lot opposite the front lot line. As a result, the west property line is the rear lot line. Staff reviewed the request according to the standards listed in section 21030 of the zoning ordinance and has made the following findings: 1. The request for the addition is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land use classification in the comprehensive plan. 2, Permitting the addition allows the property to be used in a reasonable manner. Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zonis North, South, Single family homes East LA -2 RSF-2 Open -space outlot owned by the West Harrison Hills HOA and single- family homes Natural Characteristics of Site The lot is located in the Shingle Creek watershed, but it is not located in a shoreland or floodplain management overlay district. There are two medium -quality wetlands on the property, one on the north side of the home and one on the south side. The site contains mature trees, but the request is not subject to tree preservation. Previous Actions Affecting Site The subject lot was created in 1995 as part of The Ponds at Bass Creek 2nd Addition subdivision. The home was built in 1996. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not 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 applicant is in the process of remodeling their home and would like to add an approximately 11 -foot by 12 -foot master bath addition adjacent to the northwest corner of the home. The new addition would be 17.7 feet from the west property line. Section 21065 of the zoning ordinance defines the rear lot line as the boundary of the lot opposite the front lot line. As a result, the west property line is the rear lot line. Staff reviewed the request according to the standards listed in section 21030 of the zoning ordinance and has made the following findings: 1. The request for the addition is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land use classification in the comprehensive plan. 2, Permitting the addition allows the property to be used in a reasonable manner. 2016102 Page 3 3. The plight of the landowner is unique and not self-created. Although the Iot is larger than the adjacent lots, wetlands comprise the majority of the lot area. The original builder/owner maximized views from the home by constructing the home close to the minimum setback from the west lot line and orienting the rear of the home toward the wetland to the south (refer to the aerial in the attachments). While this orientation maximizes views and maneuverability in front of the garage, it creates a practical difficulty to expanding the rooms along the west side of the home, including the master bedroom. 4. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. The neighborhood is fully developed and the closest lots to the west are oriented with their rear yards abutting the proposed addition. 5. The purpose for the variation is not based exclusively on economic considerations; but rather, the variance is requested to make improvements to the home to make it more livable for the current occupants. 6. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or h1jurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, 7. The proposed addition would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase congestion of public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. S. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving Variance 2. Variance Standards 3, Location Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Notification Area Map 6. Applicant's Narrative and Graphics o;IPlanryin;AppliL�llarltlL0ifi12Q151iM. Slelnh-v er,Wb.&VAKW— D -r PICSIWKew td— CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION No. 2017- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK To ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE HOME FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10610 54T" AVENUE NORTH (2016102) WHEREAS, Michael 5teinhauser has requested approval of a variance For at) addition to the west side of the home; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, The Ponds at Bass Creek, 2n4 Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY DF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Michael Steinhauser for a variance for property located at 10610 S0 Avenue North, subject to the following findings and conditions: The requested variance is hereby approved to allow an approximately 11 -foot by 12 -foot addition to be constructed 17.7 feet from the west property line where 25 feet is required, in accordance with the application received by the city on December 23, 2016 and January 6, 2017, except as may be amended by this resolution. a. The request for the addition is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land use classification in the comprehensive plan. h. Permitting the addition allows the property to be used in a reasonable manner. c. The plight of the landowner is unique and not self-created. Although the lot is larger than the adjacent properties, wetlands comprise the majority of the lot area. The original builder/owner maximized views from the home by constructing the home close to the minimum setback from the west lot line and orienting the rear of the home toward the wetland to the south. While this orientation maximizes views and the flexibility of the yard area in front of the garage, it creates a practical difficulty to expanding the rooms along the west side of the home, including the master bedroom. d. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality, The neighborhood is fully developed and the closest lots to the west are oriented with their rear yards abutting the proposed addition. e. The purpose for the variation is not based exclusively on economic considerations; but rather, the variance is requested to make improvements to the home to make it more livable for the current occupants. f. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. Resolution 2017- (2016102) Page 2 The proposed addition would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase corigestion of public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. 2. A building ermit is required prior to construction of the addition. 3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance provisions. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the property owner, has 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. ADOPTED by the City Council on xx, 2017. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) S5. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adapted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on xx, 2017 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 City Clerk rp)City of Plymouth Adding Duality to Life Community Development Department 3404 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 (763)509-5450 FAX (763)504-5407 ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE STANDARDS The City Council or Zoning Administrator may approve a variance application (major or minor, respectively) only upon finding that all of the following criteria, as applicable, have been met: 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 variance applicant has satisfactorily established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this Chapter. "Practical difficulties" means that: a. the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner; and c. the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations. 4. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. 5. The variance, and its resulting construction or 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. 5. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. Section 21030 -Plymouth Zoning Ordinance Forms: TDvariancestds.docx 2016102 Michael and Janice Steinhauser 10610 54th Avenue Variance 250 125 0 250 500 ributy of Feet Plymouth, Minnesota Legend ® C, Comercial ® cc, City Center 00, Cammercial Office ® IP, Planned Industrial F LA -1, Living Area 1 LA -2, Living Area 2 LA -3, Living Area 3 ® LA -4, Living Area 4 ® LA-Ri ® LA -R2 LA -R3 LA -RT INI Pu bl WSemi-P ubliall nstitu tional riboty of Plymouth, Minnesota 2076702 - Aerial 250 125 0 250 500 Feet Notification Area Map Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services pate: 12!912016 {4b) , � 1J, em c� {13; (47) r' {46} (6 (43) (42) 0 01-118-22- 118 -233� :- — ❑4; 1 j lam) 11061 irrl Sy 1 [� 01-118-22-3 «31 I%1 9z) f6; [si rz; f41 1351 s; 12-118-22-22 X33) i46} 12-118-22-22 rw� 4; rm) :44) Buffer Size: 200 feet Map Comments: PID 0111822340026 Owner: M K STEINHAUSER & J P HORN Address 10610 54th Avenue North Plymouth MN 55442 0 60 120 240 ft For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South L C� 4 , f Minneapolis, MN 55487 DEC, gis.info@hennepin.us {32) 137) -2� a f35 4; rm) :44) Buffer Size: 200 feet Map Comments: PID 0111822340026 Owner: M K STEINHAUSER & J P HORN Address 10610 54th Avenue North Plymouth MN 55442 0 60 120 240 ft For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South L C� 4 , f Minneapolis, MN 55487 DEC, gis.info@hennepin.us Description of Request Michael and Janice 5teinhauser live at 10510 54t11 Avenue North. The house was existing when they purchased it. They have lived in it for many years and plan to remodel it including changes to the master bathroom which will require a small addition to the building footprint on the side of the house, The house is on a large uniquely shaped lot, 109,528 square feet. The property is very large in the north south dimension, but large drainage easements had made much of it not buildable. Road access is hidden but connected to a cul-de-sac, via a long private drive. There is a lot of distance from any homes. They are asking for a building variance reducing the 25' rear setback, to 17.7' for the small portion of the expanded bathroom. The encroachment is 7.3'. As noted, the property is unique compared to the other developed residential properties in the neighborhood. It is a large parcel of land tucked in behind more conventional platted residential properties. The property is very private and heavily wooded. An aerial view of the property and surrounding properties is also attached. The property is rolling topography, surrounded with trees, and with great southern exposure to a small natural pond. Access into the property is unusual in that you enter by private drive alongside a neighbor's garage, their side yard, The existing home's garage is visible first, but is really on the sine (or end) of the house, with an east orientation. The house obviously orients north and south. The front door and front porch faces north and the rear of the house and back yard faces south. The smafl new addition is the west end, on what looks like a side yard. The new addition leaves a setback of 17.7'„ which in this area is 10'. See the attached survey. With that said, the practical difficulty is because the garage is an end opening garage and nearest the entrance to the property, east, the city currently interprets the east side of the house, as the front yard, with the west side, where the small addition is, as the rear yard with a setback requirement of 25'. With that interpretation, this small addition encroaches 7.3' into the setback. As noted, you enter the property on a narrow drive with the end of the house's garages visible first. The property has developed as a beautiful private and heavily wooded property. Based on the home's design and conventional orientation, the front of house Is the north side and the south side is the rear yard, The property is unique in that the interpretation of the front, rear and side yard setback is not what appears to be obvious by building design and layout, and, in fact, can be and is interpreted differently due to garage orientation. This interpretation affects whether or not there is a setback encroachment. The addition to the master bathroom is a reasonable addition, making more vanity, shower and tub space. The addition does not affect the public welfare of anyone, nor be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. In either case, given the natural wooded privacy, there is no impact on the neighbors from the addition. No homes are really even close to the encroachment. There are many trees surrounding the addition, This new addition may only be visible by one neighbor, only in the winter, and they are a pretty good distance from the property line, and through a heavily wooded section of trees. N 00` LZM 79"w �= � 930 y — , w r�. s 3.6112.. r 1 C1 %0 20 — — �� • CSD N/ C) Cn 1'6 1f2 l �j cin m o �5 6 2.0 -Zt" 3,0 In 2.0 Al �y �y r' '• r � .. i�, t Q � ' � a.y 4 , n Te rase Ln N 4� ■ �• §ti 4 .. i44 7 +=� zo It va '' i r. _ • h _�t7�. s��s..� 3�:. • Vie;,,=���..,,r . � - . .�' � : F . moi.. •y��r�i �+ _ 4^ �_ � � � e �� r • �` _ .mow _ + } ��: �' dam`=`Y=- .�.` ��"•`"t �._ 44?.: AA ►x , 41k - - s y ,If 4 Ly+e .�'.'le' it - 119 s r e;osauuiVy 'yinowRld N anuany 11365 D l90 [ aasnL-uuia;s ULA 12 ei In $ " :;oj 19pnwaa Jill I [>� 6Z t �QF gi I w • " ejosewIN 'gjnOwAId " •N enueny (OV9 0 L90 L I 8 �aasnuuia u� e I y :zo} lapowaa i l � a y'35 ,9A @i, §@ib p IS! 3 i iPP g pp B s Rpp �aaa.B$333?:s �i}n C•r}i C_ F � yR F ----_--_---=max f -c - 5 ________---- ------_------ --------fes 1 - = �-� i N eloseuu?yy •gjnowRjd ' I L N anuany g1t9 MOL L 8 aasriayuials user V 9� lvq a ¢ cLa I :aoj japowe}j Jill 1i i a r 1 rez:: • �S� 9 * �gy a� ;y es I 111 elosauulyy •ylnowRld N anuany 411?5 0190t lasnuquiais upr -Q avvy :jol IspawaU a � '} <F ga. 1 Agenda Number File 2016 098 /A PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO: Plymouth Planning Commission FROM: Kip Berglund, Planner (509-5453) through Barbara Thomson,�Planning Manager MEETING DATE: February 1, 2017 APPLICANT: Landform Professional Services, LLC PROPOSAL: Rezoning and preliminary plat for "Creekside Woods Phase ff" LOCATION.' 17125 and 17135 Old Rockford Road GUIDING: LA -1 (living area 1) CURRENT ZONING: FRD (future restricted development) REVIEW DEADLINE: April 1, 2017 REQUESTED ACTION: Staff continues to work with the applicant regarding the proposed layout and final plat request for the Creekside Woods subdivision located immediately east of the subject property. The Creekside Woods layout will affect how the applicant will layout the proposed Creekside Woods Phase II subdivision. The applicant is in the process of preparing updated plans based on staff comments relating to utilities and access. Therefore, the applicant has requested that the item be moved to the Planning Commission meeting on February 15, 2017. At this time, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing, that was opened at the January 18, 2017 meeting, to the February 15, 2017 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Location flap 2016098 Legend Landform Professional Services, LLC ® C, Comercial FM cc, City Center 17215 Old Rockford Road eon Commercial Office Request for a Rezoning and Preliminary Plat IP, Planned Industrial E� LA -1, Living Area 1 LA -2, Living Area 2 LA -3, Living Area 3 ® LA -4, Living Area 4 500 250 0 500 1,000 ® LA -R1 EMENNEEiiiii Feet F LA -R2 r;bcity ® LA -R3 LA -RT of Plymouth, Minnesota V11 P -I, Public/Semi-Publidlnstitutional Agenda Number File 2016100 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO: Plymouth Planning Commission qK FROM: Marie Darting, Senior Planner (509-5457) through Barbara Thomson Planning Manager MEETING DATE: February 1, 2017 APPLICANT: Ricardo and Cynthia Annijo PROPOSAL: Variances to allow a carport in the front yard LOCATION: 1035 West Medicine Lake Drive GUIDING: LA -1 (living area 1) ZONING: RSA' -1 (single family detached 1) REVIEW DEADLINE: April 11, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicants is requesting approval of the following variances to allow a carport: 1. To locate an accessory building in the front yard 2. To locate an accessory building eight feet from the side property line where 15 feet is required 3. To construct a carport in excess of 340 square feet The applicants began construction of the carport without a permit. The city was notified of the construction by a complaint. After the city notified the applicants that pen -nits were required, they stopped construction. Approval of the variances would allow the applicants to complete the project, and denial of the request would require removal. 2016100 Page 2 Notice of the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site, A copy of the notification area map is attached. CONTEXT: Sun•ounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North, South, West Single family homes LA -1 RSF-1 East Stone Creek Village Apts. LA -4 RMF -4 Previous Actions Affecting Site The home was built in 2000. Natural Characteristics of Site The lot is located within the Bassett Creek watershed. There are no wetlands on the lot nor is it located in a shoreland or floodplain management overlay. There are mature trees on the lot, but the request is not subject to tree preservation. No trees were removed in the area where the carport is located. The lot contains grades that vary from 898 abutting West Medicine Lake Drive to a high of 930 in the northwest corner. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not 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 applicants to show that they meet the standards for a variance. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicants are constructing the carport to store their boat. Their boat is 27 feet long with the trailer. The area where they constructed the carport is within eight feet of the property line where section 21355.13 of the zoning ordinance requires 15 feet. Background Section 21135 of the zoning ordinance allows recreational vehicles to be stored in a front yard on a driveway or on one parking space adjacent to the driveway. They may also be stored in side or rear yards as long as the area is not within a drainage and utility easement or closer than three feet to a property line, Section 21120.02 of the zoning ordinance prohibits accessory buildings to be located in a front yard (between the home and a public street). This section also has specific standards for carports, as follows: 2016100 Page 3 ■ Carports must comply with other accessory structure regulations (design, height, etc.) See the design discussion below. ■ Carports may be used only for the storage of vehicles or recreational vehicles, refuse containers, or firewood. Staff has included a condition to this effect in the attached resolution. • Carports cannot exceed 300 square feet. The applicants' carport is 16 feet by 28 feet (448 square feet in area) and consequently, they have requested a variance to this standard. • The eave line may be no greater than 14 feet above grade for carports with sloped roof or a total of 10 feet in height for flat roofs. The applicants' plans indicate the eave line for the carport is 14 feet above grade. The City Council adopted the above standards in 2414 to preserve neighborhood character and property values. These amendments to the zoning ordinance were in response to number of complaints including: 1) using carports as storage for items other than vehicles (e.g., construction debris, car parts, and mattresses); and 2) their appearance. This limitation of 300 square feet is consistent with the limitations for other improvements on pier footings. The zoning ordinance also limits screen porches and room additions that are over three feet above the adjacent grade to 300 square feet. Site Characteristics The applicants' property includes a steep slope between West Medicine Lake Drive and their home. The home was constructed toward the west side of the property and the grades in the center of the lot are the most level. The applicants have installed a large parking/turnaround in this area. Placing the carport on the north side of the home would meet ordinance requirements, but would also require grading and retaining walls. There are already retaining walls on the south side of the Fignpe 1: Approximate location of eaipon on property with neighboring home to the north.. 2016100 Page 4 DesignlHeight Section 21105.02 of the zoning ordinance requires all accessory buildings in excess of 124 square feet to be designed to be architecturally consistent with the principal building and incorporate similar or complementary deisgn elements and colors, and the same or similar roof pitch. The existing home has a flat roof with red the trim. The carport roof has a gable roof with an approximate slope of 2112 and would be red metal to match the tile. Staff finds the roof design incompatible with the home. A flat roof would be consistent with the home and because of the reduction in height, less visible from the adjacent property. A shed roof with a minimal roof pitch front to back would be similarly compatible, as seen below. Figure 2 Example of flat and sheet mofs FINDINGS: Staff reviewed the request according to the standards listed in section 21030 of the zoning ordinance and has made the following findings: 1. The request for the carport is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land use classification in the comprehensive plan. 2. The applicants have established that there are practical difficulties for locating an accessory building on the property due to the steep grades. I The properties in this area of the city predate modern zoning requirements, and it is not unusual to see nonconforming garages and sheds in fi-ont yards closer to the front property line than would be pennitted under the current zoning ordinance. Consequently, the presence of an accessory building in the front yard would not alter the essential character of the locality. However, the carport is visible froin both the public right-of-way and the adjacent home to the north. The applicants have stated that they will use shrubs and lattice to screen the contents of the carport from the adjacent home. Staff notes that the applicants could have located the carport farther from the north property line toward the middle of their property to minimize the views from the adjacent property and the street and consequently finds the practical difficulties for the variance to the side yard setback are self-created. 2016100 Page 5 4. The purpose for the variation is not based exclusively on economic considerations; but rather, the variance is requested to make improvements to provide protection for a boat and trailer. 5. Granting the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The request is for a carport that is 50 percent larger than allowed by city regulations, located where the contents would be visible from the adjacent property and designed with a roof that does not blend in with the design of the home. h. The carport would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic congestion, increase fire danger or otherwise endanger public safety or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. 7. The variance requested is not the minimum action necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The applicants could have constructed the carport farther from the north property line to reduce its visibility to the neighboring property and eliminate one of the variances. RECOMMENDATION: Stat#recommends the Plaiu-ing Commission deny the request for the carport based on the findings in the attached resolution. As the variance standards are open to interpretation and the Planning Commission could reasonably disagree, staff has also included a resolution for approval of the request. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Denying Variance 2. Draft Resolution Approving Variance 3. Variance Standards 4. Location Map 5. Aerial Photo d. Notification Area Map 7, Applicant's Narrative and Graphics PARIa dns AF10m nvnsWtl1fi11WWO ArMWO ar"Pi VAMCumm tkY\PC MAN repwLdo CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2017- A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR A CARPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT (2016100) WHEREAS, Ricardo and Cynthia Armijo have applied for variances to allow them to keep an oversized carport in their front yard, eight feet from the side property line where 15 is required. WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows: That part of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 35, Township 118, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the westerly line of said quarter -quarter 283.5 feet north of the southwest corner of said quarter -quarter; thence running northerly along said westerly line 140 feet, thence east, at right angles, to the center line of the West Medicine Lake Road, thence southeasterly along said center line of said road to the intersection of a line drawn at right angles from the west line of the aforesaid northeast quarter of the northeast quarter at the point: of beginning, at right angles from the west line of the aforesaid northeast quarter of the northwest quarter at the paint of beginning, thence westerly along said right angle line to the point of beginning. And, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application at a duly called public meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that it denies the request for variances for a carport in the front yard, based on the following findings: 1. The subject property is guided LA -1 on the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. 2. The subject property is zoned RSF-1 on the Plymouth Zoning Map. 3. The applicants have not shown that there are practical difficulties or unique circumstances in complying with the Chapter as they could have constructed the carport further from the north property line. 4. The variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in then neighborhood as it is 50 percent larger than allowed by the current regulations, and it is visible from the adjacent home to the north. 5. The applicants` current use of the property for a home provides a reasonable use of the property, ADOPTED by the Plymouth City Council on this xx" day of xx, 2017, STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN j 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 xx, 2017 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 2017. City Clerk 1) CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW A CARPORT IN THE FRONT YARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1035 WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE (2016100) WHEREAS, Ricardo and Cynthia Arm ijo have requested variances for a carport; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: That part of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 35, Township 118, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the westerly line of said quarter -quarter 283.5 feet north of the southwest corner of said quarter -quarter; thence running northerly along said westerly line 140 feet, thence east, at right angles, to the center line of the West Medicine Lake Road, thence southeasterly along said center line of said road to the intersection of a line drawn at right angles from the west I i n e of the aforesaid northeast quarter of the northeast quarter at the point of beginning, at right angles from the west line of the aforesaid northeast quarter of the northwest quarter at the point of beginning, thence westerly along said right angle line to the point of beginning. And, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Ricardo and Cynthia Arm ijo for variances for a carport for property located at 1035 West Medicine Lake Drive, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The following variances are approved to allow an oversized carport (448 square feet) in the front yard eight feet from the north property line where 15 is required, in accordance with the application received by the city on December 12, 2015 and January 17, 2017, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variances are approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards would be met, as follows: a. The request for the carport is consistent with the residential uses listed far this land use classification in the comprehensive plan. b. Permitting the carport allows the property to be used in a reasonable manner. c. The applicants have established that there are practical difficulties locating an accessory building on the property due to steep grades. d. The properties and homes in this area of the city predate the zoning ordinance, and it is not unusual to see non -conforming garages and sheds in the front yards closer to the front property line than would be permitted under the current zoning ordinance. Consequently, the presence of an accessory building in the front yard would not alter the essential character of the locality. Resolution 2017- (2016100) Page 2 e. The purpose for the variation is not based exclusively on economic considerations; but rather, the variance is requested to provide protection for a boat and trailer. f. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. g. The carport would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase congestion of public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. h. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. 3. A building permit is required prior to any additional work on the carport and shall be applied for within 14 days of approval. 4. Prior to the first inspection, the temporary canvas/tarp shelter shall be removed from the property. S rhe carport may be used only for the storage of vehicles, recreational vehicles, firewood and refuse containers. 6- The applicants shall use lattice and shrubs to minimize visibility of the moat from the adjacent property to the north. 7. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance provisions. 8. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the applicants have commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicants, with the consent of the property owners, have received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration bate for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 21030.05 of the zoning ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on xx, 2017. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 55. 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 xx, 2017 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 City Clerlc rp)City of Plymouth Adding Quoiity to Life Community Development Department 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 (763)509.5450 FAX (763) 509-5407 ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE STANDARDS The City Council or Zoning Administrator may approve a variance application (major or minor, respectively) only upon finding that all of the following criteria, as applicable, have been met: 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 variance applicant has satisfactorily established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this Chapter. "Practical difficulties" means that: a. the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner; and c. the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations. 4. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or i-nprovements in the neighborhood - 5. The variance, and its resulting construction or 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 or alleviate the practical difficulties. Section 21030 -Plymouth Zoning Ordinance Forms: 20variancestds. dorx +t+t��t�+•+�i•d t+y��►•++i dd •••+•ii••iit•iddi•+ •++i++ +�+•t+�+�i•i�di�t ��►d•+++�+�+•+• tit++++++�+�+•�i�,d+•t•�+t+t+++4� 'WI W, ++ +t++t d�►+•+•+ti�•t+tfd r � di+iitiiii•�►�► WAX �i+•� ++•+•+�tMAi•d+iti•�•�►�it+ti•�►ii r I Site t+•+•+•+�+�tda+d•+*+�►�+•++ ++� r r ♦ p+IV�����id♦��,di+�i•�•yi� +i d+++td d�yi+i•+�i+t•'+� �► �i•+di� +dd �i�•t+s••iiii �•+•� �•t•i�+dd i �i•+�iy ■ Jr.�dd� I 2016100 Ricardo and Cynthia Armijo 1035 West Medicine Lake Drive Request for Variances Minnesotarp)city Of 200 100 0 200 400 Feet x.: 2016100 -- Aerial Photo r;bcity of Plymouth, Minnesota 300 150 0 300 600 Feet —'LI&Ire Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 12/12/2016 am iz„ ,5: I 2th Avenue North �a `25) 126) «a t� 35-118-22-12 rn 3 5-118-22-11 CFO M rw tnl _ r ppy ul C M (3,] 35-118-22-12 3 5- 11 22- �a {16} 0aa , 115) M) 35-118-22-13 1 35-11 [~ s411 9 4 4 35-118-22-13 35-118-22-14 Ln L [}11 Buffer Size: 204 feet Map Comments: RARMIJO & C K ARMIJQ 1635 Medicine Lake Drive West Plymouth, MN 55441 0 60 120 240 ft For more information contact Hennepin County GIS Office 360 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis-info@hennepin.us We were faced with the challenge of providing a suitable structure to protect our boat on our property at 1035 W Medicine Lake Drive. It is a 23 foot boat that measures close to 27 feet with the trailer in total length. We were limited on our options for location because of the shape and size of our lot and the natural vegetation. We used quality materials to build the boat shelter and matched the roof of our home to help create an overall coordinating look. In the spring we pian to add stucco trim to boathouse peaks and continue the pavers in parking area to cover underneath the boat, which is an extension of the existing design of structures on our property. We will add privacy lattice and shrubbery to make it aesthetically pleasing and to provide a physical barrier to our neighbor's property. 1. The existing boat storage structure is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The boat port has a simple, attractive design that harmonizes with the existing home on the property. 2. The property location at 1035 West Medicine Lake Drive, Plymouth, MN 55441, limits our options for the location of the structure due to the natural terrain of the lot and the access provided by the existing driveway. The area available for any construction is located at the top of a hill with substantial vegetation in the form of trees and natural shrubbery. 3. The variance we are requesting is not based exclusively on economic considerations, rather on the access provided by the layout of our property. It is a long, narrow lot that is not conducive to accommodating additional buildings to the side of the home, as there is not adequate space available to build, or behind the home without the addition of a road that would reach to the back of the property. 4. The variance and resulting construction will not be a detriment to the public welfare and safety of the area, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. There are numerous examples on adjacent properties, as well as along Medicine Lake Drive, where homeowners have structures on the front side of their dwellings dictated by the longer, narrower lot configurations. fI 4- A � t � 5. The variance and resulting construction will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it affect in any way traffic congestion on the main road, increase the danger of fire, endanger public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. We will enhance the surrounding area by adding privacy lattice to three sides of the boat port, as well as a natural barrier of tall evergreen shrubs that will cover the two sides visible to our neighbor on the northern side of our lot. 6. The variance we are requesting is the Minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties of providing a clean, attractive and orderly shelter for our boat. sgi§ems. ga= C] - ti�53s-.4-'� k 4a�8Eli $e C7 �nw=xgF��'Vos ' S� 01 y22 y a � s � c ��F�;m FSg C"ai8p�'8g�a 3•�'s► 'i or'�� ❑ F _ ¢ shy{ [I =�Lcy aS �XT_-.�y=qY;�� _qo��Y ep�C3� Oi .. L �i� j �ry `1L u�E.Y •gyp �39Ye �aP¢ y� amw7/00 L J � 1.� T' Sy' 9 v r R� •3 a m .. 7z N_ Q Project; APMIJO 130AT HOU5F 0 A Q n I 11 1t 11 11 I 1 YY 11,1{ I 11 11 E E k i t Project! ApMJJO 6OAT NOUS 0 ttN I 11 1t 11 11 I 1 YY 11,1{ I 11 11 E E I OWYA KAIR'll-kV, MR 14 - A .4 -�,- 4::1 U' J/%' � V rp". -X - %, fd--1 '/ , VA F .0 1 :t - - y :t 4v- A?Mt ok V. lip ON *Fbv' ra �� -111 ilow-- AP 4KA r wjwv--�o I?= A -d - V�L dp ®r 7 6S ar dF 4 J. 7� 46 7*4 W. ft,! AW at, -f a L M a 0 0 mi --- -W� K�g = 0 kL� - '-W MZi ir ;-_, Ult —k ift 7"� 9*2 fAl W�- " vy �� . !T,4 IF PI